Re: Calibration for the LFM parameters?

Posted by Klaus Spanderen on
URL: http://quantlib.414.s1.nabble.com/Lfm-HullWhite-Parameterization-tp4788p4794.html

Hi Toy,

can be implemented soon. What do you think about a "const" wrapper for the
LmVolatilityModel and LmCorrelationModel that hide the parameters of the
model and therefore avoid that either the correlation model or the volatility
model get calibrated?

would look like

boost::shared_ptr<LmVolatilityModel> constModel(
        new LmVolatilityModelConstWrapper(lmVolaModel));

Klaus

On Wednesday 07 June 2006 6:09 pm, you wrote:

> Hi Klaus,
>
> I'm still playing with your new files.
>
> Should have something to report by Thursday.
>
> Question, is it possible to have, possibly an enumeration variable, that
> indicates different calibration choices for the LFM model. At the moment,
> the calibration routine will calibrate all the volatility and correlation
> parameters in one go.
>
> It would be nice to have a method within the LFM model class that can
> indicate three types of calibration :
>
> calibration of the volatility parameters only
> calibration of the correlation parameters only
> calibration of the volatility and correlation parameters (as we have today)
>
> This would be perfect for the case where you are given the volatility
> parameters, but need to calibrate the correlation parameters.
>
> Thoughts...?
> Toy out.
>
> From: Klaus Spanderen <[hidden email]>
>
> >To: "Toyin Akin" <[hidden email]>
> >CC: [hidden email]
> >Subject: Re: [Quantlib-users] Calibration for the LFM parameters?
> >Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 08:20:59 -0700
> >
> >Hi Toy,
> >
> >can you do me a favour and try out the more complex parametizations
> >enclosed
> >in the attached tar ball? (haven't fully tested them, the tar ball also
> >contains the modified test case file.),  This should improve the ratio
> >values.
> >
> >And please send me the vols for your caplets. 0.92 is really low. Is it
> > the global minimum?
> >
> >cheers
> >  Klaus
> >
> >On Tuesday 06 June 2006 11:52, you wrote:
> > > Hi Klaus,
> > >
> > > What kind of success rate are you having after calibrating for the a,
> >
> >b,c,
> >
> > > d and rho parameters of the LFM model?
> > >
> > > I'm finding that after calibrating to ITM caplets/floorlets/swaptions
> >
> >and
> >
> > > computing the ratio of the black (analytical) price over the calibrated
> > > (LFM) price (basically using a modified version of your sample code
> >
> >within
> >
> > > the test directory), I get ratio values of 0.92 or less for the
> > > caplets. Worst still for swaptions
> > >
> > > Are you finding the same ratio values or do you suspect I've done
> >
> >something
> >
> > > wrong?
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Toy out.
> >
> >--
> >_______________________________________________________
> >Klaus Spanderen
> >Hubertustal 13f
> >48734 Reken (Germany)
> >Email: [hidden email]
> >(remove NOSPAM from the address)
> >http://www.spanderen.de
> >
> >
> ><< lfm.tgz >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >QuantLib-users mailing list
> >[hidden email]
> >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quantlib-users