Further your mathematical/quantitative modelling skills
Our aim is to help students and professionals, who have some knowledge of mathematics and quantitative methods, to develop more advanced knowledge and skills that one needs in order to follow advanced literature, and to build/appreciate models used in real life.
In addition to the videos here, we have implemented a collection of quantitative finance tools on the QuantPie website. The site also contains derivations of the formulae behind the tools, and we are going to add more material!
Stay tuned: This channel is being actively developed so please do check back from time to time, or subscribe so that our new playlists or videos show up in your feed as and when we add them.
This is a cool video, however it feels like you have shown the construction of the so-called Stratonovich integral instead of the Itô integral. (These two integral concepts are not the same.)
Can you suggest me a paper where I can find the heston model being derived the way you've done it. It's easier to follow than a few papers I've seen and I plan to use it for my dissertation.
You talk about “solutions” to equations etc without even defining what it means to be a solution for the equation 😅 Total meaningless garbage. This is not math. Nowhere did you define the Ito integral.
Hi, thank you for the great video, it truly made me understand the concept of changing probability measures way easier. I never knew it was actually that straightforward! Is it possible to share your slides? I would like to take notes on them if you don't mind :)
I wish you did your own voice over or one that is a bit better, because despite the robotic voice I sticked around as the information was so easy to understand!
Thank you for this great video!! one point was not clear to me. During the moment (9:55 - 10:07), that answers the question of why Riemann-Stieltjes does not work, the video says: "... but how do we show that it converges. and you can see the infinite variation of Brownian motion which manifests itself through the zigzaggy path here, makes the Riemann-Stieltjes approach irrelevant..." I am still not convinced with the stated conclusion given the explanation. From the graph, even with the zigzaggy path, I can imagine that we would approach the area that we seek to compute as the number of partitions approaches infinity just like how we did with the function g(t) before mentioning the Brownian motion. From this visualization and following the Riemann-Stieltjes approach, I still cannot imagine why it does not converge?! What is the thing in the zigzaggy path, that g(t) does not have, which prevents the convergence? If I have to guess, the answer is the non-differentiable points that prevent that notion of convergence from existing? it would be great if a visualization was provided to help convince a viewer naive in math like me.
Hi, I am studying your videos and I have a question of the Calibration part: Why the term X_0 is not estimated? My intuition is that the actual realization shown on data is not necesarilly representative of the process beginnings, so X_0 should be estimated as the regression intercept of the model, assumming simple ordinary least squares it is given by: X_0 = exp(E[ln(X_t)] - (mu-sigma^2/2)*(#data_points)/2) where sigma^2 = Var[ln(X_{t+1}/X_t)] mu = E[ln(X_{t+1}/X_t)]+sigma^2/2 as you show in your video It is this line of thought right?
extraordinary. Have seen the previous video on (several ways) to derive Dupire PDE, excellent as well. Haven't completed this one, hope some comments on pricing behaviour for path dependent exotics (hopefully as a function of time to maturity?) Thank you so much
Im sorry I have a maybe dumb question. I thought the moment generating function is t or θ dependent. So in 3:18 what you calculate is just a constant (or θ=1). Why do you use that one to substitute the variance of the brownian which is not constant ( var = t or θ). ? It confuses me a little bit and I would love a clarification! thanks
after an hour of searching on google and reading so many different definitions, i finally understand what a quasi linear equation is thanks to your video!! so well explained, thank you!
Thanks so much for this video. I am currently doing a final year college project on option pricing, and this video really helped :). Is there any way that I can formally cite this in my project? I mean, did you follow a derivation from a certain book, or do you have written notes on this? Derivations in textbooks that I've found arent as clear as this one. Thanks again, hope you can answer me!
I am seeing your videos now, and I have a question about this one: Could be easier for finding \mu doing the following? \mu = E[d/dt(E[ln(S(t))]) +1/2*Var[ln(S(t))]] Could it be computationally faster?
Hi, thanks for the video and it's really insightful! I am wondering for the last step using the Borel Cantelli lemma, how to get to lim(S_nk) = 0 from P(limsup(S_nk >= epsilon)) = 0?
This is a fantastic video ! Really liked the points related to calendar and butterfly arbitrage check in the Call option prices before we infer the Local volatility from the Call option price surface !
Be confused with the Equation at 6:28, since it implies that the particles around the position x does not participate in any movements outwards. Why is this factor not considered? If considered, next it should done like (f(x, t+\tau) - f(x, t))dx = integral of dx*f(x+\delta, t)*\phi(\delta)d(\delta).
Excellent presentation and I have benifited a lot! A more rigorous statement appears to be that both the notions f and fi by nature represent probability density functions rather than probabilities.
firstly Thanks for the awesome video, I wanna if we can use the propriety of the discounted Prices being a martingale, then concluding that the term multiplied by dt should be 0 and we can get our pde ?
At 13:45 you weigh the calls using lambda times T whereas in Joshi 2003 and several codes the call formula use lambda times m times T where m is the exponential of your mu_y. You and Joshi use different values of the uderlying asset in the summation. Joshi uses the same underlying asset value for all the calls of the summation. Would you have a look please and try to consolidate the two approaches if feasible ?
Why do you use in these examples base of 365 days/year at 9:24 (Term rate - Compounding)? Base convention for both LIBOR and SOFR is ACT/360. You could check that in BBG. Could you please comment on that?
beautiful video. the only question i have is how exactly did you get the expression for the radon-nikodym derivative exp{sigma*B_tilda - 1/2 * sigma^2 *t}?
