Basket implied volatility skew and stickinessThanks: This work arose from a joint research project involving Mizuho Bank, Ltd., Mizuho-DL Financial Technology Co., Ltd., Mizuho Securities Co., Ltd., and The University of Osaka. The authors are grateful to the participants for helpful comments and discussions. The authors used OpenAI’s ChatGPT to assist with language editing and the checking of calculations and mathematical arguments. All AI-generated suggestions were critically reviewed and, where appropriate, revised by the authors, who take full responsibility for the content of this paper.

Abstract

We study the short-maturity implied volatility and the skew stickiness ratio for baskets of assets with continuous, possibly rough, stochastic volatility. The fluctuation of the instantaneous basket variance has two sources: fluctuations of the constituent variances and fluctuations of the basket weights. We derive a near-the-money implied volatility expansion that separates these contributions. We then specialize the result to volatility models given by general functions of Gaussian Volterra factors and obtain an explicit basket-skew coefficient in terms of the short-time kernel asymptotics, the factor sensitivities, and the return-factor correlations. A density expansion justifies differentiation of the near-the-money expansion at the money. Finally, using a Malliavin representation of the dynamics of total implied variance, we prove that the short-maturity skew stickiness ratio converges to the universal limit $H+3/2$ for Gaussian factor basket models with $H\in(0,1/2]$.

1 Introduction

Equity indices and other baskets are weighted sums of assets whose individual prices and volatilities evolve jointly. Even when the constituent assets follow relatively simple continuous stochastic volatility models, the volatility of the basket has a more complicated structure. It depends not only on the constituent volatilities and their correlations, but also on the stochastic portfolio weights generated by relative movements of the constituent prices. Understanding how these two mechanisms contribute to the short-maturity implied volatility skew is important both theoretically and for the modeling of index options.

For a single asset, the short-maturity behavior of the at-the-money implied volatility skew is closely related to the regularity of the spot variance. In classical diffusion models, the skew remains finite as maturity tends to zero. By contrast, rough volatility models, in which the covariance between returns and spot variance has a fractional term structure, produce a power law which is consistent with the steep short-dated skews observed in equity option markets. A general probabilistic explanation of this relation was given by Fukasawa [10].

For baskets, an additional effect appears. Let

$$S_{t}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}S_{t}^{i},\qquad\Pi_{t}^{i}=\frac{S_{t}^{i}}{S_{t}},$$

where $S^{i}_{t}$, $i=1,\dots,n$, are the constituent asset prices at time $t$. The instantaneous basket variance is

$$V_{t}=\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\Pi_{t}^{i}\Pi_{t}^{j}\sqrt{V_{t}^{i}V_{t}^{j}}\rho^{ij},$$

where $V^{i}$ is the spot variance process of $S^{i}$ and $\rho^{ij}$ is the correlation between the Brownian motions driving $S^{i}$ and $S^{j}$. Its short-time fluctuation has two distinct sources. The first comes from fluctuations of the constituent spot variances $V_{t}^{i}$. If these fluctuations occur at a rate $r(t)$ that is regularly varying with index $H$, their contribution is of order $r(t)$. The second comes from fluctuations of the endogenous basket weights $\Pi_{t}^{i}$. Since the weights are driven directly by asset returns, their contribution is always of order $\sqrt{t}$. The two effects have different asymptotic origins and, when $H<1/2$, different orders of magnitude.

The first purpose of this paper is to derive a general short-maturity basket implied volatility expansion formula that separates these two contributions under minimal conditions. Under weak convergence and uniform-integrability conditions on the normalized constituent variance fluctuations, we prove that the basket implied volatility $\sigma(k,\theta)$ admits

$$\sigma(\sqrt{\theta}z,\theta) =\sqrt{\bar{v}(\theta)}+z\left\{\frac{\psi_{A}}{2H+3}r(\theta)+\frac{\psi_{B}}{4}\sqrt{\theta}\right\}+o\bigl(r(\theta)+\sqrt{\theta}\bigr),$$

where $\theta$ is time-to-maturity. In the pure-power case, $r(\theta)=\theta^{H}$. Here $\bar{v}(\theta)$ is the averaged deterministic short-maturity basket variance. The coefficient $\psi_{A}$ describes the leverage between the basket return and the constituent volatility fluctuations, whereas $\psi_{B}$ is the contribution generated by fluctuations of the basket weights.

When $H<1/2$ and $\psi_{A}\neq 0$, the volatility-fluctuation term dominates and the basket skew is regularly varying with index $H-1/2$. In the pure-power case $r(\theta)=\theta^{H}$, its leading order is $\theta^{H-1/2}$. The portfolio-weight term is then of smaller order. At the boundary $H=1/2$, however, both terms must be retained in general. This boundary case is particularly important for local and classical stochastic volatility models. Omitting the portfolio-weight contribution would in general give an incorrect finite short-maturity skew.

Short-maturity basket skews have previously been studied in several specific settings. For local volatility models, related formulas follow from the large-deviation approach of Avellaneda et al. [2, 3] and Pirjol [13]; see also Bayer and Laurence [4]. A formal derivation based on Markovian projection was given by Piterbarg [14]. Particular multivariate stochastic volatility models include the bivariate SABR model considered by Forde and Zhang [8] and the normal SABR setting studied by Hagan et al. [12]. For rough Bergomi-type basket models, Friz and Wagenhofer [9] obtained basket-skew formulas using small-noise large deviations. Their asymptotic regime is closely related to, but different from, the short-time near-the-money regime considered here. Our approach instead starts from a general weak limit of normalized return and variance fluctuations and therefore applies beyond a particular Markovian, semimartingale, or exponential-Gaussian specification.

We next specialize the general formula to Gaussian factor volatility models. The constituent variances are allowed to be general functions of time and finitely many Gaussian Volterra factors. The class of models incorporates the multi-factor Bergomi model [6], the rough Bergomi model [5], and the quintic model [1]. If the factor kernels behave near zero as

$$K(t)\sim\kappa\frac{r(t)}{\sqrt{t}},$$

then a Gaussian delta method gives the limiting constituent variance fluctuations explicitly. The resulting basket-skew coefficient depends only on the logarithmic sensitivities of the volatility functions at time zero, the short-time kernel coefficients $(H,\kappa)$, the price-factor correlations, and the initial basket weights and variances.

The dynamics of the implied volatility surface are important in addition to its static short-maturity shape. A commonly used measure of smile dynamics is the skew stickiness ratio (SSR), introduced by Bergomi [6]. It compares the instantaneous response of at-the-money implied volatility to a movement of the underlying with the contemporaneous at-the-money implied volatility skew.

There are different ways volatility can move relative to spot. For example, vol-by-moneyness assumes the volatility smile remains fixed as a function of moneyness, while vol-by-strike assumes the smile remains fixed as a function of absolute strike. These dynamics differ across markets and can also shift across regimes for the same underlying. Because these dynamics affect how option values and Greeks evolve as spot moves, traders need to understand, and ideally anticipate, the prevailing volatility regime in order to hedge appropriately. The SSR provides one indicator for identifying which regime the underlying is in.

There are two reasons to focus on basket SSR. First, it helps us understand the volatility dynamics of a basket. Equity indices such as the S&P 500 and Nikkei 225 can be viewed as baskets of stocks. Since they have liquid listed options markets, we can observe index smiles directly and infer their volatility dynamics from market data. We also want to confirm that the dynamics observed at the index level are consistent with what is implied by the listed options on the index constituents.

Second, basket SSR is useful for hedging derivatives on a bespoke basket, where the relevant volatility regime (vol-by-moneyness, vol-by-strike, or another dynamic) is not directly observable. Computing SSR for the basket provides a practical indicator of how the smile is likely to shift, and therefore how to hedge derivative structures written on that basket.

The second purpose of this paper is therefore to determine the short-maturity SSR for basket options. For a single asset, Fukasawa [11] showed, under Bergomi-type volatility models, that the SSR converges to the universal limit

$$H+\frac{3}{2}.$$

For a basket, it is not immediate that the same limit should hold. As shown by our basket-skew expansion, both fluctuations of the constituent volatilities and fluctuations of the endogenous portfolio weights affect the short-maturity skew. These two sources also contribute to the response of ATM implied volatility to movements of the basket, and their relative importance changes at the boundary $H=1/2$.

We extend the single-asset analysis to Gaussian factor basket models and prove, under a natural nondegeneracy condition, that the basket SSR has the same universal limit

$$H+\frac{3}{2}$$

for every $H\in(0,1/2]$. In particular, the limit remains valid when $H=1/2$, at which the constituent-volatility and portfolio-weight effects must in general both be retained.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 establishes the general short-maturity basket implied-volatility expansion. Section 3 specializes the result to Gaussian factor volatility models. Section 4 studies the basket SSR and proves its universal short-maturity limit.

2 Basket implied volatility skew

We assume frictionless markets with zero interest and dividend rates for brevity.

Consider $n$ assets

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}S^{i}_{t}}{S^{i}_{t}}=\sqrt{V^{i}_{t}}\,\mathrm{d}B^{i}_{t},\qquad S_{0}^{i}>0,\quad i=1,\dots,n,$$

defined on a filtered probability space $(\Omega,\mathscr{F},\mathsf{Q},\{\mathscr{F}_{t}\})$ with

$$\mathscr{F}_{0}=\{A\in\mathscr{F};\mathsf{Q}(A)\in\{0,1\}\},$$

where $(B^{1},\dots,B^{n})$ is a constantly correlated $\{\mathscr{F}_{t}\}$-Brownian motion with

$$\langle B^{i},B^{j}\rangle_{t}=\rho^{ij}t$$

and the spot variance processes $V^{i}=\{V^{i}_{t}\}$ are $\{\mathscr{F}_{t}\}$-adapted and continuous nonnegative with $V^{i}_{0}>0$.

We are interested in the implied volatility $\sigma(k,\theta)$ of a basket option defined through

$$\mathsf{E}[(S_{0}e^{k}-S_{\theta})_{+}]=S_{0}p\left(k,\sigma(k,\theta)\sqrt{\theta}\right),$$

where

$$S_{t}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}S^{i}_{t}$$

and $p$ is the Black-Scholes put price:

$$p(k,w)=e^{k}\Phi(-d_{-}(k,w))-\Phi(-d_{+}(k,w)),\ \ d_{\pm}(k,w)=-\frac{k}{w}\pm\frac{w}{2}.$$

Here and hereafter, $\mathsf{E}$ refers to the expectation with respect to the measure $\mathsf{Q}$. Our first main result is as follows.

Theorem 2.1.

Assume that the stochastic exponentials $S^{i}$ are true martingales, and that there exist $t_{0}>0$ and a function $r:(0,t_{0})\to(0,\infty)$, regularly varying at zero with index $H\geq 0$ and satisfying $r(0+)=0$, such that

$$Y^{i}=\{Y^{i}_{t}\}_{t\in(0,t_{0})},\quad Y^{i}_{t}:=\frac{1}{r(t)}\left(\frac{V^{i}_{t}}{\mathsf{E}[V^{i}_{t}]}-1\right)$$ (1)

are uniformly integrable for all $i=1,\dots,n$. Moreover, we assume that the joint law of

$$(X_{\theta}^{1},\dots,X_{\theta}^{n},Y_{\theta}^{1},\dots,Y_{\theta}^{n})$$

converges to a centered $2n$-dimensional Gaussian distribution as $\theta\to 0$, where

$$X_{\theta}^{i}:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{V^{i}_{0}\theta}}\left(\frac{S^{i}_{\theta}}{S^{i}_{0}}-1\right).$$

Let $\psi^{ij}$ denote the covariance between the limits of $X^{i}_{\theta}$ and $Y^{j}_{\theta}$. If $v(0)>0$, then

$$\sigma(\sqrt{\theta}z,\theta) =\sqrt{\bar{v}(\theta)}+\left\{\frac{\psi_{A}}{2H+3}r(\theta)+\frac{\psi_{B}}{4}\sqrt{\theta}\right\}z$$

$$\quad+o\bigl(r(\theta)+\sqrt{\theta}\bigr)$$ (2)

as $\theta\to 0$, uniformly in $z$ on compact sets, where

$$\begin{split}&\bar{v}(\theta)=\frac{1}{\theta}\int_{0}^{\theta}v(t)\mathrm{d}t,\\ &v(t)=\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}v^{ij}(t),\\ &v^{ij}(t)=\Pi^{i}_{0}\Pi^{j}_{0}\mathsf{E}[\sqrt{V^{i}_{t}V^{j}_{t}}]\rho^{ij},\\ &\Pi^{i}_{t}=\frac{S^{i}_{t}}{S_{t}},\end{split}$$

and

$$\begin{split}\psi_{A}&=\sum_{i,j,k=1}^{n}\frac{v^{ij}(0)}{2v(0)^{3/2}}(\psi^{ki}+\psi^{kj})\Pi^{k}_{0}\sqrt{V^{k}_{0}},\\ \psi_{B}&=\sum_{i,j,k=1}^{n}\frac{v^{ij}(0)}{v(0)^{3/2}}\left(\frac{v^{ik}(0)}{\Pi^{i}_{0}}+\frac{v^{jk}(0)}{\Pi^{j}_{0}}\right)-2\sqrt{v(0)}.\end{split}$$

Remark 2.1 (Comparison of the two rates).

The ratio $r(\theta)/\sqrt{\theta}$ is regularly varying with index $H-1/2$. Hence

$$\frac{r(\theta)}{\sqrt{\theta}}\longrightarrow\infty\quad\text{if }H<\frac{1}{2},\qquad\frac{r(\theta)}{\sqrt{\theta}}\longrightarrow 0\quad\text{if }H>\frac{1}{2}.$$

When $H=1/2$, the ratio is slowly varying, and regular variation alone does not imply that it converges: it may tend to zero, a positive constant, or infinity, and it may also oscillate. This is why the expansion retains both $r(\theta)$ and $\sqrt{\theta}$ at the boundary rather than replacing one by a fixed multiple of the other.

Remark 2.2 (Covariances with the basket).

Define the initial covariance rate between the return of constituent $i$ and the basket return by

$$d_{i}:=\sum_{j=1}^{n}\Pi_{0}^{j}\sqrt{V_{0}^{i}V_{0}^{j}}\rho^{ij}.$$

Then $\sum_{j}v^{ij}(0)=\Pi_{0}^{i}d_{i}$ and $v(0)=\sum_{i}\Pi_{0}^{i}d_{i}$. By the symmetry of $v^{ij}(0)$, the coefficients in Theorem 2.1 can be written as

$$\psi_{A} =\frac{1}{v(0)^{3/2}}\sum_{i,k=1}^{n}\Pi_{0}^{i}\Pi_{0}^{k}d_{i}\sqrt{V_{0}^{k}}\,\psi^{ki},$$

$$\psi_{B} =\frac{2}{v(0)^{3/2}}\left\{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\Pi_{0}^{i}d_{i}^{2}-v(0)^{2}\right\}$$

$$=\frac{2}{v(0)^{3/2}}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\Pi_{0}^{i}\bigl(d_{i}-v(0)\bigr)^{2}\geq 0.$$

Thus the weight-fluctuation coefficient is proportional to the variance of the $d_{i}$ under the initial basket weights.

Remark 2.3 (Local volatility).

Suppose $V_{t}^{i}=\sigma_{i}(t,S_{t}^{i})^{2}$, with positive bounded $C^{1}$ local volatility functions having bounded first derivatives. Then we may take $r(t)=\sqrt{t}$, so that $H=1/2$. Write

$$s_{i}=\sigma_{i}(0,S_{0}^{i}),\qquad\ell_{i}=S_{0}^{i}\partial_{s}\log\sigma_{i}(0,S_{0}^{i}).$$

The standard delta method gives $(X_{t}^{i},Y_{t}^{i})_{i=1}^{n}\Rightarrow(G_{i},2s_{i}\ell_{i}G_{i})_{i=1}^{n}$, where $G$ is centered Gaussian with covariance matrix $(\rho^{ij})$. With $d_{i}=s_{i}\sum_{j}\Pi_{0}^{j}s_{j}\rho^{ij}$ as in the preceding remark, this gives

$$\psi^{ki} =2s_{i}\ell_{i}\rho^{ki},$$

$$\psi_{A} =\frac{2}{v(0)^{3/2}}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\Pi_{0}^{i}\ell_{i}d_{i}^{2},$$

$$\psi_{B} =\frac{2}{v(0)^{3/2}}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\Pi_{0}^{i}\bigl(d_{i}-v(0)\bigr)^{2},$$

with $v(0)=\sum_{i}\Pi_{0}^{i}d_{i}>0$. Thus the coefficient of $z\sqrt{\theta}$ in (2) is $(\psi_{A}+\psi_{B})/4$. For a single asset, $\psi_{B}=0$ and this coefficient is $S_{0}^{1}\partial_{s}\sigma_{1}(0,S_{0}^{1})/2$.

Remark 2.4 (Preceding works).

For local volatility models, the above formula with $H=1/2$ is consistent with the one obtained by Pirjol [13], based on the large-deviation theory developed by Avellaneda et al. [2, 3]. See also Bayer and Laurence [4]. The same formula also follows from a formal analysis by Piterbarg [14] based on the Markovian projection of stochastic volatility models when $H=1/2$. A bivariate SABR model was treated by Forde and Zhang [8]. A normal SABR model was treated by Hagan et al. [12]. For rough volatility models, that is, when $H<1/2$, Friz and Wagenhofer [9] gave a small noise large deviation theory for rough Bergomi type models with a basket-skew formula in a closely related but different asymptotic regime. Our contribution is a rigorous derivation of the short-time asymptotic basket-skew formula for a general class of local and possibly rough stochastic volatility models. Even in the non-rough case $H=1/2$, the result appears to be new.

Remark 2.5 (Constituent skew).

Let $\sigma^{i}(k,\theta)$ denote the implied volatility of $S^{i}$ defined through

$$\mathsf{E}[(S^{i}_{0}e^{k}-S^{i}_{\theta})_{+}]=S^{i}_{0}p\left(k,\sigma^{i}(k,\theta)\sqrt{\theta}\right).$$

Under the assumptions of Theorem 2.1, by Corollary 2.1 of Fukasawa [10] (see also Theorem 8.11 of Bayer et al. [5]), we have

$$\sigma^{i}(\sqrt{\theta}z,\theta) =\sqrt{\bar{v}^{i}(\theta)}+\frac{\psi^{ii}}{2H+3}r(\theta)z+o(r(\theta))$$

as $\theta\to 0$ uniformly in $z$ on compact sets, where

$$\bar{v}^{i}(\theta)=\frac{1}{\theta}\int_{0}^{\theta}\mathsf{E}[V^{i}_{t}]\,\mathrm{d}t.$$

Remark 2.6 (Dominance of the roughest constituent).

The preceding result also indicates how the basket skew behaves when the constituent volatility fluctuations have different short-time regularities. Suppose, for simplicity, that the normalized variance fluctuation of constituent $i$ is of order $\theta^{H_{i}}$, where $H_{i}\in(0,1/2]$. Its contribution to the ATM basket skew is then of order $\theta^{H_{i}-1/2}$. Consequently, if

$$H_{*}:=\min_{1\leq i\leq n}H_{i},$$

then, provided the aggregate leverage coefficient associated with the constituents satisfying $H_{i}=H_{*}$ does not vanish, the basket skew satisfies

$$\frac{\sigma(k,\theta)-\sigma(0,\theta)}{k}\asymp\theta^{H_{*}-1/2}$$

for $k=z\sqrt{\theta}$ with $z\neq 0$. Thus the short-maturity explosion rate of the basket skew is in general the fastest among the explosion rates generated by its constituents.

Proof.

We first recall the result from Fukasawa [10] (see also Bayer et al. [5]) that will be used below. Let $a:(0,t_{0})\to(0,\infty)$ be regularly varying at zero with index $\alpha\geq 0$ and $a(0+)=0$. Suppose that, jointly,

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{\theta}}\left(\frac{S_{\theta}}{S_{0}}-1\right)\Longrightarrow\xi,\qquad\frac{1}{a(\theta)}\left(\frac{V_{\theta}}{\mathsf{E}[V_{\theta}]}-1\right)\Longrightarrow\eta,$$

assume that the second family is uniformly integrable and that the limit $(\xi,\eta)$ is centered Gaussian. If $V_{0}>0$, then

$$\sigma(\sqrt{\theta}z,\theta)=\sqrt{\widehat{v}(\theta)}+\frac{\mathsf{E}[\xi\eta]}{\sqrt{V_{0}}(2\alpha+3)}z\,a(\theta)+o(a(\theta)),$$ (3)

uniformly in $z$ on compact sets, where

$$\widehat{v}(\theta):=\frac{1}{\theta}\int_{0}^{\theta}\mathsf{E}[V_{t}]\,\mathrm{d}t.$$

The following steps 1-4 show the required uniform integrability. The final step computes the limit distribution.

Put

$$m^{i}(t):=\mathsf{E}[V_{t}^{i}],\qquad A_{t}^{ij}:=\Pi_{t}^{i}\Pi_{t}^{j},\qquad Q_{t}^{ij}:=\sqrt{V_{t}^{i}V_{t}^{j}},$$

and

$$q^{ij}(t):=\mathsf{E}[Q_{t}^{ij}].$$

Then

$$v^{ij}(t)=A_{0}^{ij}q^{ij}(t)\rho^{ij},\qquad v(t)=\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}v^{ij}(t).$$

Step 1: Convergence of the deterministic variance levels.

By definition,

$$V_{t}^{i}=m^{i}(t)\bigl(1+r(t)Y_{t}^{i}\bigr),\qquad\mathsf{E}[Y_{t}^{i}]=0.$$

Uniform integrability of $\{Y_{t}^{i}\}_{t\downarrow 0}$ implies that it is bounded in $L^{1}$. Therefore,

$$V_{t}^{i}-m^{i}(t)=r(t)m^{i}(t)Y_{t}^{i}.$$

We first note that $m^{i}(t)\to V_{0}^{i}$. Indeed, continuity of $V^{i}$ gives

$$V_{t}^{i}\longrightarrow V_{0}^{i}\qquad\text{in probability}.$$

Moreover, since $Y_{t}^{i}$ is tight and $r(t)\to 0$,

$$\frac{V_{t}^{i}}{m^{i}(t)}-1=r(t)Y_{t}^{i}\longrightarrow 0\qquad\text{in probability}.$$

It follows that

$$m^{i}(t)\longrightarrow V_{0}^{i}.$$

Here we use that $m^{i}(t)$ and $V_{0}^{i}$ are deterministic and $V_{0}^{i}>0$.

Consequently, after decreasing $t_{0}$ if necessary, there exist constants $0<c<C<\infty$ such that

$$c\leq m^{i}(t)\leq C,\qquad 0<t<t_{0},$$

for every $i$. In particular,

$$\sup_{0<t<t_{0}}\mathsf{E}[V_{t}^{i}]<\infty.$$

Furthermore,

$$V_{t}^{i}-m^{i}(t)=r(t)m^{i}(t)Y_{t}^{i}\longrightarrow 0$$

in $L^{1}$. The family $\{V_{t}^{i}\}_{t\downarrow 0}$ is therefore uniformly integrable.

Step 2: Expansion of the geometric-mean volatility.

We now prove that

$$\frac{Q_{t}^{ij}-q^{ij}(t)}{r(t)}=\frac{\sqrt{m^{i}(t)m^{j}(t)}}{2}\bigl(Y_{t}^{i}+Y_{t}^{j}\bigr)+o_{L^{1}}(1).$$ (4)

Since

$$V_{t}^{i}=m^{i}(t)\bigl(1+r(t)Y_{t}^{i}\bigr),$$

we have

$$Q_{t}^{ij}=\sqrt{m^{i}(t)m^{j}(t)}\sqrt{\bigl(1+r(t)Y_{t}^{i}\bigr)\bigl(1+r(t)Y_{t}^{j}\bigr)}.$$ (5)

Notice that

$$1+r(t)Y_{t}^{i}\geq 0,\qquad 1+r(t)Y_{t}^{j}\geq 0.$$

Consider

$$f(x,y):=\sqrt{(1+x)(1+y)},\qquad x,y\geq-1.$$

The function $f$ is differentiable at $(0,0)$, with

$$f(0,0)=1,\qquad\partial_{x}f(0,0)=\partial_{y}f(0,0)=\frac{1}{2}.$$

Thus, for every $M>0$,

$$\sup_{|x|+|y|\leq M}\left|\frac{f(r(t)x,r(t)y)-1}{r(t)}-\frac{x+y}{2}\right|\longrightarrow 0.$$ (6)

We also need a global bound. There exists a constant $C$ such that

$$\left|\sqrt{(1+x)(1+y)}-1\right|\leq C\bigl(|x|+|y|\bigr),\qquad x,y\geq-1.$$ (7)

To see this, if $|x|+|y|\leq 1/2$, the assertion follows from the mean value theorem, since the derivatives of $f$ are bounded on this set. If $|x|+|y|>1/2$, then

$$\sqrt{(1+x)(1+y)}\leq\frac{(1+x)+(1+y)}{2}\leq 1+\frac{|x|+|y|}{2}.$$

The positive part of $\sqrt{(1+x)(1+y)}-1$ is therefore bounded by $(|x|+|y|)/2$, while its negative part is bounded by $1$, which in the present region is bounded by $2(|x|+|y|)$. This proves (7).

Define

$$E_{t}^{M}:=\{|Y_{t}^{i}|+|Y_{t}^{j}|\leq M\}.$$

On $E_{t}^{M}$, (6) gives

$$\sup_{\omega\in E_{t}^{M}}\left|\frac{\sqrt{(1+r(t)Y_{t}^{i})(1+r(t)Y_{t}^{j})}-1}{r(t)}-\frac{Y_{t}^{i}+Y_{t}^{j}}{2}\right|\longrightarrow 0.$$

On the complement, (7) gives

$$\left|\frac{\sqrt{(1+r(t)Y_{t}^{i})(1+r(t)Y_{t}^{j})}-1}{r(t)}-\frac{Y_{t}^{i}+Y_{t}^{j}}{2}\right|$$

$$\qquad\leq C\bigl(|Y_{t}^{i}|+|Y_{t}^{j}|\bigr).$$

Consequently,

$$\mathsf{E}\left|\frac{\sqrt{(1+r(t)Y_{t}^{i})(1+r(t)Y_{t}^{j})}-1}{r(t)}-\frac{Y_{t}^{i}+Y_{t}^{j}}{2}\right|$$

$$\quad\leq o_{M}(1)+C\mathsf{E}\left[\bigl(|Y_{t}^{i}|+|Y_{t}^{j}|\bigr)\mathbf{1}_{\{|Y_{t}^{i}|+|Y_{t}^{j}|>M\}}\right].$$

First letting $t\downarrow 0$ and then $M\to\infty$, uniform integrability of $Y^{i}$ and $Y^{j}$ gives

$$\frac{\sqrt{(1+r(t)Y_{t}^{i})(1+r(t)Y_{t}^{j})}-1}{r(t)}=\frac{1}{2}\bigl(Y_{t}^{i}+Y_{t}^{j}\bigr)+o_{L^{1}}(1).$$ (8)

Multiplying (8) by $\sqrt{m^{i}(t)m^{j}(t)}$ and using (5), we obtain

$$\frac{Q_{t}^{ij}-\sqrt{m^{i}(t)m^{j}(t)}}{r(t)}=\frac{\sqrt{m^{i}(t)m^{j}(t)}}{2}\bigl(Y_{t}^{i}+Y_{t}^{j}\bigr)+o_{L^{1}}(1).$$ (9)

Since

$$\mathsf{E}[Y_{t}^{i}]=\mathsf{E}[Y_{t}^{j}]=0,$$

taking expectations in (9) yields

$$q^{ij}(t)=\sqrt{m^{i}(t)m^{j}(t)}+o(r(t)).$$

Subtracting expectations in (9) proves (4). It also follows that

$$\frac{Q_{t}^{ij}-q^{ij}(t)}{r(t)q^{ij}(t)}=\frac{1}{2}\bigl(Y_{t}^{i}+Y_{t}^{j}\bigr)+o_{L^{1}}(1).$$ (10)

The family on the left-hand side is uniformly integrable as $t\downarrow 0$.

Step 3: Dynamics and first-order expansion of the portfolio weights.

By Itô’s formula,

$$\mathrm{d}\log S_{t}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\Pi_{t}^{i}\frac{\mathrm{d}S_{t}^{i}}{S_{t}^{i}}-\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{d}\langle\log S\rangle_{t}.$$

Moreover,

$$\mathrm{d}\langle\log S\rangle_{t}=V_{t}\,\mathrm{d}t,$$

where

$$V_{t}=\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}A_{t}^{ij}Q_{t}^{ij}\rho^{ij}.$$

Since

$$\log A_{t}^{ij}=\log S_{t}^{i}+\log S_{t}^{j}-2\log S_{t},$$

Itô’s formula gives

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}A_{t}^{ij}}{A_{t}^{ij}} =\sqrt{V_{t}^{i}}\,\mathrm{d}B_{t}^{i}+\sqrt{V_{t}^{j}}\,\mathrm{d}B_{t}^{j}$$

$$\quad-2\sum_{k=1}^{n}\Pi_{t}^{k}\sqrt{V_{t}^{k}}\,\mathrm{d}B_{t}^{k}+b_{t}^{ij}\,\mathrm{d}t,$$ (11)

where

$$|b_{t}^{ij}|\leq C\sum_{k=1}^{n}V_{t}^{k}.$$ (12)

Define

$$\bar{X}_{\theta}^{i}:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{V_{0}^{i}\theta}}\int_{0}^{\theta}\sqrt{V_{t}^{i}}\,\mathrm{d}B_{t}^{i},$$

and

$$\widetilde{Z}_{\theta}^{ij}:=\sqrt{V_{0}^{i}}\bar{X}_{\theta}^{i}+\sqrt{V_{0}^{j}}\bar{X}_{\theta}^{j}-2\sum_{k=1}^{n}\Pi_{0}^{k}\sqrt{V_{0}^{k}}\bar{X}_{\theta}^{k}.$$

The constituent price dynamics give

$$X_{\theta}^{i}-\bar{X}_{\theta}^{i}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{V_{0}^{i}\theta}}\int_{0}^{\theta}\left(\frac{S_{t}^{i}}{S_{0}^{i}}-1\right)\sqrt{V_{t}^{i}}\,\mathrm{d}B_{t}^{i}.$$

By continuity of $S^{i}$ and $V^{i}$, $X_{\theta}^{i}-\bar{X}_{\theta}^{i}\to 0$ in probability. Consequently, the $\bar{X}_{\theta}^{i}$ have the same joint limit as the $X_{\theta}^{i}$. We claim that

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{\theta}}\left(\frac{A_{\theta}^{ij}}{A_{0}^{ij}}-1\right)=\widetilde{Z}_{\theta}^{ij}+o_{L^{1}}(1).$$ (13)

Integrating (11) and subtracting $\widetilde{Z}_{\theta}^{ij}$ gives

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{\theta}}\left(\frac{A_{\theta}^{ij}}{A_{0}^{ij}}-1\right)-\widetilde{Z}_{\theta}^{ij}=R_{\theta}^{ij,1}+R_{\theta}^{ij,2}+R_{\theta}^{ij,3},$$

where

$$R_{\theta}^{ij,1} :=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\theta}}\int_{0}^{\theta}\left(\frac{A_{t}^{ij}}{A_{0}^{ij}}-1\right)\left(\sqrt{V_{t}^{i}}\,\mathrm{d}B_{t}^{i}+\sqrt{V_{t}^{j}}\,\mathrm{d}B_{t}^{j}\right.$$

$$\hskip 136.5733pt\left.-2\sum_{k=1}^{n}\Pi_{t}^{k}\sqrt{V_{t}^{k}}\,\mathrm{d}B_{t}^{k}\right),$$

$$R_{\theta}^{ij,2}:=-\frac{2}{\sqrt{\theta}}\sum_{k=1}^{n}\int_{0}^{\theta}\bigl(\Pi_{t}^{k}-\Pi_{0}^{k}\bigr)\sqrt{V_{t}^{k}}\,\mathrm{d}B_{t}^{k},$$

and

$$R_{\theta}^{ij,3}:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\theta}}\int_{0}^{\theta}\frac{A_{t}^{ij}}{A_{0}^{ij}}b_{t}^{ij}\,\mathrm{d}t.$$

Here we used

$$\frac{A_{t}^{ij}}{A_{0}^{ij}}\Pi_{t}^{k}-\Pi_{0}^{k}=\left(\frac{A_{t}^{ij}}{A_{0}^{ij}}-1\right)\Pi_{t}^{k}+\bigl(\Pi_{t}^{k}-\Pi_{0}^{k}\bigr).$$

Because

$$0\leq A_{t}^{ij}\leq 1,\qquad 0\leq\Pi_{t}^{k}\leq 1,$$

continuity gives

$$A_{t}^{ij}\longrightarrow A_{0}^{ij},\qquad\Pi_{t}^{k}\longrightarrow\Pi_{0}^{k}$$

in probability. Uniform integrability of $\{V_{t}^{k}\}_{t}$ therefore implies

$$\mathsf{E}\left[|A_{t}^{ij}-A_{0}^{ij}|^{2}V_{t}^{k}\right]\longrightarrow 0$$

and

$$\mathsf{E}\left[|\Pi_{t}^{k}-\Pi_{0}^{k}|^{2}V_{t}^{\ell}\right]\longrightarrow 0.$$

The Burkholder–Davis–Gundy inequality and Cesàro averaging give

$$R_{\theta}^{ij,1}\longrightarrow 0,\qquad R_{\theta}^{ij,2}\longrightarrow 0$$

in $L^{1}$. Also, by (12),

$$\mathsf{E}|R_{\theta}^{ij,3}|\leq\frac{C}{\sqrt{\theta}}\int_{0}^{\theta}\sum_{k=1}^{n}\mathsf{E}[V_{t}^{k}]\,\mathrm{d}t=O(\sqrt{\theta}).$$

This proves (13).

The same argument also yields

$$\mathsf{E}|A_{t}^{ij}-A_{0}^{ij}|\leq C\sqrt{t}.$$

Step 4: Two-scale expansion of the basket variance.

Decompose

$$V_{t}=\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}A_{0}^{ij}Q_{t}^{ij}\rho^{ij}+D_{t},\qquad D_{t}:=\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}(A_{t}^{ij}-A_{0}^{ij})Q_{t}^{ij}\rho^{ij}.$$ (14)

For each $i,j$,

$$(A_{t}^{ij}-A_{0}^{ij})Q_{t}^{ij} =q^{ij}(t)(A_{t}^{ij}-A_{0}^{ij})+(A_{t}^{ij}-A_{0}^{ij})(Q_{t}^{ij}-q^{ij}(t)).$$

By (13),

$$q^{ij}(\theta)(A_{\theta}^{ij}-A_{0}^{ij}) =\sqrt{\theta}\,A_{0}^{ij}q^{ij}(\theta)\widetilde{Z}_{\theta}^{ij}+o_{L^{1}}(\sqrt{\theta}).$$

On the other hand, $A_{\theta}^{ij}-A_{0}^{ij}$ is bounded and converges to zero in probability, whereas

$$\left\{\frac{Q_{\theta}^{ij}-q^{ij}(\theta)}{r(\theta)}\right\}_{\theta\downarrow 0}$$

is uniformly integrable by Step 2. Hence

$$(A_{\theta}^{ij}-A_{0}^{ij})(Q_{\theta}^{ij}-q^{ij}(\theta))=o_{L^{1}}(r(\theta)).$$

Consequently,

$$D_{\theta} =\sqrt{\theta}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}v^{ij}(\theta)\widetilde{Z}_{\theta}^{ij}+o_{L^{1}}(r(\theta))+o_{L^{1}}(\sqrt{\theta}).$$ (15)

Since $\mathsf{E}[\bar{X}_{\theta}^{i}]=0$, we have $\mathsf{E}[\widetilde{Z}_{\theta}^{ij}]=0$. Taking expectations in (14) and using (15), we obtain

$$\mathsf{E}[V_{\theta}]=v(\theta)+o\bigl(r(\theta)+\sqrt{\theta}\bigr).$$ (16)

Define

$$\eta_{A,\theta}:=\frac{1}{2v(\theta)}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}v^{ij}(\theta)(Y_{\theta}^{i}+Y_{\theta}^{j})$$

and

$$\eta_{B,\theta}:=\frac{1}{v(\theta)}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}v^{ij}(\theta)\widetilde{Z}_{\theta}^{ij}.$$

Subtracting expectations in (14), and using (4), (10), (15) and (16), gives

$$\frac{V_{\theta}}{\mathsf{E}[V_{\theta}]}-1 =r(\theta)\eta_{A,\theta}+\sqrt{\theta}\eta_{B,\theta}+o_{L^{1}}(r(\theta))+o_{L^{1}}(\sqrt{\theta}).$$ (17)

Both $\{\eta_{A,\theta}\}$ and $\{\eta_{B,\theta}\}$ are uniformly integrable. The first assertion follows from the assumed uniform integrability of the $Y_{\theta}^{i}$. For the second, observe that

$$\sup_{0<\theta<\theta_{0}}\mathsf{E}|\bar{X}_{\theta}^{i}|^{2}=\sup_{0<\theta<\theta_{0}}\frac{1}{\theta}\int_{0}^{\theta}\frac{\mathsf{E}[V_{t}^{i}]}{V_{0}^{i}}\,\mathrm{d}t<\infty.$$

Thus the $\bar{X}_{\theta}^{i}$, and hence the $\widetilde{Z}_{\theta}^{ij}$ and $\eta_{B,\theta}$, are uniformly integrable.

Step 5: Application of the short-time implied-volatility expansion.

Let

$$(X^{1},\dots,X^{n},Y^{1},\dots,Y^{n})$$

denote the centered Gaussian limit of

$$(X_{\theta}^{1},\dots,X_{\theta}^{n},Y_{\theta}^{1},\dots,Y_{\theta}^{n}),$$

and define

$$\xi_{\theta}:=\sum_{k=1}^{n}\Pi_{0}^{k}\sqrt{V_{0}^{k}}X_{\theta}^{k},\qquad\xi:=\sum_{k=1}^{n}\Pi_{0}^{k}\sqrt{V_{0}^{k}}X^{k}.$$

By the definition of $X_{\theta}^{k}$ and the identity $\Pi_{0}^{k}=S_{0}^{k}/S_{0}$, we have the exact relation

$$\begin{split}\xi_{\theta}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\theta}}\sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{S_{0}^{k}}{S_{0}}\left(\frac{S_{\theta}^{k}}{S_{0}^{k}}-1\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\theta}}\left(\frac{S_{\theta}}{S_{0}}-1\right).\end{split}$$ (18)

Consequently, $\xi_{\theta}\Longrightarrow\xi$. Moreover,

$$\mathsf{E}[\xi^{2}]=\sum_{k,\ell=1}^{n}\Pi_{0}^{k}\Pi_{0}^{\ell}\sqrt{V_{0}^{k}V_{0}^{\ell}}\rho^{k\ell}=v(0).$$

By (17), the limiting volatility-fluctuation variable is

$$\eta_{A}:=\frac{1}{2v(0)}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}v^{ij}(0)(Y^{i}+Y^{j}).$$

Therefore,

$$\mathsf{E}[\xi\eta_{A}] =\frac{1}{2v(0)}\sum_{i,j,k=1}^{n}v^{ij}(0)\Pi_{0}^{k}\sqrt{V_{0}^{k}}(\psi^{ki}+\psi^{kj})=\sqrt{v(0)}\psi_{A}.$$ (19)

The limiting weight-fluctuation variable is

$$\eta_{B}:=\frac{1}{v(0)}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}v^{ij}(0)\left(\sqrt{V_{0}^{i}}X^{i}+\sqrt{V_{0}^{j}}X^{j}-2\xi\right).$$

For each $i,j$,

$$\mathsf{E}\left[\xi\left(\sqrt{V_{0}^{i}}X^{i}+\sqrt{V_{0}^{j}}X^{j}-2\xi\right)\right]=\sum_{k=1}^{n}\left(\frac{v^{ik}(0)}{\Pi_{0}^{i}}+\frac{v^{jk}(0)}{\Pi_{0}^{j}}\right)-2v(0).$$

It follows that

$$\mathsf{E}[\xi\eta_{B}] =\sum_{i,j,k=1}^{n}\frac{v^{ij}(0)}{v(0)}\left(\frac{v^{ik}(0)}{\Pi_{0}^{i}}+\frac{v^{jk}(0)}{\Pi_{0}^{j}}\right)-2v(0)=\sqrt{v(0)}\psi_{B}.$$ (20)

Before applying (3), we replace its deterministic volatility level by the one appearing in the statement of the theorem. By (16) and Karamata’s theorem (noting that $r(\theta)+\sqrt{\theta}$ is regularly varying with index $H$ if $0\leq H<1/2$, and with index $1/2$ if $H\geq 1/2$),

$$\widehat{v}(\theta)=\frac{1}{\theta}\int_{0}^{\theta}\mathsf{E}[V_{t}]\,\mathrm{d}t=\bar{v}(\theta)+o\bigl(r(\theta)+\sqrt{\theta}\bigr).$$

Since $v(0)>0$, it follows that

$$\sqrt{\widehat{v}(\theta)}=\sqrt{\bar{v}(\theta)}+o\bigl(r(\theta)+\sqrt{\theta}\bigr).$$ (21)

We finally apply (3). Put

$$s(\theta):=r(\theta)+\sqrt{\theta}.$$

Then $s$ is regularly varying at zero with index

$$\kappa:=H\wedge\frac{1}{2},$$

and

$$\frac{V_{\theta}}{\mathsf{E}[V_{\theta}]}-1 =s(\theta)\left\{\frac{r(\theta)}{s(\theta)}\eta_{A,\theta}+\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{s(\theta)}\eta_{B,\theta}\right\}+o_{L^{1}}(s(\theta)).$$ (22)

Given any sequence $\theta_{m}\downarrow 0$, select a subsequence along which, after relabeling,

$$\alpha:=\lim_{m\to\infty}\frac{r(\theta_{m})}{s(\theta_{m})}$$

exists. Along this subsequence, the limiting normalized variance fluctuation is

$$\alpha\eta_{A}+(1-\alpha)\eta_{B}.$$

The corresponding family in (22) is uniformly integrable, and its joint limit with $\xi_{\theta}$ is centered Gaussian. Hence (3), applied with the rate $s$ and index $\kappa$, gives

$$\sigma(\sqrt{\theta}z,\theta) =\sqrt{\bar{v}(\theta)}+\frac{z}{\sqrt{v(0)}}\frac{\alpha\mathsf{E}[\xi\eta_{A}]+(1-\alpha)\mathsf{E}[\xi\eta_{B}]}{2\kappa+3}s(\theta)+o(s(\theta)),$$

uniformly in $z$ on compact sets. The displayed expansion is equivalent to the one in the theorem. Indeed, regular variation implies

$$\begin{array}[]{lll}H<1/2:&\alpha=1,&\kappa=H,\\ H=1/2:&\alpha\in[0,1],&\kappa=1/2,\\ H>1/2:&\alpha=0,&\kappa=1/2.\end{array}$$

Consequently, along the selected subsequence,

$$\frac{\alpha\mathsf{E}[\xi\eta_{A}]+(1-\alpha)\mathsf{E}[\xi\eta_{B}]}{2\kappa+3}s(\theta)$$

$$\qquad=\frac{\mathsf{E}[\xi\eta_{A}]}{2H+3}r(\theta)+\frac{\mathsf{E}[\xi\eta_{B}]}{4}\sqrt{\theta}+o(s(\theta)).$$

Using (19), (20), and (21), we obtain (2) along this subsequence. Since every sequence tending to zero has such a subsequence, the subsequence principle yields (2) along the full limit $\theta\downarrow 0$. ∎

3 Gaussian factor volatility models

We now specialize Theorem 2.1 to volatility models driven by Gaussian Volterra factors. Examples include multifactor Bergomi models [6], rough Bergomi models [5], and quintic volatility models [1].

Let $(W^{1},\dots,W^{d+n})$ be a $(d+n)$-dimensional standard Brownian motion, and let $\{\mathscr{F}_{t}\}$ be its augmented natural filtration. Suppose that

$$B_{t}^{i}=\sum_{l=1}^{d+n}\rho_{l}^{i}W_{t}^{l},\qquad\sum_{l=1}^{d+n}|\rho_{l}^{i}|^{2}=1,$$

so that

$$\rho^{ij}=\sum_{l=1}^{d+n}\rho_{l}^{i}\rho_{l}^{j}.$$

Define the residual return-covariance matrix

$$C^{\perp}_{ij}:=\sum_{l=d+1}^{d+n}\rho_{l}^{i}\rho_{l}^{j},\qquad i,j=1,\dots,n.$$ (23)

Let $Z=(Z^{1},\dots,Z^{q})$ be the centered Gaussian Volterra process defined by

$$Z_{t}^{a}=\sum_{l=1}^{d}\int_{0}^{t}K_{al}(t-s)\,\mathrm{d}W_{s}^{l},\qquad a=1,\dots,q.$$

We assume that each kernel $K_{al}$ is locally square integrable: for any $T>0$,

$$\int_{0}^{T}K_{al}(t)^{2}\,\mathrm{d}t<\infty\qquad a=1,\dots,q,\quad l=1,\dots,d.$$ (24)

Assume also that $Z$ admits a continuous modification. Let $r:(0,t_{0})\to(0,\infty)$ be regularly varying at zero with index $H\in(0,1/2]$. We assume that

$$\kappa_{al}:=\lim_{u\downarrow 0}\frac{\sqrt{u}}{r(u)}K_{al}(u)$$ (25)

exists and is finite for every $a,l$.

In this and the next sections, we suppose that the constituent price processes $S^{i}$ are true martingales with the constituent spot variance processes $V^{i}$ of the form

$$V_{t}^{i}=f^{i}(t,Z_{t}),\qquad i=1,\dots,n,$$ (26)

where $f^{i}:[0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^{q}\to(0,\infty)$ is continuous and continuously differentiable in the factor variables. Put

$$V_{0}^{i}:=f^{i}(0,0),\qquad\beta_{a}^{i}:=\partial_{z_{a}}\log f^{i}(0,0).$$

and define

$$\gamma^{ki}:=\sum_{a=1}^{q}\sum_{l=1}^{d}\beta_{a}^{i}\rho_{l}^{k}\kappa_{al}.$$

Thus $\gamma^{ki}$ is the short-time exposure of the volatility of constituent $i$ to the Brownian shock driving constituent $k$.

Theorem 3.1.

For every $i$, assume that $(t,z)\mapsto\nabla_{z}f^{i}(t,z)$ is continuous at $(0,0)$ and that there exist constants $C,c>0$ such that

$$f^{i}(t,z)+\frac{1}{f^{i}(t,z)}+\left|\nabla_{z}\log f^{i}(t,z)\right|\leq C\exp(c|z|),\qquad(t,z)\in[0,t_{0}]\times\mathbb{R}^{q}.$$ (27)

Then the assumptions of Theorem 2.1 hold with the rate $r$ and

$$\psi^{ki}=\frac{2}{2H+1}\gamma^{ki}.$$ (28)

In particular,

$$\psi_{A}=\frac{1}{v(0)^{3/2}(2H+1)}\sum_{i,j,k=1}^{n}v^{ij}(0)\Pi_{0}^{k}\sqrt{V_{0}^{k}}\bigl(\gamma^{ki}+\gamma^{kj}\bigr),$$ (29)

and if $v(0)>0$,

$$\sigma(\sqrt{\theta}z,\theta) =\sqrt{\bar{v}(\theta)}+\frac{zr(\theta)}{v(0)^{3/2}(2H+1)(2H+3)}\sum_{i,j,k=1}^{n}v^{ij}(0)\Pi_{0}^{k}\sqrt{V_{0}^{k}}\bigl(\gamma^{ki}+\gamma^{kj}\bigr)$$

$$\quad+\frac{\psi_{B}}{4}z\sqrt{\theta}+o\bigl(r(\theta)+\sqrt{\theta}\bigr),$$ (30)

uniformly in $z$ on compact sets.

Proof.

We first verify the delta-method expansion required in Theorem 2.1. The fundamental theorem of calculus gives

$$f^{i}(\theta,Z_{\theta})-f^{i}(\theta,0) =\int_{0}^{1}\nabla_{z}f^{i}(\theta,uZ_{\theta})\cdot Z_{\theta}\,\mathrm{d}u$$

$$=\nabla_{z}f^{i}(0,0)\cdot Z_{\theta}+R_{\theta}^{i},$$

where

$$R_{\theta}^{i}:=\int_{0}^{1}\left\{\nabla_{z}f^{i}(\theta,uZ_{\theta})-\nabla_{z}f^{i}(0,0)\right\}\cdot Z_{\theta}\,\mathrm{d}u.$$

The normalized Gaussian family $\{Z_{\theta}/r(\theta)\}_{\theta\downarrow 0}$ has uniformly bounded moments of every order. Hence continuity at $(0,0)$, (27), and the Gaussian exponential moment bounds imply

$$R_{\theta}^{i}=o_{L^{1}}(r(\theta)).$$

It follows that

$$V_{\theta}^{i}=f^{i}(\theta,0)+\sum_{a=1}^{q}\partial_{z_{a}}f^{i}(0,0)Z_{\theta}^{a}+o_{L^{1}}(r(\theta)).$$ (31)

Since $\mathsf{E}[Z_{\theta}^{a}]=0$, taking expectations gives

$$\mathsf{E}[V_{\theta}^{i}]=f^{i}(\theta,0)+o(r(\theta)).$$

Because $f^{i}(\theta,0)\to V_{0}^{i}>0$, subtracting expectations in (31) and dividing by $r(\theta)\mathsf{E}[V_{\theta}^{i}]$ yields

$$\frac{1}{r(\theta)}\left(\frac{V_{\theta}^{i}}{\mathsf{E}[V_{\theta}^{i}]}-1\right)=\sum_{a=1}^{q}\beta_{a}^{i}\frac{Z_{\theta}^{a}}{r(\theta)}+o_{L^{1}}(1).$$ (32)

The same exponential-moment estimate shows that the families on the left-hand side are uniformly integrable.

By (25),

$$\left(\frac{Z_{\theta}^{1}}{r(\theta)},\dots,\frac{Z_{\theta}^{q}}{r(\theta)}\right)$$

converges to a centered Gaussian vector $(Z^{1},\dots,Z^{q})$ with covariance matrix

$$\mathsf{E}[Z^{a}Z^{b}]=\frac{1}{2H}\sum_{l=1}^{d}\kappa_{al}\kappa_{bl}.$$ (33)

It follows from (32) that

$$Y^{i}=\sum_{a=1}^{q}\beta_{a}^{i}Z^{a}.$$

Moreover,

$$X_{\theta}^{k}=\frac{B_{\theta}^{k}}{\sqrt{\theta}}+o_{\mathsf{P}}(1).$$

Consequently, the joint limit of the $X_{\theta}^{k}$ and $Y_{\theta}^{i}$ is centered Gaussian. Its cross-covariance is

$$\mathsf{E}[X^{k}Z^{a}] =\lim_{\theta\downarrow 0}\frac{1}{r(\theta)\sqrt{\theta}}\sum_{l=1}^{d}\rho_{l}^{k}\int_{0}^{\theta}K_{al}(\theta-s)\,\mathrm{d}s$$

$$=\frac{1}{H+1/2}\sum_{l=1}^{d}\rho_{l}^{k}\kappa_{al}.$$

Therefore,

$$\mathsf{E}[X^{k}Y^{i}]=\frac{1}{H+1/2}\sum_{a=1}^{q}\sum_{l=1}^{d}\beta_{a}^{i}\rho_{l}^{k}\kappa_{al}=\frac{2}{2H+1}\gamma^{ki},$$

which proves (28). Substitution into the definition of $\psi_{A}$ in Theorem 2.1 gives (29), and (30) follows from (2). ∎

Remark 3.1 (The boundary index $H=0$).

The abstract Theorem 2.1 permits $H=0$. The present Volterra criterion does not. Indeed, if $r$ is slowly varying, $r(0+)=0$, and

$$K(u)\sim\kappa\frac{r(u)}{\sqrt{u}}$$

with $\kappa>0$, then

$$\mathsf{E}[Z_{t}^{2}]\asymp\int_{0}^{t}\frac{r(u)^{2}}{u}\,\mathrm{d}u,$$

which is generally larger than $r(t)^{2}$. Thus $Z_{t}/r(t)$ need not be tight, and $r(0+)=0$ alone does not verify the normalized-fluctuation hypothesis of Theorem 2.1. The case $H=0$ therefore requires a different normalization or additional boundary assumptions and a separate analysis.

The expansion (30) is uniform for near-the-money strikes, but uniformity alone does not justify differentiating it at the money. We therefore extend the density argument of El Euch et al. [7] to the basket. Although the basket is not conditionally lognormal, the nondegeneracy of $C^{\perp}$ in (23) gives the uniform Schwartz bounds that replace Lemma 3.4 of [7]. The remaining part of their characteristic-function and Fourier-inversion argument then applies to the stochastic expansion of the log basket.

Put

$$\sigma_{0,\theta}^{2}:=\int_{0}^{\theta}\mathsf{E}[V_{t}]\,\mathrm{d}t,\qquad L_{\theta}:=\frac{\log(S_{\theta}/S_{0})}{\sigma_{0,\theta}},$$ (34)

and let $H_{m}$ denote the probabilists’ Hermite polynomial of degree $m$; in particular,

$$H_{2}(x)=x^{2}-1,\qquad H_{3}(x)=x^{3}-3x.$$

Theorem 3.2 (ATM basket skew and density expansion).

Suppose that the assumptions of Theorem 3.1 hold, that $v(0)>0$, and that $C^{\perp}$ in (23) is positive definite. Assume in addition that there exists $\delta>0$ such that, for every $i$, $\nabla_{z}^{2}\log f^{i}(t,z)$ exists and is continuous on $[0,\delta]\times\{z\in\mathbb{R}^{q}:|z|\leq\delta\}$. Then $L_{\theta}$ in (34) has a smooth density $p_{\theta}$. If

$$s(\theta):=r(\theta)+\sqrt{\theta},\qquad c_{\theta}:=\frac{\psi_{A}}{2H+3}r(\theta)+\frac{\psi_{B}}{4}\sqrt{\theta},$$

then, for every integer $m\geq 0$,

$$\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}}(1+x^{2})^{m}\left|p_{\theta}(x)-q_{\theta}(x)\right|=o\bigl(s(\theta)\bigr),$$ (35)

where

$$q_{\theta}(x) :={}\phi\left(x+\frac{\sigma_{0,\theta}}{2}\right)\left[1+c_{\theta}H_{3}\left(x+\frac{\sigma_{0,\theta}}{2}\right)\right].$$ (36)

Consequently,

$$\mathsf{Q}(S_{\theta}<S_{0})-\Phi\left(\frac{\sigma_{0,\theta}}{2}\right)=\phi(0)c_{\theta}+o\bigl(s(\theta)\bigr).$$ (37)

Equivalently,

$$\mathsf{Q}(S_{\theta}<S_{0})-\Phi\left(\frac{\sqrt{\theta}\,\sigma(0,\theta)}{2}\right)=\phi(0)c_{\theta}+o\bigl(s(\theta)\bigr).$$ (38)

Moreover, $k\mapsto\sigma(k,\theta)$ is differentiable at $k=0$ for all sufficiently small $\theta$, and

$$\partial_{k}\sigma(0,\theta) =\frac{\psi_{A}}{2H+3}\frac{r(\theta)}{\sqrt{\theta}}+\frac{\psi_{B}}{4}+o\left(\frac{r(\theta)}{\sqrt{\theta}}+1\right).$$ (39)

Proof.

We divide the proof into three steps.

Step 1: Smoothness and uniform Fourier estimates.

Let

$$\mathscr{G}_{\theta}:=\sigma\bigl(W_{s}^{l}:0\leq s\leq\theta,\ 1\leq l\leq d\bigr)\vee\mathscr{N},$$

where $\mathscr{N}$ denotes the null sets. Conditional on $\mathscr{G}_{\theta}$, the vector

$$\ell_{\theta}:=\left(\log\frac{S_{\theta}^{1}}{S_{0}^{1}},\ldots,\log\frac{S_{\theta}^{n}}{S_{0}^{n}}\right)$$

is Gaussian. Its conditional covariance matrix is

$$\Gamma_{\theta}=\int_{0}^{\theta}D_{t}C^{\perp}D_{t}\,\mathrm{d}t,\qquad D_{t}:=\operatorname{diag}\left(\sqrt{V_{t}^{1}},\ldots,\sqrt{V_{t}^{n}}\right).$$

Since $C^{\perp}$ is positive definite,

$$\Gamma_{\theta}\geq\lambda_{\min}(C^{\perp})\left(\int_{0}^{\theta}\min_{1\leq i\leq n}V_{t}^{i}\,\mathrm{d}t\right)I_{n}.$$ (40)

Moreover,

$$\log\frac{S_{\theta}}{S_{0}}=G(\ell_{\theta}),\qquad G(x):=\log\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\Pi_{0}^{i}e^{x_{i}}\right).$$

The gradient of $G$ belongs to the unit simplex. In particular,

$$|\nabla G(x)|^{2}\geq\frac{1}{n},\qquad x\in\mathbb{R}^{n},$$

and $G$ has no critical point. All derivatives of $G$ of positive order are bounded.

The lower bound (40), the reciprocal estimate in (27), and the Gaussian exponential moment bounds permit repeated conditional Gaussian integration by parts, with bounds uniform for all sufficiently small $\theta$. Consequently, $L_{\theta}$ has a smooth density $p_{\theta}$. Repeated conditional integration by parts also gives, for every pair of nonnegative integers $a$ and $j$,

$$\sup_{0<\theta<\theta_{0}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}|u|^{j}\left|\mathsf{E}\left[L_{\theta}^{a}e^{iuL_{\theta}}\right]\right|\mathrm{d}u<\infty.$$ (41)

This is the basket counterpart of the Fourier estimate in Lemma 3.4 of [7]. The conditional lognormality used there is replaced here by the conditionally Gaussian vector $\ell_{\theta}$, the nondegeneracy (40), and the fact that $G$ has no critical point.

Step 2: Stochastic and density expansions.

For $i=1,\dots,n$, put

$$\boldsymbol{\beta}^{i}(t):=\nabla_{z}\log f^{i}(t,0).$$

The local $C^{2}$ assumption, (27), and the kernel asymptotics give, for every $p<\infty$, $\|Z_{t}\|_{L^{p}}=O(r(t))$. Hence Taylor’s theorem and Gaussian tail estimates imply

$$\sqrt{V_{t}^{i}}=\sqrt{m^{i}(t)}\left\{1+\frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{\beta}^{i}(t)\cdot Z_{t}\right\}+O_{L^{p}}\bigl(r(t)^{2}\bigr)$$

and

$$V_{t}^{i}=m^{i}(t)\left\{1+\boldsymbol{\beta}^{i}(t)\cdot Z_{t}\right\}+O_{L^{p}}\bigl(r(t)^{2}\bigr).$$

Indeed, Taylor’s theorem gives these estimates on a fixed neighborhood of the origin, while the complement is negligible to every polynomial order by the Gaussian tail estimate and (27). Notice that the coefficients are retained at $(t,0)$; no rate of convergence of $\boldsymbol{\beta}^{i}(t)$ to $\boldsymbol{\beta}^{i}(0)$ is needed.

Put

$$v_{\mathrm{fr}}(t):=\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\Pi_{0}^{i}\Pi_{0}^{j}\rho^{ij}\sqrt{m^{i}(t)m^{j}(t)}.$$

Since $v_{\mathrm{fr}}(t)\to v(0)>0$, it is positive for all sufficiently small $t$. For $l=1,\dots,d+n$, define the deterministic integrand

$$h_{l}(t):=\sqrt{\frac{\mathsf{E}[V_{t}]}{v_{\mathrm{fr}}(t)}}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\Pi_{0}^{i}\sqrt{m^{i}(t)}\rho_{l}^{i}.$$ (42)

Then

$$\sum_{l=1}^{d+n}h_{l}(t)^{2}=\mathsf{E}[V_{t}],$$

and hence

$$M_{\theta}^{(0)}:=\frac{1}{\sigma_{0,\theta}}\sum_{l=1}^{d+n}\int_{0}^{\theta}h_{l}(t)\,\mathrm{d}W_{t}^{l}$$ (43)

is standard normal for every sufficiently small $\theta$. The same product and weight estimates as in the proof of Theorem 2.1, now using the preceding second-order expansions, give

$$\mathsf{E}[V_{t}]=v_{\mathrm{fr}}(t)+O\bigl(r(t)^{2}+r(t)\sqrt{t}+t\bigr)=v_{\mathrm{fr}}(t)+O\bigl(s(t)^{2}\bigr).$$

Consequently, the square-root factor in (42) equals $1+O(s(t)^{2})$. Replacing the frozen-weight Gaussian integral by (43) therefore changes the normalized log return by $O_{L^{p}}(s(\theta)^{2})$ for every $p<\infty$; this difference is included in the remainder below.

The stochastic expansions established in the proof of Theorem 2.1, together with the second-order Taylor expansion

$$G(x)=\Pi_{0}^{\top}x+\frac{1}{2}x^{\top}\left\{\operatorname{diag}(\Pi_{0})-\Pi_{0}\Pi_{0}^{\top}\right\}x+O(|x|^{3}),$$

give

$$L_{\theta}=M_{\theta}^{(0)}-\frac{\sigma_{0,\theta}}{2}+D_{\theta}+R_{\theta},$$ (44)

where $D_{\theta}$ is obtained by retaining the terms linear in $Z_{t}$ in the volatility integrands, with the deterministic coefficients $\boldsymbol{\beta}^{i}(t)$, and the centered quadratic term in the expansion of $G$. Thus $D_{\theta}$ is a centered element of the second Wiener chaos and, for every $p<\infty$,

$$\|D_{\theta}\|_{L^{p}}=O\bigl(s(\theta)\bigr),\qquad\|R_{\theta}\|_{L^{p}}=O\bigl(s(\theta)^{2}\bigr).$$ (45)

We use the following elementary projection identity. If $M=I_{1}(h)$ is standard normal and $D=I_{2}(f)$ belongs to the second Wiener chaos of the same isonormal Gaussian process, then

$$\mathsf{E}[D\mid M]=\frac{1}{2}\mathsf{E}[DH_{2}(M)]H_{2}(M).$$ (46)

Indeed, the conditional expectation is the orthogonal projection of $D$ onto the second Wiener chaos generated by $M$, which is spanned by $H_{2}(M)$, and

$$\mathsf{E}[H_{2}(M)^{2}]=2.$$

Set

$$b_{\theta}:=\frac{1}{2}\mathsf{E}\left[D_{\theta}H_{2}(M_{\theta}^{(0)})\right].$$

By (45), $b_{\theta}=O(s(\theta))$, and (46) gives

$$\mathsf{E}\left[D_{\theta}\mid M_{\theta}^{(0)}\right]=b_{\theta}H_{2}(M_{\theta}^{(0)}).$$ (47)

Put

$$a_{\theta}:=\frac{\sigma_{0,\theta}}{2}.$$

Define

$$\bar{q}_{\theta}(x):=\phi(x+a_{\theta})\left\{1+b_{\theta}H_{3}(x+a_{\theta})\right\}.$$

We now follow the Fourier argument of El Euch et al. [7]. For every nonnegative integer $a$, Taylor’s formula, (45), and (47) give, uniformly in $u\in\mathbb{R}$,

$$\left|\mathsf{E}[L_{\theta}^{a}e^{iuL_{\theta}}]-\int_{\mathbb{R}}x^{a}e^{iux}\bar{q}_{\theta}(x)\,\mathrm{d}x\right|\leq C_{a}(1+|u|)^{2}s(\theta)^{2}.$$

Indeed, the first-order term is identified by integration by parts using

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}\{H_{2}(x)\phi(x)\}=-H_{3}(x)\phi(x),$$

and all second-order terms are $O((1+|u|)^{2}s(\theta)^{2})$. Choose $U_{\theta}=s(\theta)^{-\varepsilon}$ with $0<\varepsilon<1/3$. Integration over $|u|\leq U_{\theta}$ gives $O(s(\theta)^{2-3\varepsilon})=o(s(\theta))$. For $|u|>U_{\theta}$, (41), together with the corresponding immediate bound for $\bar{q}_{\theta}$, gives $o(s(\theta))$ by taking a sufficiently high power of $|u|$. Fourier inversion, applied with $a=0,2,\dots,2m$, therefore gives, for every integer $m\geq 0$,

$$\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}}(1+x^{2})^{m}\left|p_{\theta}(x)-\bar{q}_{\theta}(x)\right|=o\bigl(s(\theta)\bigr).$$ (48)

It remains only to identify $b_{\theta}$. The standard Black–Scholes inversion of (48), carried out exactly as in the proof of Theorem 2.3 of [7], gives

$$\sigma(\sqrt{\theta}z,\theta)=\sqrt{\widehat{v}(\theta)}+b_{\theta}z+o\bigl(s(\theta)\bigr),$$

uniformly in $z$ on compact sets. On the other hand, Theorem 2.1 and (21) give

$$\sigma(\sqrt{\theta}z,\theta)=\sqrt{\widehat{v}(\theta)}+c_{\theta}z+o\bigl(s(\theta)\bigr),$$

where

$$c_{\theta}=\frac{\psi_{A}}{2H+3}r(\theta)+\frac{\psi_{B}}{4}\sqrt{\theta}.$$

Comparison at any fixed $z\neq 0$ gives

$$b_{\theta}=c_{\theta}+o\bigl(s(\theta)\bigr).$$ (49)

Substituting (49) into (48) proves (35).

Step 3: Digital probability and ATM skew.

Integrating (35) over $(-\infty,0)$ gives

$$\mathsf{Q}(S_{\theta}<S_{0}) =\Phi(a_{\theta})+c_{\theta}\int_{-\infty}^{a_{\theta}}H_{3}(y)\phi(y)\,\mathrm{d}y+o\bigl(s(\theta)\bigr)$$

$$=\Phi(a_{\theta})+c_{\theta}(1-a_{\theta}^{2})\phi(a_{\theta})+o\bigl(s(\theta)\bigr)$$

$$=\Phi(a_{\theta})+\phi(0)c_{\theta}+o\bigl(s(\theta)\bigr),$$

because $a_{\theta}=O(\sqrt{\theta})$ and $c_{\theta}=O(s(\theta))$. This proves (37).

Furthermore,

$$\frac{\sigma_{0,\theta}}{\sqrt{\theta}}=\sqrt{\widehat{v}(\theta)}.$$

By (21) and (2) at $z=0$,

$$\sqrt{\theta}\,\sigma(0,\theta)-\sigma_{0,\theta}=o\bigl(\sqrt{\theta}\,s(\theta)\bigr).$$

Consequently, $\Phi(a_{\theta})$ in (37) may be replaced by

$$\Phi\left(\frac{\sqrt{\theta}\,\sigma(0,\theta)}{2}\right),$$

which proves (38).

The smooth density established in Step 1 implies that the put price is differentiable in log-strike. Since the Black–Scholes vega is strictly positive, the implicit-function theorem shows that $k\mapsto\sigma(k,\theta)$ is differentiable near $k=0$. Differentiating the implied-volatility pricing identity at the money gives the exact relation

$$\mathsf{Q}(S_{\theta}<S_{0})-\Phi\left(\frac{\sqrt{\theta}\,\sigma(0,\theta)}{2}\right) =\phi\left(\frac{\sqrt{\theta}\,\sigma(0,\theta)}{2}\right)\sqrt{\theta}\,\partial_{k}\sigma(0,\theta).$$ (50)

Combining this identity with (38) and using $\sqrt{\theta}\,\sigma(0,\theta)\to 0$, we obtain

$$\partial_{k}\sigma(0,\theta)=\frac{c_{\theta}}{\sqrt{\theta}}+o\left(\frac{s(\theta)}{\sqrt{\theta}}\right).$$

Therefore,

$$\partial_{k}\sigma(0,\theta)=\frac{\psi_{A}}{2H+3}\frac{r(\theta)}{\sqrt{\theta}}+\frac{\psi_{B}}{4}+o\left(\frac{r(\theta)}{\sqrt{\theta}}+1\right).$$

This proves (39). ∎

4 Skew stickiness ratio

We now study the short-maturity skew stickiness ratio (SSR) for the basket under the same Gaussian factor model as in the previous section. For the proof, it is convenient to use the alternative total-implied-variance representation in [11].

Fix a maturity $T\in(0,t_{0})$. For $t<T$ and $K>0$, let

$$P_{t}(K):=\mathsf{E}\bigl[(K-S_{T})_{+}\mid\mathscr{F}_{t}\bigr]$$

and define the total implied variance $\Sigma_{t}(K)$ by

$$P_{t}(K)=p\bigl(S_{t},K,\Sigma_{t}(K)\bigr),$$

where $p(s,K,w)$ denotes the Black–Scholes put price with spot $s$, strike $K$, and total variance $w$. Put

$$\Sigma_{t}^{S}:=\Sigma_{t}(S_{t})$$

and write

$$\Sigma_{t}^{\prime}(K):=\partial_{K}\Sigma_{t}(K).$$

Equivalently,

$$\Sigma_{t}(K)=(T-t)\,\sigma_{t}\!\left(\log\frac{K}{S_{t}},T-t\right)^{2},$$

and hence

$$\Sigma_{t}^{S}=(T-t)\sigma_{t}(0,T-t)^{2}.$$

The skew stickiness ratio is originally defined by

$$\operatorname{SSR}_{t}(T):=\frac{1}{\partial_{k}\sigma_{t}(0,T-t)}\frac{\mathrm{d}\langle\sigma^{S},\log S\rangle_{t}}{\mathrm{d}\langle\log S\rangle_{t}},\qquad\sigma_{t}^{S}:=\sigma_{t}(0,T-t),$$ (51)

whenever the denominator is nonzero.

The following equivalent representation is more convenient for our purposes.

Lemma 4.1 (Total-variance representation).

Suppose that $\sigma^{S}$, $\Sigma^{S}$, and $S$ are continuous semimartingales and that $\Sigma_{t}(K)$ is differentiable with respect to $K$ at $K=S_{t}$. Then, whenever $\Sigma_{t}^{\prime}(S_{t})\neq 0$,

$$\operatorname{SSR}_{t}(T)=\frac{1}{\Sigma_{t}^{\prime}(S_{t})}\frac{\mathrm{d}\langle\Sigma^{S},S\rangle_{t}}{\mathrm{d}\langle S\rangle_{t}}.$$ (52)

Proof.

Differentiating

$$\Sigma_{t}(K)=(T-t)\,\sigma_{t}\!\left(\log\frac{K}{S_{t}},T-t\right)^{2}$$

with respect to $K$ and evaluating at $K=S_{t}$ gives

$$\Sigma_{t}^{\prime}(S_{t})=\frac{2(T-t)\sigma_{t}^{S}}{S_{t}}\partial_{k}\sigma_{t}(0,T-t).$$

Moreover, since

$$\Sigma_{t}^{S}=(T-t)(\sigma_{t}^{S})^{2},$$

we have

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\langle\Sigma^{S},S\rangle_{t}}{\mathrm{d}\langle S\rangle_{t}}=2(T-t)\sigma_{t}^{S}\frac{\mathrm{d}\langle\sigma^{S},S\rangle_{t}}{\mathrm{d}\langle S\rangle_{t}}.$$

On the other hand,

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\langle\sigma^{S},\log S\rangle_{t}}{\mathrm{d}\langle\log S\rangle_{t}}=S_{t}\frac{\mathrm{d}\langle\sigma^{S},S\rangle_{t}}{\mathrm{d}\langle S\rangle_{t}}.$$

Combining these identities proves (52). ∎

We next verify explicitly the Malliavin differentiability required by Theorem 1 of [11]. Let $\mathcal{D}^{l}=\{\mathcal{D}_{u}^{l}\}_{u\geq 0}$ denote the Malliavin–Shigekawa derivative with respect to $W^{l}$. On a smooth cylindrical random variable

$$G=f\bigl(W_{t_{1}},\ldots,W_{t_{m}}\bigr),\qquad f\in C_{b}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{m(d+n)}),$$

it is defined by

$$\mathcal{D}_{u}^{l}G=\sum_{r=1}^{m}\partial_{(r,l)}f\bigl(W_{t_{1}},\ldots,W_{t_{m}}\bigr)1_{[0,t_{r}]}(u).$$

This densely defined operator is closable as an operator from $L^{2}(\Omega)$ to $L^{2}(\Omega\times\mathbb{R}_{+};\mathbb{R}^{d+n})$. We denote its closure by

$$\mathcal{D}=(\mathcal{D}^{1},\ldots,\mathcal{D}^{d+n})$$

and its domain by $\mathbb{D}^{1,2}$.

For notational convenience, set

$$K_{al}=0,\qquad l=d+1,\dots,d+n.$$

Since the factors are Gaussian Volterra processes,

$$\mathcal{D}_{u}^{l}Z_{s}^{a}=K_{al}(s-u)1_{\{u<s\}}.$$

Consequently, the Malliavin chain rule gives

$$\mathcal{D}_{t}^{l}\log V_{s}^{j}=\Lambda_{l}^{j}(s,t)1_{\{t<s\}},$$ (53)

where

$$\Lambda_{l}^{j}(s,t):=\sum_{a=1}^{q}\partial_{z_{a}}\log f^{j}(s,Z_{s})K_{al}(s-t),\qquad t<s.$$

In particular,

$$\mathcal{D}_{t}^{l}\sqrt{V_{s}^{j}}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{V_{s}^{j}}\Lambda_{l}^{j}(s,t)1_{\{t<s\}},\qquad\mathcal{D}_{t}^{l}V_{s}^{j}=V_{s}^{j}\Lambda_{l}^{j}(s,t)1_{\{t<s\}}.$$

For each constituent,

$$\mathcal{D}_{t}^{l}\log S_{T}^{j} =\rho_{l}^{j}\sqrt{V_{t}^{j}}+\frac{1}{2}\int_{t}^{T}\sqrt{V_{s}^{j}}\Lambda_{l}^{j}(s,t)\,\mathrm{d}B_{s}^{j}-\frac{1}{2}\int_{t}^{T}V_{s}^{j}\Lambda_{l}^{j}(s,t)\,\mathrm{d}s.$$ (54)

The Gaussian exponential moment bounds, together with (27) and (24), imply

$$\mathsf{E}\left[\sum_{l=1}^{d+n}\int_{0}^{T}\left|\mathcal{D}_{t}^{l}\log S_{T}^{j}\right|^{2}\,\mathrm{d}t\right]<\infty.$$

Thus $\log S_{T}^{j}\in\mathbb{D}^{1,2}$. Since

$$\mathcal{D}_{t}^{l}\log S_{T}=\sum_{j=1}^{n}\Pi_{T}^{j}\mathcal{D}_{t}^{l}\log S_{T}^{j}$$ (55)

and $0\leq\Pi_{T}^{j}\leq 1$, it follows that $\log S_{T}\in\mathbb{D}^{1,2}$.

$$\Lambda^{ij}(s,t):=\sum_{l=1}^{d}\rho_{l}^{i}\Lambda_{l}^{j}(s,t).$$

It follows from (25), the continuity of $\nabla_{z}\log f^{j}$, and (27) that, for every $p<\infty$,

$$\frac{\sqrt{s}}{r(s)}\Lambda^{ij}(s,0)\longrightarrow\gamma^{ij}:=\sum_{a=1}^{q}\sum_{l=1}^{d}\rho_{l}^{i}\beta_{a}^{j}\kappa_{al}$$ (56)

in $L^{p}$ as $s\downarrow 0$.

Lemma 4.2 (Option-surface regularity).

Suppose that $C^{\perp}$ in (23) is positive definite. Then, for every $0\leq t<T$, the conditional law of $S_{T}$ given $\mathscr{F}_{t}$ has a continuous density on $(0,\infty)$. In particular, $K\mapsto P_{t}(K)$ is twice continuously differentiable.

More precisely, if $T_{0}<T$ and $I\Subset(0,\infty)$, the fields $P_{t}(K)$ and $\partial_{K}P_{t}(K)$ admit martingale representations

$$P_{t}(K) =P_{0}(K)+\sum_{l=1}^{d+n}\int_{0}^{t}f_{s}^{l}(K)\,\mathrm{d}W_{s}^{l},$$

$$\partial_{K}P_{t}(K) =\partial_{K}P_{0}(K)+\sum_{l=1}^{d+n}\int_{0}^{t}g_{s}^{l}(K)\,\mathrm{d}W_{s}^{l},$$

whose integrands have versions continuous in $K\in I$ and satisfy

$$\mathsf{E}\left[\int_{0}^{T_{0}}\sup_{K\in I}\sum_{l=1}^{d+n}\bigl(|f_{s}^{l}(K)|^{2}+|g_{s}^{l}(K)|^{2}\bigr)\,\mathrm{d}s\right]<\infty.$$

Consequently, the option-price field satisfies the regularity hypotheses of Theorem 1 of [11]; the implied total-variance field $\Sigma_{t}(K)$ and its ATM evaluation $\Sigma_{t}^{S}$ have the semimartingale and strike-regularity properties used in Lemma 4.1.

Proof.

Condition on $\mathscr{F}_{t}$ and on the paths of the factor Brownian motions $(W^{1},\dots,W^{d})$ over $[t,T]$. The future volatility paths are then fixed, while the Brownian motions $(W^{d+1},\dots,W^{d+n})$ remain independent. The conditional law of $(\log S_{T}^{1},\dots,\log S_{T}^{n})$ is Gaussian with covariance matrix

$$\Gamma_{t,T}^{ij}=C_{ij}^{\perp}\int_{t}^{T}\sqrt{V_{s}^{i}V_{s}^{j}}\,\mathrm{d}s.$$

For $x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\setminus\{0\}$,

$$x^{\top}\Gamma_{t,T}x =\int_{t}^{T}\bigl(\operatorname{diag}(\sqrt{V_{s}^{1}},\dots,\sqrt{V_{s}^{n}})x\bigr)^{\top}C^{\perp}\bigl(\operatorname{diag}(\sqrt{V_{s}^{1}},\dots,\sqrt{V_{s}^{n}})x\bigr)\,\mathrm{d}s>0,$$

because $C^{\perp}$ is positive definite and $V_{s}^{i}>0$. Therefore the conditional vector of constituent log prices has a smooth density. Moreover, for $T_{0}<T$,

$$\lambda_{\min}(\Gamma_{t,T})\geq\lambda_{\min}(C^{\perp})(T-t)\min_{1\leq i\leq n}\inf_{t\leq s\leq T}V_{s}^{i},\qquad t\leq T_{0}.$$

The reciprocal bound in (27), the continuity of $Z$, and Fernique’s theorem imply that the right-hand side has inverse moments of every order, locally uniformly in $t<T$. Hence the conditional Gaussian density and all the derivatives needed below have integrable bounds, locally uniformly in $(t,K)\in[0,T)\times(0,\infty)$.

The image of the conditional Gaussian vector under

$$(x_{1},\dots,x_{n})\longmapsto\sum_{i=1}^{n}e^{x_{i}}$$

has a continuous density on $(0,\infty)$: the map is a smooth submersion, and the preceding bounds justify the coarea formula and integration over the future factor paths. Differentiation under the conditional expectation therefore gives

$$\partial_{K}P_{t}(K)=\mathsf{Q}(S_{T}<K\mid\mathscr{F}_{t}),\qquad\partial_{KK}P_{t}(K)=p_{S_{T}\mid\mathscr{F}_{t}}(K),$$

with the asserted joint continuity.

The Brownian martingale-representation theorem applied to $P(K)$ and $\partial_{K}P(K)$ gives the displayed integrands. Conditional Gaussian differentiation, together with the inverse-covariance moment bounds above, gives versions that are continuous in $K$ and the stated local square-integrability bound. These are precisely the option-surface regularity conditions used in [11]. Finally, the implicit-function theorem applies to the Black–Scholes pricing identity because its derivative with respect to total variance is strictly positive. The random-field Itô–Wentzell formula then gives the asserted semimartingale properties of $\Sigma_{t}(K)$ and $\Sigma_{t}^{S}$. ∎

Differentiating the option-pricing identity with respect to strike gives

$$\Sigma_{t}^{\prime}(S_{t})=\frac{2\sqrt{\Sigma_{t}^{S}}}{S_{t}\phi(\sqrt{\Sigma_{t}^{S}}/2)}Y_{t}^{T},$$ (57)

where

$$Y_{t}^{T}:=\mathsf{Q}(S_{T}<S_{t}\mid\mathscr{F}_{t})-\Phi\left(\frac{\sqrt{\Sigma_{t}^{S}}}{2}\right).$$ (58)

Here $\Phi$ and $\phi$ denote the standard normal distribution function and density, respectively.

Since $\log S_{T}\in\mathbb{D}^{1,2}$, the same Clark–Ocone argument as in Theorem 1 of [11], applied to the $d+n$ Brownian drivers, gives

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\langle\Sigma^{S},S\rangle_{t}}{\mathrm{d}\langle S\rangle_{t}}=\frac{2\sqrt{\Sigma_{t}^{S}}}{S_{t}\phi(\sqrt{\Sigma_{t}^{S}}/2)}A_{t}^{T},$$ (59)

where

$$A_{t}^{T} :=\mathsf{E}\left[1_{\{S_{T}<S_{t}\}}\frac{S_{T}}{S_{t}}\left(1-\frac{1}{V_{t}}\sum_{l=1}^{d+n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\Pi_{t}^{i}\sqrt{V_{t}^{i}}\rho_{l}^{i}\mathcal{D}_{t}^{l}\log S_{T}\right)\,\middle|\,\mathscr{F}_{t}\right].$$ (60)

Indeed,

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\langle W^{l},S\rangle_{t}}{\mathrm{d}\langle S\rangle_{t}}=\frac{1}{S_{t}V_{t}}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\Pi_{t}^{i}\sqrt{V_{t}^{i}}\rho_{l}^{i}.$$

Combining (52), (57), and (59) yields the exact identity

$$\operatorname{SSR}_{t}(T)=\frac{A_{t}^{T}}{Y_{t}^{T}},$$ (61)

whenever $Y_{t}^{T}\neq 0$, or equivalently $\Sigma_{t}^{\prime}(S_{t})\neq 0$. This is the total-variance representation that we use in the short-maturity analysis.

Theorem 4.1.

Suppose that the assumptions of Theorem 3.1 hold, that $v(0)>0$, and that $C^{\perp}$ in (23) is positive definite. Assume in addition that there exists $\delta>0$ such that, for every $i$, $\nabla_{z}^{2}\log f^{i}(t,z)$ exists and is continuous on $[0,\delta]\times\{z\in\mathbb{R}^{q}:|z|\leq\delta\}$. Then, as $\theta\downarrow 0$,

$$A_{0}^{\theta}=\frac{\phi(0)}{2}\left(\psi_{A}r(\theta)+\psi_{B}\sqrt{\theta}\right)+o\bigl(r(\theta)+\sqrt{\theta}\bigr).$$ (62)

$$Y_{0}^{\theta}=\phi(0)\left(\frac{\psi_{A}}{2H+3}r(\theta)+\frac{\psi_{B}}{4}\sqrt{\theta}\right)+o\bigl(r(\theta)+\sqrt{\theta}\bigr).$$ (63)

Consequently, if

$$\psi_{A}\neq 0\quad\text{when }H<\frac{1}{2},$$

and, when $H=1/2$, if

$$\liminf_{\theta\downarrow 0}\frac{|\psi_{A}r(\theta)+\psi_{B}\sqrt{\theta}|}{r(\theta)+\sqrt{\theta}}>0,$$

then

$$\lim_{\theta\downarrow 0}\operatorname{SSR}_{0}(\theta)=H+\frac{3}{2}.$$

In particular, the limit is equal to $2$ when $H=1/2$.

Proof.

We first derive the expansion of $A_{0}^{\theta}$. By (54) and (55),

$$\mathcal{D}_{t}^{l}\log S_{T} =\sum_{j=1}^{n}\Pi_{T}^{j}\sqrt{V_{t}^{j}}\rho_{l}^{j}$$

$$\quad+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{n}\Pi_{T}^{j}\left(\int_{t}^{T}\sqrt{V_{s}^{j}}\Lambda_{l}^{j}(s,t)\,\mathrm{d}B_{s}^{j}-\int_{t}^{T}V_{s}^{j}\Lambda_{l}^{j}(s,t)\,\mathrm{d}s\right).$$

Substitution into (60), with $t=0$ and $T=\theta$, gives

$$A_{0}^{\theta}=A_{A,0}^{\theta}+A_{B,0}^{\theta},$$

where

$$A_{A,0}^{\theta} :=-\mathsf{E}\Bigg[\frac{1_{\{S_{\theta}<S_{0}\}}S_{\theta}}{2S_{0}V_{0}}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\Pi_{\theta}^{j}\Pi_{0}^{i}\sqrt{V_{0}^{i}}\bigg(\int_{0}^{\theta}\sqrt{V_{s}^{j}}\Lambda^{ij}(s,0)\,\mathrm{d}B_{s}^{j}$$

$$\hskip 150.79968pt-\int_{0}^{\theta}V_{s}^{j}\Lambda^{ij}(s,0)\,\mathrm{d}s\bigg)\Bigg],$$ (64)

$$A_{B,0}^{\theta} :=\mathsf{E}\left[1_{\{S_{\theta}<S_{0}\}}\frac{S_{\theta}}{S_{0}}\left(1-\frac{1}{V_{0}}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\Pi_{\theta}^{j}\Pi_{0}^{i}\sqrt{V_{0}^{i}V_{0}^{j}}\rho^{ij}\right)\right].$$

For the first term, define

$$\widehat{X}_{\theta}^{j}:=\frac{1}{r(\theta)}\int_{0}^{\theta}\frac{r(s)}{\sqrt{s}}\,\mathrm{d}B_{s}^{j}.$$

Jointly with $\xi_{\theta}$, the vector

$$\bigl(\widehat{X}_{\theta}^{1},\ldots,\widehat{X}_{\theta}^{n},\xi_{\theta}\bigr)$$

converges to a centered Gaussian vector

$$\bigl(\widehat{X}^{1},\ldots,\widehat{X}^{n},\xi\bigr)$$

satisfying

$$\mathsf{E}[\widehat{X}^{j}\xi]=\frac{1}{H+1/2}\sum_{k=1}^{n}\Pi_{0}^{k}\sqrt{V_{0}^{k}}\rho^{kj}.$$ (65)

Indeed, Karamata’s theorem gives

$$\mathsf{E}[(\widehat{X}_{\theta}^{j})^{2}]=\frac{1}{r(\theta)^{2}}\int_{0}^{\theta}\frac{r(s)^{2}}{s}\,\mathrm{d}s\longrightarrow\frac{1}{2H},$$

and the same theorem gives (65). Since $\mathsf{E}[\xi^{2}]=v(0)$, Gaussian regression gives

$$\mathsf{E}[\widehat{X}^{j}1_{\{\xi<0\}}]=-\phi(0)\frac{\mathsf{E}[\widehat{X}^{j}\xi]}{\sqrt{v(0)}}.$$

By (56), Karamata’s theorem, and the Gaussian moment bounds,

$$\frac{1}{r(\theta)}\int_{0}^{\theta}\sqrt{V_{s}^{j}}\Lambda^{ij}(s,0)\,\mathrm{d}B_{s}^{j} \Longrightarrow\sqrt{V_{0}^{j}}\gamma^{ij}\widehat{X}^{j},$$

jointly with $\xi_{\theta}$, whereas

$$\mathsf{E}\left|\int_{0}^{\theta}V_{s}^{j}\Lambda^{ij}(s,0)\,\mathrm{d}s\right|=O\bigl(r(\theta)\sqrt{\theta}\bigr)=o(r(\theta)).$$

Furthermore, (18) gives $1_{\{S_{\theta}<S_{0}\}}=1_{\{\xi_{\theta}<0\}}$. Since $\mathsf{Q}(\xi=0)=0$, the continuous mapping theorem implies that this indicator and the normalized stochastic integrals above converge jointly in law to $1_{\{\xi<0\}}$ and their respective limits. After localization on compact sets of factor and price paths, the normalized products in (64) are uniformly integrable. The localization can be removed using the Gaussian moment bounds and the true-martingale property of the prices. Since $S_{\theta}/S_{0}\to 1$ and $\Pi_{\theta}^{j}\to\Pi_{0}^{j}$ in probability, Slutsky’s theorem and uniform integrability therefore allow us to pass to expectations and obtain

$$\frac{A_{A,0}^{\theta}}{r(\theta)}\longrightarrow\frac{\phi(0)}{v(0)^{3/2}(2H+1)}\sum_{i,j,k=1}^{n}v^{jk}(0)\Pi_{0}^{i}\sqrt{V_{0}^{i}}\gamma^{ij}.$$

By the symmetry of $v^{jk}(0)$,

$$\sum_{i,j,k=1}^{n}v^{jk}(0)\Pi_{0}^{i}\sqrt{V_{0}^{i}}\gamma^{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j,k=1}^{n}v^{ij}(0)\Pi_{0}^{k}\sqrt{V_{0}^{k}}\bigl(\gamma^{ki}+\gamma^{kj}\bigr).$$

It follows from (29) that

$$A_{A,0}^{\theta}=\frac{\phi(0)}{2}\psi_{A}r(\theta)+o(r(\theta)).$$ (66)

We next consider $A_{B,0}^{\theta}$. Let

$$U_{\theta}^{j}:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\theta}}\left(\frac{\Pi_{\theta}^{j}}{\Pi_{0}^{j}}-1\right).$$

The first-order weight expansion gives, jointly with $\xi_{\theta}$,

$$U_{\theta}^{j}\Longrightarrow U^{j}:=\sqrt{V_{0}^{j}}X^{j}-\xi.$$

Since

$$\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}v^{ij}(0)=v(0),$$

we have

$$1-\frac{1}{V_{0}}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\Pi_{\theta}^{j}\Pi_{0}^{i}\sqrt{V_{0}^{i}V_{0}^{j}}\rho^{ij}=-\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{v(0)}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}v^{ij}(0)U_{\theta}^{j}+o_{L^{1}}(\sqrt{\theta}).$$

Together with

$$\frac{S_{\theta}/S_{0}-1}{\sqrt{\theta}}\Longrightarrow\xi,$$

this implies

$$\frac{A_{B,0}^{\theta}}{\sqrt{\theta}} \longrightarrow-\frac{1}{v(0)}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}v^{ij}(0)\mathsf{E}[U^{j}1_{\{\xi<0\}}]=\frac{\phi(0)}{v(0)^{3/2}}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}v^{ij}(0)\mathsf{E}[U^{j}\xi].$$

Furthermore,

$$\mathsf{E}[U^{j}\xi]=\sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{v^{jk}(0)}{\Pi_{0}^{j}}-v(0).$$

Using the symmetry of $v^{ij}(0)$ in the definition of $\psi_{B}$, we obtain

$$\psi_{B}=\frac{2}{v(0)^{3/2}}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}v^{ij}(0)\mathsf{E}[U^{j}\xi].$$

Consequently,

$$A_{B,0}^{\theta}=\frac{\phi(0)}{2}\psi_{B}\sqrt{\theta}+o(\sqrt{\theta}).$$ (67)

Combining (66) and (67) proves (62).

The expansion (63) is exactly (38), in view of (58) and $\sqrt{\Sigma_{0}^{S}}=\sqrt{\theta}\,\sigma(0,\theta)$. The rest is clear from the exact representation (61). ∎