The Vasiček short-rate model

Zero-coupon bond pricing by risk-neutral valuation, Feynman-Kac, and Monte Carlo simulation

The Vasiček model is an interest rate model which specifies the short rate r(t) under the risk-neutral dynamics (or Q-dynamics) as (1)dr(t)=κ(θr(t))dt+σdW(t), with initial condition r(0)=r0 and W(t) denoting a standard Brownian motion driving the stochastic differential equation. An explicit expression for r(t) can be derived using Itô calculus (see, e.g. Mikosch (1998); Chapter 3). To solve (1), we try the solution f(r(t),t)=r(t)eκt. The Itô lemma implies (2)df(r(t),t)=κr(t)eκtdt+eκtdr(t)=κr(t)eκtdt+eκt[κ(θr(t))dt+σdW(t)]=κθeκtdt+σeκtdW(t). The RHS of (2) no longer depends on r(t) and we can thus integrate to find expressions for f(r(t),t). This result is important for two reasons. First, we can integrate over the range [0,t] to find f(r(t),t)f(r(0),0)=r(t)eκtr0=0tdf(r(s),s)=0tκθeκsds+0tσeκsdW(s). After some rearrangments the explicit solution for r(t) is (3)r(t)=r0eκt+eκt0tκθeκsds+eκt0tσeκsdW(s). With this explicit expression for r(t) we can calculate its mean and variance. Since stochastic integrals have zero mean we have E[r(t)]=r0eκt+θeκt[eκt1]=r0eκt+θ[1eκt]=:r0eκt+θκΛ(t), where we defined Λ(t)=0teκsds=1κ[1eκt]. The long-run mean of the process is limtE[r(t)]=θ. Moreover, by Itô isometry the variance of the process is Var[r(t)]=σ2e2κt0te2κsds=σ22κ[1e2κt]=12σ2Λ(2t). Second, (2) is the starting point to derive an exact discretization of r(t). Such a discretization will allow us to simulate paths of r(t) that can later be used to value interest rate derivatives. Given a time step h, we now integrate (2) over the interval [th,t] to obtain f(r(t),t)f(r(th),th)=thtdf(r(s),s)=θ(eκteκ(th))+thtσeκsdW(s)r(t)=θ(1eκh)+eκhr(th)+eκtthtσeκsdW(s). The discretized process of r(t) thus follows an AR(1) model with intercept θ(1eκh), autoregressive coefficient eκh, and innovation process eκtthtσeκsdW(s). These innovations have some interesting properties. First, note how the integration intervals of subsequent steps of the discretization do not overlap. For example, thtσeκsdW(s) depends on {W(s):thst}, whereas tt+hσeκsdW(s) depends on {W(s):tst+h}. With increments of Brownian motions being independent, we must conclude that these stochastic integrals are independent. Second, stochastic integrals are normally distributed and mean zero. The distributions of the innovations is thus fully specified after computing its variance, or Var[eκtthtσeκsdW(s)]=σ2e2κtthte2κsds=σ22κ[1e2κh]=σ2h[e2κh12κh]=:σ2hα(2κh), where we defined α(x)=ex1x with α(0)=0. Overall, we can simulate data from the Vasiček model using r(0)=r0 as the starting value and moving forward according to the recursion r(t)=θκΛ(h)+eκhr(th)+ut(h),ut(h)i.i.d.N(0,σ2hα(2κh)). Some sample paths of the Vasiček model are displayed in Figure 1.

Figure 1: An illustration of 5 sample paths for the Vasiček model (grey lines), the mean function (blue line), and 95% (pointwise) confidence intervals (light blue area).

Risk-neutral valuation of a zero-coupon bond

Let X denote a contingent claim with maturity date T. According to the risk-neutral valuation formula (cf. Proposition 8.1.2 in Bingham and Kiesel (2004)), the price at time t of this claim can be computed as ΠX(t)=EQ[XetTr(s)ds|Ft]. Since the zero-coupon bond, or T-bond, promises a cash payment of 1 at maturity, its time-t price is given by

(4)P(t,T)=EQ[etTr(s)ds|Ft], where Ft is the σ-algebra containing all information up to time t. In this section we will evaluated (4) analytically. That is, starting from the explicit expression for r(t) in (3), we first derive the distribution of tTr(s)ds|Ft and subsequently evaluated the conditional expectation. The first step is rather tedious and explained in detail in the Appendix. It turns out that tTr(s)ds|Ft is normally distributed with mean r(t)Λ(Tt)+θ[(Tt)Λ(Tt)] and variance σ2κ2[(Tt)2Λ(Tt)+12Λ(2(Tt))]. The expectation in (4) can be calculated rather quickly using moment generating functions. For a random variable Y, its moment generating function is defined as MY(t)=E[etY]. If Y is normally distributed, say YN(μ,σ2), then MY(t)=eμt+12σ2t2. To evaluate (4), we use this result for t=1 and find that the time-t price of a zero-coupon bond with maturity T equals

(5)P(t,T)=exp{r(t)Λ(Tt)θ[(Tt)Λ(Tt)]+σ22κ2[(Tt)2Λ(Tt)+12Λ(2(Tt))]}=exp{r(t)Λ(Tt)+(σ22κ2θ)(Tt)+(θσ2κ2)Λ(Tt)+σ24κ2Λ(2(Tt))}.

We can translate these zero-coupon bond prices into yields using y(t,T)=1TtlogP(t,T)=(θσ22κ2)+1Tt[r(t)Λ(Tt)+(σ2κ2θ)Λ(Tt)σ24κ2Λ(2(Tt))]. At long maturities, as T, the yield converges to θσ22κ2. Visualisations of the complete yield curve are shown in the section entitled Verification by Monte Carlo simulation.

Feynman-Kac formula: solving the PDE

Consider a short-rate model with Q-dynamics given by dr(t)=a(t,r(t))dt+b(t,r(t))dW(t) and write P(t,T)=F(t,r(t);T) to explicitly indicate the dependence on r(t). For brevity, we will sometimes in this section omit the function arguments, e.g. write F instead of F(t,r(t);T). The Feynman-Kac formula (see, e.g. Bingham and Kiesel (2004); Proposition 8.2.2) stipulates that F(t,r(t);T) solves the partial differential equation (PDE)

(6)Ft+aFr+b222Fr2rF=0,

with terminal condition F(T,r;T)=1 for all rR. We make two observations. First, we have a(t,r(t))=κ(θr(t)) and b(t,r(t))=σ for the Vasiček model. Second, it is hard (or sometimes even impossible) to solve (6) analytically. We are however in the lucky situation where a(t,r(t)) and b(t,r(t)) are linear in r(t). It can be shown (cf. Filipović (2009); Proposition 5.2) that this leads to an affine term structure, that is the solution F(t,r;T) must take the form F(t,r;T)=exp[A(t,T)B(t,T)r], for appropriate A(t,T) and B(t,T).

We can now solve the PDE by inserting this specific functional form into (6) and see what this implies for A and B. Since Ft=(AtBtr)F, Fr=BF and 2Fr2=B2F, we find (AtBtr)Fκ(θr)BF+σ22B2FrF=0 or equivalently after collecting terms F[(AtκθB+σ22B2)+(Bt+κB1)r]=0. The boundary condition is F(T,r;T)=exp[A(T,T)B(T,T)r]=1 or A(T,T)+B(T,T)r=0. If these relations need to hold for all rR, then intercept terms should be zero as well as the expressions proportional to r. The PDE for F(T,r(t);T) is now seen to reduce to a set of coupled ordinary differential equations (ODEs):

(7)AtκθB+σ22B2=0,Bt+κB1=0,A(T,T)=B(T,T)=0.

The second equation in (7) completely specifies B. With some rewriting, we have BtκB=eκtt[eκtB]=1. Integrating over [t,T] gives eκTB(T,T)eκtB(t,T)=tTeκsds. Together with the boundary condition B(T,T)=0 we conclude that B(t,T)=tTeκ(st)ds=1κ[1eκ(Tt)]=Λ(Tt). Having found the explicit solution for B(t,T), we can complete the derivations by A(t,T)=[A(T,T)A(t,T)]=tTAsds=tT[κθB(s,T)σ22[B(s,T)]2]ds=θ[(Tt)tTeκ(Ts)ds]σ22κ2tT[12eκ(Ts)+e2κ(Ts)]ds,=θ[(Tt)Λ(Tt)]σ22κ2[(Tt)2Λ(Tt)+12Λ(2(Tt))]=(θσ22κ2)(Tt)+(σ2κ2θ)Λ(Tt)σ24κ2Λ(2(Tt)), where we used tTeκ(Ts)ds=1κ[1eκ(Tt)]=Λ(Tt) and tTe2κ(Ts)ds=12Λ(2(Tt)). The overall expression for P(t,T)=F(t,r(t);T) coincides with the result from the previous section.

Verification by Monte Carlo simulation

If we like to avoid extensive algebraic computations, then we can opt for a simulation approach. That is, we approximate the expectation in (4) by Monte Carlo simulation. Our example is P(0,T)=EQ[e0Tr(s)ds]. The steps are as follows:

  1. Partition the interval [0,T] in n intervals of equal length. For j=0,1,,n, the implied grid points are tj=jTn.
  2. Start from r(0)=r(t0)=r0 and use the AR(1) recursion with stepsize h=Tn to simulate Nsim sample paths of the Vasiček model. We use r(i)(tj) to denote the realised value of the ith path at grid point tj.
  3. Approximate P(0,T) by (8)1Nsimi=1Nsimehj=1nr(i)(tj).

The computation of (8) requires choices for n and Nsim. We like both these quantities to be large. A large number of simulated paths is needed because the expectation in $\mathbb{E}{\mathbb{Q}} \big[e^{-\int_0^T r(s) ds} \big]isbeingreplacedbyasampleaverageacrossthesimulatedpaths.Thelargevaluefornshouldensurethattheintegral\int_0^T r(s) dsissufficientlywellapproximatedbytheRiemannsum\sum{j=1}^n r^{(i)}(t_j)\big[ t_j - t_{j-1} \big] = h \sum_{j=1}^n r^{(i)}(t_j)$.

Figure 2: Zero-coupon bond prices for various maturities. Analytical bond prices are depicted in red and simulated bond prices are shown by the black dots. The error bars are ±1.96σ^ with σ^ denoting the standard error among 50 replications of the bond price Monte Carlo simulation. All calculations in this figure are based on n=100 grid points.

Visual evidence for this simulated approach is available in Figures 2–3. We have taken r0=6, θ=0.08, κ=0.86, and σ=0.01. The (estimated) zero-coupon bond prices from (8) are converted into yields. Figure 2 shows that: (1) differences between simulated and exact yields are small, and (2) variability between simulated yields decreases when Nsim increases from 50 to 500. The influence of n is portrayed in Figure 3. In practice, we can use these kind of graphs to decide on suitable choices for n and Nsim. Simply select a pair (n,Nsim) and verify whether the computed quantity is insensitive to changes therein.

Figure 3: The simulated bond price for a maturity of 5 years. The true bond price, P(0,5)7.54, is independent of n (red). The black dots are obtained by Monte Carlo simulation. The error bars are ±1.96σ^ with σ^ denoting the standard error among 50 replications.

Appendix

Recall Λ(t)=0teκsds=1κ[1eκt] and note how it implies (A1)xTeκ(sx)ds=eκx[Λ(T)Λ(x)]=1κeκx[eκxeκT]=Λ(Tx). The integral in this last equation will be used at several occasions in the derivations below. Using the expression for r(t), we have tTr(s)ds=tTeκsr(0)ds+tT0seκ(sx)κθdxds+tT0seκ(sx)σdW(x)ds=:I+II+III. We will develop these three contributions separately. Term I is easiest. Using (A1), we find I=tTeκsr(0)ds=r(0)eκttTeκ(st)ds=r(0)eκtΛ(Tt).

Figure 4: The separation of the area of integration into two parts.

Term II requires a change in the order of integration. Inspecting the area of integration in Figure 4, we arrive at the following integral relation II=tT0seκ(sx)κθdxds=0ttTeκ(sx)κθdsdx+tTxTeκ(sx)κθdsdx=0ttTeκ(st+tx)κθdsdx+κθtTΛ(Tx)dx=0teκ(tx)κθdx,Λ(Tt)+κθtTΛ(Tx)dx. We apply exactly the same change in the order of integration to term III. The result is III=tT0seκ(sx)σdW(x)ds=0ttTeκ(sx)σdsdW(x)+tTxTeκ(sx)σdsdW(x)=0ttTeκ(st+tx)σdsdW(x)+σtTΛ(Tx)dW(x)=0teκ(tx)σdW(x),Λ(Tt)+σtTΛ(Tx)dW(x). If terms IIII are added together, then we see that xTeκ(sx)ds is an affine transformation of the prevailing short rate r(t), i.e. tTr(s)ds=I+II+III=[r(0)eκt+0teκ(tx)κθdx+0teκ(tx)σdW(x)]Λ(Tt)+κθtTΛ(Tx)dx+σtTΛ(Tx)dW(x)=r(t)Λ(Tt)+κθtTΛ(Tx)dx+σtTΛ(Tx)dW(x). Conditional on all information up to time t, i.e. conditional on Ft, the first two terms are deterministic. Moreover, since (1) increments of Brownian motions are independent of the current value and (2) stochastic integrals are normally distributed, we know that tTr(s)ds|Ft is normally distributed with mean r(t)Λ(Tt)+κθtTΛ(Tx)dx=r(t)Λ(Tt)+κθ0TtΛ(x)dx=r(t)Λ(Tt)+θ[(Tt)Λ(Tt)] and by Itô isometry a variance of σ2tT[Λ(Tx)]2dx=σ20Tt[Λ(x)]2dx=σ2κ20Tt(12eκx+e2κx)dx=σ2κ2[(Tt)20Tteκxdx+1202(Tt)eκxdx]=σ2κ2[(Tt)2Λ(Tt)+12Λ(2(Tt))].

References

N. H. Bingham and R. Kiesel (2004), Risk-neutral Valuation, Springer Finance

D. Filipović (2009), Term-structure Models, Springer Finance

T. Mikosch (1998), Elementary Stochastic Calculus with Finance in View, World Scientific

Avatar
Hanno Reuvers
Data Scientist / Econometrician