Quantitative Finance · Book 6 · Rates, credit & risk

Rates, Credit, XVA and Risk

Rates, Credit, XVA and Risk · Rates, credit & risk

11Inflation Derivatives

In October 2022 the UK retail price index stood 14.2% above its level a year earlier. Many British pension schemes do not promise their members full inflation: their increases are the index’s annual change floored at zero and capped at 5% (2.5% for rights earned since 2005). Schemes that had hedged those promises with plain index swaps held hedges that paid the whole 14.2% on liabilities that would rise by 5; the difference between an index and a capped, annually reset index had become the largest number in their risk report. Every inflation product beyond the zero-coupon swap of One Quant Book 2, chapter 11, depends on how the index moves from year to year, and that is a question for a model. This chapter builds the standard one on an analogy with foreign exchange, computes the convexity that separates year-on-year from zero-coupon products, adds seasonality, and prices limited price indexation by simulation.

11.1 The foreign-currency analogy

Treat nominal money as one currency and “real” money, a unit of the basket, as another. A nominal bond pays currency; an index-linked bond pays a basket, worth I(T)I(T) units of currency. The index is the exchange rate between the two, real discount factors PR(t,T)P_R(t,T) are the foreign currency’s discount factors, and the forward index is a forward exchange rate:

I(t,T)=I(t) PR(t,T)PN(t,T),I(t,T) = I(t)\,\frac{P_R(t,T)}{P_N(t,T)},

a martingale under the nominal TT-forward measure. A zero-coupon inflation swap fixes (1+kT)T=I(0,T)/I(0)(1+k_T)^T = I(0,T)/I(0), so today’s real curve is read from the swaps: PR(0,T)=PN(0,T)(1+kT)TP_R(0,T) = P_N(0,T)(1+k_T)^T.

Definition 11.1 (Jarrow–Yildirim model)

The Jarrow–Yildirim model (2003) models the nominal short rate and the real short rate as two Hull–White processes and the index as a lognormal exchange rate between them: dI/I=(nt−rtR) dt+σI dWIdI/I = (n_t-r^R_t)\,dt+\sigma_I\,dW_I under the nominal measure, with correlations between the three drivers. As with a foreign short rate seen from home (the quanto adjustment of One Quant Book 5, chapter 17), the real rate acquires the drift −ρ σRσI-\rho\,\sigma_R\sigma_I under the nominal measure, ρ\rho the correlation of the real rate with the index.

The chapter keeps nominal rates deterministic, which isolates the effects of the real rate and the index; the full model adds terms in the nominal volatility and its correlations of the same form.

The foreign-currency analogy behind inflation models: real money is a foreign currency whose exchange rate is the price index, so the machinery of cross-currency pricing, including quanto drifts, carries over.
Figure 11.1. The foreign-currency analogy behind inflation models: real money is a foreign currency whose exchange rate is the price index, so the machinery of cross-currency pricing, including quanto drifts, carries over.

11.2 Zero-coupon versus year-on-year

Definition 11.2 (Year-on-year inflation swap)

A year-on-year inflation swap exchanges, each year ii, the index’s annual change I(Ti)/I(Ti−1)−1I(T_i)/I(T_{i-1})-1 against a fixed rate, on a notional that does not grow with the index.

A zero-coupon swap pays one ratio I(T)/I(0)I(T)/I(0) at TT: its value needs only the forward index. A year-on-year leg pays a ratio of two future index values, paid at the later date; its value needs the expectation of the ratio under the nominal measure of the payment date, and the ratio’s numerator and denominator are correlated through the real rate.

Definition 11.3 (Year-on-year convexity adjustment)

The year-on-year convexity adjustment of period ii is the difference between ENTi[I(Ti)/I(Ti−1)]\E^{T_i}_N[I(T_i)/I(T_{i-1})] and the ratio of forward indices I(0,Ti)/I(0,Ti−1)I(0,T_i)/I(0,T_{i-1}).

Proposition 11.4 (Year-on-year expectation)

In the Jarrow–Yildirim model with deterministic nominal rates, real rate rR=fR(0,t)+xtr^R = f_R(0,t)+x_t with Hull–White parameters (κ,σR)(\kappa,\sigma_R) and correlation ρ\rho between the real rate and the index,

EN[I(S)I(T)]=I(0,S)I(0,T) eC(T,S),C(T,S)=−B(T,S)(σR22κ2(1−e−κT)2−ρ σRσI B(0,T)).\E_N\Bigl[\frac{I(S)}{I(T)}\Bigr] = \frac{I(0,S)}{I(0,T)}\,e^{C(T,S)},\quad C(T,S) = -B(T,S)\Bigl(\frac{\sigma_R^2}{2\kappa^2}\bigl(1-e^{-\kappa T}\bigr)^2-\rho\,\sigma_R\sigma_I\,B(0,T)\Bigr).

Proof. Conditioning at TT gives ET[I(S)]=I(T) PR(T,S)/PN(T,S)\E_T[I(S)] = I(T)\,P_R(T,S)/P_N(T,S), so the expectation of the ratio is EN[PR(T,S)]/PN(T,S)\E_N[P_R(T,S)]/P_N(T,S). With

PR(T,S)=PR(0,S)PR(0,T) e−BxT−12B2y(T)P_R(T,S) = \frac{P_R(0,S)}{P_R(0,T)}\,e^{-Bx_T-\frac12B^2y(T)}

and xTx_T normal with variance y(T)y(T) and nominal-measure mean μ(T)−ρσRσIB(0,T)\mu(T)-\rho\sigma_R\sigma_IB(0,T), where μ(T)=∫0Te−κ(T−u)y(u) du=σR22κ2(1−e−κT)2\mu(T) = \int_0^Te^{-\kappa(T-u)}y(u)\,du = \frac{\sigma_R^2}{2\kappa^2}(1-e^{-\kappa T})^2, take E[e−BxT]\E[e^{-Bx_T}]. ∎

    def yoy_ratio(self, T: float, S: float) -> float:
        """E^N[I(S) / I(T)]: the forward ratio times exp(C), C the year-on-year convexity adjustment."""
        fwd = (self.real.df_t(S) / self.real.df_t(T)) / (self.nominal.df_t(S) / self.nominal.df_t(T))
        return fwd * math.exp(self.convexity(T, S))

    def convexity(self, T: float, S: float) -> float:
        b = _B(self.kappa, S - T)
        return -b * (self.mu(T) - self.rho * self.sigma_r * self.sigma_i * _B(self.kappa, T))
Listing 11.1. The year-on-year expectation and its convexity adjustment. code/firm/inflopt/firm_inflopt.py

Example 11.5 (Sterling year-on-year convexity)

On illustrative sterling curves (SONIA zero rates of 3.6–4.2%, RPI zero-coupon swaps of 3.2–3.4%) with κ=5%\kappa=5\%, σR=80\sigma_R=80 basis points, σI=1.5%\sigma_I=1.5\% and ρ=0.2\rho=0.2, the adjustment is zero for the first year, −1.8-1.8 basis points for the fourth, −15.2-15.2 for the tenth (forward 3.42%, year-on-year expectation 3.27%) and −42.5-42.5 for the nineteenth (Figure 11.2). The ten-year year-on-year swap rate is 3.22% against a ten-year zero-coupon rate of 3.28%. A simulation of the model reproduces the tenth year’s expectation, 1.03268, at 1.03277 with a standard error of 0.00013.

Annual inflation implied by zero-coupon swaps (ratio of forward indices) and the model’s expectation of each year’s change, which a year-on-year swap pays. The gap, the convexity adjustment, grows with the start of the year. Data: illustrative sterling curves, Jarrow–Yildirim parameters of ; the chapter’s tutorial.
Figure 11.2. Annual inflation implied by zero-coupon swaps (ratio of forward indices) and the model’s expectation of each year’s change, which a year-on-year swap pays. The gap, the convexity adjustment, grows with the start of the year. Data: illustrative sterling curves, Jarrow–Yildirim parameters of Example 11.5; the chapter’s tutorial.

The sign and size depend on the correlation: at the tenth year the adjustment is −20.6-20.6, −16.4-16.4 and −12.2-12.2 basis points for ρ=−0.5\rho = -0.5, 00 and 0.50.5. With no real-rate volatility it vanishes whatever ρ\rho; the index volatility alone does not create it.

11.3 Seasonality in the model

Price indices are not seasonally adjusted, and their monthly changes follow the calendar: sales, energy tariffs, holidays (One Quant Book 2, chapter 11). An inflation swap or bond references a given month’s index, so the forward index must carry the pattern between annual points while matching them.

Method 11.6 (Seasonal forward index)

Estimate the average excess of each calendar month’s log change over its year’s mean (the seasonal factors, summing to zero); build the forward index month by month as the smooth forward times the cumulated factors. Annual points are unchanged, the path between them bends, and any product fixing on a month other than the swaps’ reference months moves.

Example 11.7 (The US pattern)

On US CPI (not seasonally adjusted) over the complete years 2010–2025, the monthly log change exceeds its year’s average by 0.18, 0.26 and 0.31 percentage points in January, February and March and falls short by 0.36 and 0.35 in November and December (Figure 11.3). Added to a forward index that is smooth at 3% a year, the pattern lifts it by 1.0 point by the end of May and 1.1 by the end of June, and brings it back to the smooth path at each year-end.

A two-year forward index at 3% a year, smooth and with the monthly seasonal factors of US CPI (complete years 2010–2025). Both pass through the same annual points. Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics via FRED (series CPIAUCNS, One Quant Book 2’s data file); the chapter’s tutorial.
Figure 11.3. A two-year forward index at 3% a year, smooth and with the monthly seasonal factors of US CPI (complete years 2010–2025). Both pass through the same annual points. Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics via FRED (series CPIAUCNS, One Quant Book 2’s data file); the chapter’s tutorial.

11.4 Inflation options and limited price indexation

Definition 11.8 (Inflation cap)

An inflation cap is a strip of options each paying max⁡(I(Ti)/I(Ti−1)−1−K,0)\max(I(T_i)/I(T_{i-1})-1-K,0) at TiT_i: a cap on year-on-year inflation, with floors (the deflation floor of One Quant Book 2, chapter 11, for the zero-coupon case) defined likewise.

In the model the annual ratio is lognormal: its log-variance is the index variance over the year plus the variance of the year’s real-rate integral, less twice their covariance, and the caplet is Black’s formula on the year-on-year expectation.

Example 11.9 (A ten-year cap and floor)

On the sterling curves, a year-on-year cap at 5% on years two to ten costs 181.1 basis points of notional; a floor at 0% costs 45.8.

Definition 11.10 (Limited price indexation)

Limited price indexation (LPI) uprates an amount each year by the index’s annual change floored at ff and capped at cc, compounding the result: after NN years it has grown by ∏i=1N(1+min⁡(max⁡(Ii/Ii−1−1,f),c))\prod_{i=1}^N\bigl(1+\min(\max(I_i/I_{i-1}-1,f),c)\bigr). UK pension increases follow it by statute, with [0%,5%][0\%,5\%] for rights earned before 6 April 2005 and [0%,2.5%][0\%,2.5\%] after.

Compounding capped and floored changes is path-dependent: the payoff is not a sum of caplets. It is priced by simulating the year-on-year ratios jointly.

    def lpi_leg(self, years: int, cap: float = 0.05, floor: float = 0.0, paths: int = 40000, seed: int = 11) -> dict:
        """Value at 0 of LPI(years) = prod (1 + min(max(ratio - 1, floor), cap)) paid at `years`,
        and of the uncapped index ratio I(years)/I(0)."""
        r = self.simulate_ratios(years, paths, seed=seed)
        lpi = np.prod(1 + np.clip(r - 1, floor, cap), axis=1)
        full = np.prod(r, axis=1)
        p = self.nominal.df_t(years)
        return {"lpi": p * lpi.mean(), "lpi_se": p * lpi.std(ddof=1) / math.sqrt(paths),
                "uncapped": p * full.mean(), "uncapped_exact": self.real.df_t(years)}
Listing 11.2. The limited-price-indexation leg by simulation of annual index ratios. code/firm/inflopt/firm_inflopt.py
Distribution of the twenty-year growth of an uncapped index and of its [0\%,5\%] limited-price-indexed version, 40 000 simulated paths of the sterling model: the cap removes the right tail, the floor the rare deflations. Data: the chapter’s tutorial.
Figure 11.4. Distribution of the twenty-year growth of an uncapped index and of its [0%,5%][0\%,5\%] limited-price-indexed version, 40 000 simulated paths of the sterling model: the cap removes the right tail, the floor the rare deflations. Data: the chapter’s tutorial.

As of September 2026 — UK inflation in 2022 and after

The RPI’s annual change was 14.2% in October 2022 (CPI 11.1%, CPIH 9.6%). The government and the UK Statistics Authority decided in November 2020 that the RPI will be brought into line with CPIH methods and data from February 2030, after the last index-linked gilt that would otherwise be affected, which moves the RPI swap curve beyond 2030. Statutory pension increases remain limited to 5% (pre-2005 rights) or 2.5%.

11.5 Tutorial: year-on-year products

Goal. Build nominal and real curves, compute year-on-year convexity, price caps and an LPI leg, and put seasonality into a forward index. End state: Figures 11.2, 11.3 and 11.4.

  1. Curves: real_curve(nominal, years, zc_rates) from the RPI zero-coupon swaps.
  2. Convexity: convexity_table(), rho_effect() and mc_check().
  3. Options: caps() and lpi().
  4. Seasonality: us_seasonals() with Book 2’s seasonal_factors; fig_rc_inflation.py writes the charts.

What to change next. Price the LPI leg with the cap at 2.5% and a floor of −100%-100\% (no floor) and split the value between the cap and the floor; make the nominal rate stochastic in the simulation and measure the change in the year-on-year swap rate.

11.6 Build: inflation options

Purpose. The inflation book of the miniature firm: year-on-year swaps, caps and floors, and the LPI legs of pension-scheme hedges.

Interface. LogLinearCurve, real_curve; JYDet(nominal, real, kappa, sigma_r, sigma_i, rho) with yoy_ratio, convexity, yoy_log_variance, yoy_caplet, yoy_swap_rate, zc_swap_rate, simulate_ratios, lpi_leg.

Rules. Deterministic nominal rates; the real curve reprices the zero-coupon swaps exactly; simulation under the nominal measure with the quanto drift; Book 2’s firm_breakeven for seasonal factors.

Acceptance tests. code/firm/inflopt/tests/: the model reprices the zero-coupon swap rate and has no adjustment in the first year or without real-rate volatility; the analytic year-on-year expectation matches simulation; cap minus floor is the forward; an LPI leg with infinite bounds is the index, and the simulated index matches the real discount factor.

Stretch. Stochastic nominal rates (the full model); a smile for year-on-year caplets; seasonality in the model’s forward index at monthly fixings.

Sources and further reading

  • R. Jarrow and Y. Yildirim, “Pricing Treasury Inflation Protected Securities and related derivatives using an HJM model”, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 38(2), 2003.
  • F. Mercurio, “Pricing inflation-indexed derivatives”, Quantitative Finance 5(3), 2005.
  • ONS, Consumer price inflation, UK: October 2022; HM Treasury and UK Statistics Authority, response on RPI reform, November 2020; Pensions Act 1995, section 51.

11.7 Exercises

Exercise 11.1 ★

A ten-year zero-coupon RPI swap is at 3.28% and the ten-year nominal discount factor is 0.6771. Give the ten-year real discount factor and the forward index ratio.

Solution

Solution of Exercise 11.1.

The forward index ratio is 1.032810=1.38091.0328^{10} = 1.3809; the real discount factor is PN(0,10)×1.3809=0.6771×1.3809=0.9349P_N(0,10)\times1.3809 = 0.6771\times1.3809 = 0.9349.

Exercise 11.2 ★

Why is there no convexity adjustment for the first year of a year-on-year swap?

Solution

Solution of Exercise 11.2.

The first year’s ratio I(T1)/I(0)I(T_1)/I(0) has a known denominator: it is a zero-coupon payment, whose expectation under the payment measure is the forward index ratio exactly.

Exercise 11.3 ★

A pension increase with LPI [0%,5%][0\%,5\%] follows an index that rose 14.2%. By how much does the pension rise? And with [0%,2.5%][0\%,2.5\%]?

Solution

Solution of Exercise 11.3.

By 5% (the cap binds); with [0%,2.5%][0\%,2.5\%], by 2.5%.

Exercise 11.4 ★★

Explain the sign of the adjustment in Example 11.5 and why it becomes less negative as ρ\rho rises.

Solution

Solution of Exercise 11.4.

The expectation of the year’s ratio is the expected real bond price PR(T,S)P_R(T,S) at the start of the year, over the known nominal one. Real-rate uncertainty makes the expected bond price (under the measure used) lower than its forward, through the drift μ(T)\mu(T) that stochastic real rates imply: the adjustment is negative and grows with TT. A positive ρ\rho lowers the real rate’s drift under the nominal measure (the quanto term), which raises the expected bond price and offsets part of it.

Exercise 11.5 ★★

Read Figure 11.3: a swap references the May index and another the December index of next year. Which has the higher forward, relative to the smooth path, and why?

Solution

Solution of Exercise 11.5.

The May index: from January to June the US pattern adds about one point to the forward relative to the smooth path, while at December the pattern has summed to zero and the forward is back on the smooth path. The swap fixing on May is therefore worth more.

Exercise 11.6 ★★

Why is an LPI leg not a strip of year-on-year caps and floors?

Solution

Solution of Exercise 11.6.

Each year’s capped and floored change multiplies the amount built up so far: the payoff is a product of options, whose value depends on the joint distribution of all years’ changes and on the path, not a sum of options on single years.

Exercise 11.7 ★★★

Coding. With common random numbers, measure the change in the twenty-year LPI [0%,5%][0\%,5\%] leg when σI\sigma_I rises from 1.5% to 2.5%, and when σR\sigma_R rises from 0.80% to 0.90%.

Solution

Solution of Exercise 11.7.

−0.0182-0.0182 per unit when σI\sigma_I goes from 1.5% to 2.5%, −0.0061-0.0061 when σR\sigma_R goes from 0.80% to 0.90%: the leg is short volatility (the cap at 5% is worth more to the payer as volatility rises than the floor at 0%).

Exercise 11.8 ★★★

Find the flaw. “The year-on-year swap rate equals the zero-coupon swap rate, since both average the same forward inflation.”

Solution

Solution of Exercise 11.8.

The zero-coupon rate compounds one ratio of forward indices; the year-on-year rate averages the expectations of annual ratios, each shifted by its convexity adjustment and weighted by nominal discount factors. With stochastic real rates the two differ: 3.22% against 3.28% at ten years here.

11.8 Problem: The Pension Fund’s LPI Swap

Problem 11.1

Weekend problem — hedging capped pension increases

A pension scheme’s liabilities rise each year by RPI with LPI [0%,5%][0\%,5\%]. Its adviser proposes a twenty-year swap that pays the LPI growth of a notional at year twenty, against the uncapped index. Use the sterling curves and parameters of the chapter, 40 000 paths.

Part I — The legs.

  1. Give today’s value of the uncapped index leg, per unit, and its exact value.
  2. Give the value of the LPI [0%,5%][0\%,5\%] leg.
  3. Give the value of an LPI [0%,2.5%][0\%,2.5\%] leg.
  4. Why is the LPI leg cheaper, and which of its two options dominates?
  5. What does the difference mean for a scheme hedged with uncapped swaps?

Part II — Sensitivities.

  1. Give the change in the LPI leg when σI\sigma_I rises by one point.
  2. Give the change when σR\sigma_R rises by ten basis points.
  3. Is the scheme, after the swap, long or short volatility?
  4. Why are the sensitivities computed on common random numbers?
  5. Which market instruments would hedge them?

Part III — 2022.

  1. With the index up 14.2%, what increase did the [0%,5%][0\%,5\%] liabilities receive?
  2. What did an uncapped hedge pay on the same year?
  3. Why did 2022 turn the scheme’s hedge into a speculative position?
  4. What does the RPI reform of 2030 change for the LPI leg?
  5. How would the problem change for an index with a floor of −100%-100\%?

Part IV — Judgement.

  1. Who can take the other side of LPI swaps?
  2. Why is the model’s correlation ρ\rho a risk the scheme cannot see in quotes?
  3. What would you report to the trustees?
  4. State the named result: the values of the uncapped and LPI legs, and the LPI leg’s index-volatility sensitivity.
  5. In one sentence: what does a cap on annual changes do to a twenty-year promise?
Solution

Solution of Problem 11.1.

1. 0.8356 by simulation; exactly PR(0,20)=0.8345P_R(0,20) = 0.8345 (the difference is sampling error). 2. 0.7863. 3. 0.6371. 4. It is the index with a short cap at 5% and a long floor at 0% on each year’s change, compounded; with expected inflation near 3.3%, the cap is closer and costs more than the floor is worth. 5. An uncapped hedge overhedges: it pays inflation above 5% the liabilities never incur, so the scheme holds an unhedged long-inflation, long-volatility position worth about 0.8356−0.7863=0.0490.8356-0.7863 = 0.049 per unit. 6. −0.0182-0.0182 per unit. 7. −0.0061-0.0061 per unit. 8. Holding LPI liabilities and receiving LPI from the swap leaves it hedged; the counterparty paying LPI is long volatility (short the leg), since the leg loses value as volatility rises. 9. So that the difference measures the parameter’s effect, not the noise of two independent simulations. 10. Year-on-year caps and floors on the index, and index options where they trade; correlation and path dependence remain. 11. 5%. 12. 14.2% on the year. 13. The hedge’s excess over the liabilities was a large gain unrelated to the scheme’s obligations: a position, not a hedge, that would be lost if inflation reversed. 14. From 2030 the RPI is computed like CPIH, which has run below it; forward RPI beyond 2030 falls, and so do the values of RPI-linked LPI legs. 15. Without a floor the leg is the index with a cap only: cheaper still than the [0%,5%][0\%,5\%] leg, and the deflation risk sits with the scheme’s members. 16. Institutions with the opposite exposure: issuers of LPI-linked assets (some infrastructure, property leases), insurers writing annuity business, and dealers who warehouse the volatility. 17. It drives the convexity and the joint distribution of annual changes, and no liquid instrument quotes it; its choice moves the leg’s value. 18. The value of the capped liabilities, the mismatch with any uncapped hedges, the volatility and correlation sensitivities, and a 2022-like scenario. 19. Named result: the LPI swap: the uncapped leg is worth 0.8345 per unit (0.8356 simulated), the [0%,5%][0\%,5\%] LPI leg 0.7863, and one point more index volatility lowers the LPI leg by 0.0182. 20. It turns the promise into an option-laden payoff that is worth less than the index and loses value as inflation becomes more volatile.

11.9 Interview questions

Interview question 11.1 ★ researcher, bank

Explain the foreign-currency analogy for inflation.

Solution

Solution of Interview question 11.1.

Nominal money is the domestic currency, a unit of the basket is a foreign currency, and the price index is the exchange rate. Real bonds are foreign bonds; the forward index is a forward exchange rate I(t)PR/PNI(t)P_R/P_N; real rates seen from the nominal measure acquire a quanto drift. Cross-currency models become inflation models.

What the interviewer is looking for: the mapping and its consequences.

Interview question 11.2 ★★ researcher

Why is a year-on-year swap not priced off the zero-coupon curve alone?

Solution

Solution of Interview question 11.2.

Each payment is a ratio of two future index values paid at the later date; its expectation under the payment measure is the forward ratio times a convexity adjustment that depends on real-rate volatility and correlations, which the zero-coupon curve does not contain.

What the interviewer is looking for: ratio of future values and the convexity adjustment.

Interview question 11.3 ★★ trader

How does seasonality enter an inflation swap’s price, and where do you get it?

Solution

Solution of Interview question 11.3.

Swaps and bonds reference a given month’s index, not seasonally adjusted; the forward between annual points must carry the monthly pattern. Estimate seasonal factors from the index history (complete years), keep the annual swap points, and bend the path between them; check stability of the factors over time.

What the interviewer is looking for: monthly reference and historical estimation.

Interview question 11.4 ★★ trader, bank

What is limited price indexation, and why does it make pension hedging hard?

Solution

Solution of Interview question 11.4.

Annual increases equal to the index’s change floored and capped (in the UK, [0%,5%][0\%,5\%] or [0%,2.5%][0\%,2.5\%]), compounded. Hedges are path-dependent options on inflation, illiquid, with volatility and correlation exposure; uncapped hedges overhedge in high-inflation years.

What the interviewer is looking for: path dependence and the 2022 lesson.

Interview question 11.5 ★★★ researcher, risk

Which parameters of the Jarrow–Yildirim model are observable in the market, and which are not?

Solution

Solution of Interview question 11.5.

Observable: nominal and real curves (swaps, linkers), and, less liquidly, index volatilities from year-on-year and zero-coupon options. Weakly observable or not: the real rate’s mean reversion and volatility, and the correlations between nominal rates, real rates and the index; they are set from history or implied from few options.

What the interviewer is looking for: which parameters are marked, not calibrated.

Interview question 11.6 ★★★ developer

Your simulated index does not reprice the zero-coupon swaps. What do you check?

Solution

Solution of Interview question 11.6.

The drift of the index (n−rR−12σI2n-r^R-\frac12\sigma_I^2), the quanto drift of the real rate (−ρσRσI-\rho\sigma_R\sigma_I), the real curve’s construction from the swaps (compounding, lag), time-grid alignment with the payment dates, and discounting with the nominal curve; test that the simulated index times the nominal discount factor reprices PR(0,T)P_R(0,T) at each maturity.

What the interviewer is looking for: drifts, measures and a direct repricing test.

Terms defined in this chapter

See all 2333 terms in the glossary