Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abstract
In this note we propose a simple two-factor multi-curve model where Fed-fund,
SOFR and LIBOR rates are modeled jointly. The model is used to price the newly
quoted SOFR futures as well as Eurodollar futures. We then derive pricing formulas
for SOFR-based swaps, and show how the valuations of LIBOR-based swaps as well
as LIBOR-SOFR basis swaps are impacted by the introduction of a new LIBOR
fallback.
1 Introduction
With the purpose of proposing a new, IOSCO compliant, interest rate benchmark, the US
Alternative Reference Rates Committee (ARRC) identified a treasuries repo financing rate,
which they called Secured Overnight Funding Rate (SOFR), as the best replacement for
LIBOR. Similar decisions were made by regulators in other countries. In the UK, LIBOR
will be replaced with reformed SONIA, while CHF OIS and swap markets have transitioned
from TOIS to SARON, a secured overnight rate based on repo trades.
Each business day, starting April 3, 2018, the New York Fed has been publishing the
SOFR on the New York Fed website. The SOFR includes all trades in the Broad General
Collateral Rate plus bilateral Treasury repurchase agreement (repo) transactions cleared
through the Delivery-versus-Payment (DVP) service offered by the Fixed Income Clearing
Corporation (FICC). It is calculated as a volume-weighted median of transaction-level
tri-party repo data collected from the Bank of New York Mellon as well as GCF Repo
transaction data and data on bilateral Treasury repo transactions cleared through FICC’s
DVP service.
On May 7, 2018, CME launched 1-month and 3-month SOFR futures contracts. The
contract listings of the 1-month futures comprise the nearest 7 calendar months. The
contract listings of the 3-month futures comprise the 20 March quarterly months starting
∗
The views and opinions expressed in this article are my own and do not represent the opinions of any
firm or institution. Bloomberg LP and Bloomberg Professional service are trademarks and service marks
of Bloomberg Finance L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, or its subsidiaries. All rights reserved.
where L(t, T ) is the time-t spot LIBOR with maturity T . We denote by τj the year fraction
for the interval [Tj−1 , Tj ), and by Qj the Tj -forward measure.
where f (0, t) is the instantaneous OIS forward rate at time 0 with maturity t.
The simply-compounded OIS forward rate for the interval [Tj−1 , Tj ) is defined, as in
the classic single-curve case, by
1 P (t, Tj−1 )
Fj (t) = −1
τj P (t, Tj )
This is the correct definition also under SOFR discounting thanks to the assumption of
deterministic OIS-SOFR basis.
The forward rate Fj (t) is a martingale under the (OIS) Tj -forward measure Qj . Appli-
cation of Ito’s lemma and formula (4) lead to the following Qj -dynamics:
1
dFj (t) = Fj (t) + [B(t, Tj ) − B(t, Tj−1 )]σ(t) dZj (t) (5)
τj
where Zj is a standard Qj -Brownian motion.
where x is the process defined in (3) and β is a deterministic function to be used to calibrate
the time-0 SOFR curve.
This implies that
s(t) − r(t) = β(t) − α(t) = γ(t)
By definition Bj is Qj−1 -martingale. Using (5) and (12), the Qj -dynamics of Bj is:
1 Lj (t) + αj
dBj (t) = · · · dt + Bj (t) + σj (t) dWj (t) − (B(t, Tj ) − B(t, Tj−1 ))σ(t) dZj (t)
τj Lj (t) + τ1j
(17)
1 Ps (0, T − δ) 1 A(0, T )
fs1m (0; T − δ, T ) = ln + ln
δ Ps (0, T ) δ A(0, T − δ)
1 1 A(0, T ) (25)
= ln[1 + δFs (0; T − δ, T )] + ln
δ δ A(0, T − δ)
1m
= Rs (0; T − δ, T ) + Cs (0; T − δ, T )
1 A(0, T )
Cs1m (0; T − δ, T ) = ln (26)
δ A(0, T − δ)
2
The case of the exact discrete-time payoff is addressed in Harris (2018).
σ2
1m 2 −aT aδ 1 −2aT 2aδ
Cs (0; T − δ, T ) = δ + e (1 − e ) − e (1 − e )
2δa2 a 2a
(27)
σ2
= [3T 2 − 3T δ + δ 2 ] + O(a)
6
Since δ ≈ 1/12, the maximum T ≈ 7/12 and σ typically below 1%, then Cs1m (0; T − δ, T )
is likely to be a fraction of a basis point even for the longest quoted maturity. So, to a
high degree of accuracy, fs1m (0; T − δ, T ) ≈ Rs (0; T − δ, T ).
As per the prompt futures contract, that is when T − δ < 0, part of the integral in (23)
has already been accumulated. In this case, we have:
1 0 1 T
Z Z
1m
fs (0; T − δ, T ) = s(u) du + β(u) du
δ T −δ δ 0
(28)
1 0
Z
1 A(0, T )
= s(u) du + ln
δ T −δ δ Ps (0, T )
10
T11m < T21m < T31m < T13m < T41m < T51m < T61m < T23m < T71m < T33m < T43m < . . . < T20
3m
SOFR discount factors can be stripped from the available 1m- and 3m-SOFR futures
3m
quotes for maturities T11m , . . . , TN1m and T13m , . . . , TM as follows.
Denoting by δj the year fraction for the interval [Tj−1 , Tj1m ), the discount factor for T11m
1m
The subsequent discount factors, for j = 2, . . . , N , are then obtained recursively using (25),
that is:
A(0, Tj1m ) −δj f 1m (0;T 1m ,T 1m )
Ps (0, Tj1m ) = Ps (0, Tj−1
1m
) 1m
e s j−1 j (35)
A(0, Tj−1 )
3m
As per 3m-SOFR futures, we denote by τj the year fraction for the interval [Tj−1 , Tj3m ),
3m
and calculate the discount factor for T1 using (33), that is:
R0
s(u) du A2 (0, T13m )
Ps (0, T13m ) = e T03m
3m
1 + τ1 fs,1 (0)
The subsequent discount factors, for j = 2, . . . , M , are then obtained recursively using
(31), that is:
3m
Ps (0, Tj−1 ) Uj
Ps (0, Tj3m ) = 3m
e
1 + τj fs,j (0)
In the absence of SOFR swap quotes, a SOFR curve can then be constructed by as-
suming, for instance, a deterministic basis between OIS swap or forward rates and the
corresponding synthetic SOFR rates. This is the approached followed by Bloomberg. A
snapshot of the Bloomberg SOFR curve on July 30, 2018 is presented in Figure 2.
If SOFR swap quotes are available, one can then use them to construct a SOFR curve
in the mid to long end, see the following section for the pricing formulas.
11
Therefore, at time t ≤ Ta , the SOFR swap value to the fixed-rate payer is given by
b
X d
X
τj P (t, Tj )Fjs (t) −K τj0 P (t, Tj0 )
j=a+1 j=c+1
where τj0 denotes the year fraction for the fixed-leg interval [Tj−1
0
, Tj0 ).
The corresponding forward swap rate is then defined as the fixed rate K that makes
the swap value equal to zero at time t, that is:
Pb s
j=a+1 τj P (t, Tj )Fj (t)
S(t) = Pd 0 0
j=c+1 τj P (t, Tj )
12
and R
t Pb
s(u) du 1 s
P (t, Ta+1 ) e Ta Ps (t,Ta+1 )
− 1 + j=a+2 τj P (t, Tj )Fj (t)
S(t) = Pd 0 0
j=c+1 τj P (t, Tj )
Formulas simplify when SOFR is the chosen PAI. In this case, by (2) and thanks to the
assumption of a deterministic basis γ, the OIS discount factors in the swap and swap-rate
formulas must be replaced with the corresponding SOFR ones. Therefore, under SOFR
discounting, the formulas for a SOFR forward-start swap and the associated forward swap
rates are equal to the corresponding LIBOR-based ones in a single-curve set up. The exact
same result can be obtained, more naturally and directly, by assuming that SOFR, and
not Fed-fund, is the risk-free rate.
where we set Lj (t) = L(Ta , Ta+1 ) if Ta ≤ t < Ta+1 . This valuation relies on LIBOR being
published at least until the last LIBOR fixing date Tb−1 , so that forwards Lj (t) can be
defined accordingly. However, soon enough this may no longer be the case. LIBOR is
in fact very likely to be discontinued before the end of 2021, and ISDA already started
consultations with the industry on the definition of a new LIBOR fallback. This means
that swaps like the above are standard up to some payment time Tk (included), and from
Tk (excluded) on become swaps written on a new interest rate index. Assuming Tk > Ta ,
the valuation of the above swap must then be modified as follows:4
k
X b
X d
X
τj P (t, Tj )Lj (t) + τj P (t, Tj )L̂j (t) − K τj0 P (t, Tj0 ) (37)
j=a+1 j=k+1 j=c+1
4
It Tk ≤ Ta , then the (forward-start) swap will pay the LIBOR fallback on each payment date of the
floating leg, leading to a simpler valuation formula.
13
The methodology for the new LIBOR fallback L̂(Tj−1 , Tj ) has not been decided yet. How-
ever, the consensus is that it will be defined as the sum of a SOFR-based term rate
R(Tj−1 , Tj ) applied to the interval [Tj−1 , Tj ], and a LIBOR-SOFR basis spread S(T ∗ ) cal-
culated at the time T ∗ < Tk when an official announcement of LIBOR discontinuation will
be given:
L̂(Tj−1 , Tj ) = R(Tj−1 , Tj ) + S(T ∗ )
where S(T ∗ ) is the difference between the LIBOR and the SOFR-based term rate calculated
at T ∗ .5 Therefore, we can write:
where Rj (t) is the time-t forward of R(Tj−1 , Tj ), that is: Rj (t) = ETj R(Tj−1 , Tj )|Ft .
Forwards L̂j (t) can be calculated using a multi-curve model, like the one we propose
in this paper, where SOFR and LIBOR (and possibly OIS) rates are jointly modeled.
This allows us to calculate SOFR-based forwards Rj (t), should the choice of term rate
R(Tj−1 , Tj ) generate a convexity adjustment for Rj (t), as is the case for instance when
we set R(Tj−1 , Tj ) = s(Tj−1 ). It will also allow us to calculate expected values of S(T ∗ ),
should it be modeled as stochastic. In fact, there is no a-priori reason why SOFR-based
and LIBOR-based swaps will be valued in a way consistent with the the assumption of a
deterministic basis S(T ∗ ).
where, for simplicity, we also assume t ≤ Ta < Tk . The case when Ta < t < Ta+1 , which
we omit for brevity, is based on the formula for the floating-leg value in (36).
5
An alternative definition is based on using the forward spread at T ∗ for the interval [Tj−1 , Tj ].
14
References
[1] Fujii, M., Shimada, Y. and A. Takahashi (2010). A note on construc-
tion of multiple swap curves with and without collateral. Available online at
https://www.fsa.go.jp/frtc/seika/discussion/2009/20100203-1.pdf
[2] Harris, J. (2018) Modeling Interest Rate Futures Convexity. Working paper,
Bloomberg, London.
[3] Henrard, M. (2014) Interest Rate Modelling in the Multi-Curve Framework: Founda-
tions, Evolution and Implementation. Palgrave Macmillan.
[4] Hull, J., White, A. (1990) Pricing Interest-Rate-Derivative Securities. Review of fi-
nancial studies 3(4), 573-592.
[5] Mercurio, F. (2009) Interest Rates and The Credit Crunch: New Formulas and Market
Models. Available online at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id=1332205
[6] Mercurio, F. (2017) The Present of Futures: Valuing Eurodollar-Futures Convexity
Adjustments in a Multi-Curve World. Available online at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id=2987832
[7] Mercurio, F. (2018) The Present of Futures, r isk.net March, 1-6
15
16
where Z T
1 2 2
A(t, T ) = exp σ (u)B (u, T ) du
2 t
Therefore, the price at time t of the OIS zero-coupon bond with maturity T is given by:
R
− tT r(u) du
P (t, T ) = E e |Ft
R R
=E e − tT x(u) du T
|Ft e− t α(u) du (44)
RT
= e− t α(u) du
A(t, T )e−B(t,T )x(t)
Matching OIS zero-coupon bond prices at time 0 gives
Z T
A(0, T )
α(u) du = ln (45)
0 P (0, T )
which, taking the time-T derivative of both sides, leads to
Z t
α(t) = f (0, t) + σ 2 (u) e−a(t−u) B(u, t) du
0
17
Therefore, the ratio of SOFR and OIS discount factors is given by the expected value, in
the corresponding forward measure, of the stochastic discount factor calculated using an
instantaneous rate equal to γ(t).
The simply-compounded SOFR forward rate Fjs (t) for the interval [Tj−1 , Tj ) is defined
by (10). We have:
R Tj
s Tj Tj−1 s(u) du
1 + τj Fj (t) = E e |Ft
R R Tj
1 T
− t j r(u) du Tj−1 s(u) du
= E e e |Ft
P (t, Tj )
R R Tj
1 T
− t j−1 r(u) du Tj−1 γ(u) du
= E e e |Ft
P (t, Tj ) (51)
R Tj
P (t, Tj−1 ) Tj−1 Tj−1 γ(u) du
= E e |Ft
P (t, Tj )
h R Tj i
Tj − t γ(u) du
Ps (t, Tj−1 ) E e |Ft R Tj
γ(u) du
Tj−1
= h iE e Tj−1 |Ft
Ps (t, Tj ) ETj−1 e− RtTj−1 γ(u) du |F
t
In general, therefore, 1 + τj Fjs (t) is equal to the corresponding ratio of SOFR discount
factors, provided it is multiplied by a correction term, which is identically equal to 1 when
γ(t) is deterministic, and model dependent when γ is stochastic.
18