On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 1:10 PM, SK A <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> The difference is for 1M notional
>
> i) with the test parameters as in BermudanSwaption example 135€
>
> ii) with real market data 1622€
>
> I implemented another version of this formula, please see
>
http://www.itwm.fraunhofer.de/fileadmin/ITWM-Media/Zentral/Pdf/Berichte_ITWM/2009/bericht_170.pdf.
> It preserves the put-call parity.
>
> I attached a condition under which the put-call parity for ATM swaptions
> stays valid.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Ferdinando Ametrano <
[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:56 PM, SK A <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > [...] test the call-put parity in G2++
>> > model. The test fails in the closed form implementation. I compared the
>> > code
>> > and the formula in Brigo and Mercurio, it seems to be ok. Does anyone
>> > have
>> > any idea what can be going wrong?
>>
>> How large is the error?
>>
>> Does the formula preserve put-call parity? i.e. is it an
>> implementation bug or a closed formula approximation error? In the
>> latter case we could jut implement the call using the put value and
>> the parity constaint
>>
>> ciao -- Nando
>
>