Prof. R
udiger Frey,
ruediger.frey@wu.ac.at
Version from June 13, 2016, Comments welcome
Contents
1 Discrete-Time Models: a Wrap-Up
1.1
Basic notions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.2
2.3
11
11
2.1.1
Basic Notions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
2.1.2
Classes of Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
13
2.2.1
Stopping Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
2.2.2
17
Brownian Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
2.3.1
18
2.3.2
19
2.3.3
Quadratic Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
3 Pathwise It
o-Calculus
23
3.1
It
os formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
3.2
26
3.2.1
Quadratic Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
3.2.2
26
3.3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
3.3.1
Covariation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
3.3.2
The d-dimensional It
o-formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
32
32
4.2
4.3
4.4
33
4.2.1
Basic Notions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
4.2.2
34
35
4.3.1
The formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
4.3.2
36
4.3.3
Volatility estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
Further applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
4.4.1
40
4.4.2
Model Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
and
M2,c
42
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
5.1.1
The Spaces
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
5.1.2
45
5.1.3
46
5.1.4
Kunita-Watanabe characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47
5.2
49
5.3
52
5.3.1
Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52
5.3.2
Density martingales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53
5.3.3
54
58
Basic Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
6.1.1
The Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
6.1.2
60
6.1.3
61
6.1.4
Change of numeraire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63
6.2
64
6.3
65
6.3.2
67
6.3.3
68
70
70
7.1.1
70
7.1.2
71
7.1.3
77
8 Term-Structure Modelling
79
8.1
79
8.2
Short-Rate Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
8.2.1
81
8.2.2
82
8.2.3
Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
83
HJM-Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84
8.3.1
88
88
8.4.1
The Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
89
8.4.2
91
8.4.3
94
8.3
8.4
A Mathematical Background
96
96
96
97
iii
Introduction
The goal of these notes is to give the reader a formal yet accessible introduction to continuous time nancial mathematics. Continuous-time models are admittedly more complicated
than their discrete-time counterparts. Nonetheless there are a number of good reasons to
deal with them: To begin with, on many markets with very frequent trading the assumption
of continuous security trading is closer to reality than assuming that markets are open only
at xed time points such as once a day. Moreover, in continuous-time models we can often
get closed form solutions for derivatives prices which are not available in discrete models.
Finally continuous-time modelling is the state-of-the art in the modern literature.
The presentation starts with a brief introduction to discrete-time models (Chapter 1).
We explain the notion of dynamic hedging and introduce the concept of an equivalent
martingale-measure. Moreover, we discuss the fundamental theorems of asset pricing and
derive the risk-neutral pricing principle. To illustrate these concepts we briey discuss
the binomial model of Cox, Ross & Rubinstein (1979). The core part of these notes is
dedicated to models in continuous time. In Chapter 2 we give some basic facts about
stochastic processes and introduce Brownian motion. We discuss sample paths properties
and in particular the quadratic variation of Brownian motion. Chapter 3 is devoted to parts
of the pathwise Ito-calculus of F
ollmer (1981). This approach enables us to derive all the
mathematical tools necessary for an analysis of the Black-Scholes model in a rigorous but
simple way. In Chapter 4 we present a rst analysis of the Black-Scholes model via partial
dierential equations (PDEs), followed by a brief digression into portfolio optimization
via stochastic control methods and the HJB equation. Chapter 5 provides further tools
from stochastic calculus, most notably a discussion of the Girsanov theorem. In Chapter 6
these tools are applied to nancial issues: we analyze basic principles of derivative pricing in
continuous time, discuss the Black-Scholes model from a probabilistic perspective and study
generalized Black Scholes models with more than one asset. We give a brief introduction to
portfolio optimization and dynamic programming in 7. The text closes with a discussion of
interest rate models and gives applications to interest-rate and and currency derivatives (in
Chapter 8). Finally, a short appendix contains some background material on conditional
expectations and discrete-time martingales.
There are many excellent textbooks on pricing and hedging of derivatives on various levels
available. Good elementary texts are Cox & Rubinstein (1985) or Jarrow & Turnbull
(1996); Hull (1997) is particularly popular with practitioners. Slightly more advanced
texts which give also an introduction to stochastic calculus include Lamberton & Lapeyre
(1996), Shreve (2004), Bjork (2004) and Bingham & Kiesel (1998). In preparing these
notes we relied a lot on the last two texts. Advanced texts on mathematical nance are
Musiela & Rutkowski (1997) and Karatzas & Shreve (1998); Cont & Tankov (2003) gives
an excellent introduction to nancial modelling with jump processes. The necessary tools
from probability theory can be found in Williams (1991) or in Jacod & Protter (2004).
Good introductions to stochastic calculus in general are (in increasing order of technicality)
Oksendal (1998), Karatzas & Shreve (1988), Protter (2005) and Revuz & Yor (1994).
These lecture notes grew out of various lecture courses taught by the author at the Vienna University of Economics and Business, the University of Leipzig and the University
of Z
urich; the audience consisted of master or PhD students in nancial mathematics or
in quantitative nance. At this point a warning is in order. This text is not a published
1
textbook. Hence some sections are more polished than others, there are (slight) inconsistencies in the notation between chapters and there is almost surely a number of errors
and typos in the text. Of course I intend to improve the text over time, and I am grateful
for any error which is being pointed out to me (ruediger.frey@wu.ac.at).
R
udiger Frey
Chapter 1
1.1
Basic notions
(1.1)
j=1
The value of a selnancing strategy hence consists of the initial investment V0 and the
gains (or losses) from trade in stock and money market account.
Proof. We get by denition of the value of a portfolio that
0
1
+ 1n+1 Sn+1
0n Sn0 1n Sn1 .
Vn+1 () Vn () = 0n+1 Sn+1
(1.3)
Now is selnancing if and only if 0n Sn0 + 1n Sn1 = 0n+1 Sn0 + 1n+1 Sn1 for all n = 1, . . . , N .
Plugging this into (1.3) yields
0
1
Sn0 ) + 1n+1 (Sn+1
Sn1 ) .
(1.4)
Vn+1 () Vn () = 0n+1 (Sn+1
As Vn+1 () = V0 ()+ ni=0 Vi+1 ()Vi () the lemma follows by summing over (1.4).
Being similar to the proof of Lemma 1.2 the proof will be omitted.
1.2
This does not imply that real markets are always arbitrage-free as institutional constraints and transaction costs can make it dicult to prot from arbitrage opportunities; see for instance Liu & Longsta
(2000) for a discussion.
n+1
1
1
1j (Sj1 Sj1
) = Vn () + 1n+1 (Sn+1
Sn1 ).
j=1
Proposition 1.8. If an equivalent martingale-measure exists for the security market model
M, the model M is arbitrage-free.
Proof. Consider a self-nancing strategy with VN () 0, P (VN () > 0) > 0. We will
show that the existence of an equivalent martingale-measure Q implies V0 () > 0; this
shows that no arbitrage opportunities exist.
As VN () and VN () have the same sign it follows that VN () > 0 and P (VN () >
0) > 0. The equivalence of P and Q now implies that Q(VN () > 0) > 0 and hence
> 0. On
E Q (VN ())
the other hand, (V ())n=1,...,N being a Q-martingale implies that
Q
V0 () = E VN () > 0 and hence also V0 () > 0.
Proposition 1.9. If the market is arbitrage-free, the class of equivalent martingale-measures
is non-empty.
The proof is based on the separating hyperplane theorem; see e.g. Bingham & Kiesel
(1998), Proposition 4.2.3. Summing up, we have the so called rst fundamental theorem
of asset pricing.
Theorem 1.10. A security market M is arbitrage-free if and only if there is a probability
measure Q equivalent to P such that discounted asset price processes are Q-martingales.
Remark: In this very strict form the rst fundamental theorem of asset pricing holds
only in a discrete-time setting; for a version of this theorem which is valid in more general
conditions with continuous trading see Chapter 6.1 of Bingham & Kiesel (1998) and in
particular the paper Delbaen & Schachermayer (1994).
1.3
We now turn our attention to the pricing of contingent claims. Formally a contingent claim
H with maturity T is an FT -measurable random variable H; H() is interpreted as payo
of the claim in state . A contingent claim is called a derivative if its payo depends only
on the prices of traded securities; derivatives are obviously the most important class of
contingent claims. Contingent claims which are not derivatives are traded in the insurance
industry. For instance the payo of so-called CAT-bonds depends essentially on the value
of some aggregated claims index, which is typically not a traded security; for more on these
claims see Canter, Cole & Sandor (1996).
The key idea underlying modern approaches to pricing contingent claims is the notion of
dynamic replication.
6
(1.6)
Proof. As the strategy duplicates the claim, we have VT () = H and hence (1+ r)T H =
VT (). As (Vn ())n=0,...,T is a Q-martingale (by Lemma 1.7), we have
E Q (1 + r)T H|Fn = E Q (VT ()|Fn ) = Vn () = (1 + r)n Vn ().
Hence Vn () = E Q ((1 + r)(T n) H|Fn ).
Relation (1.6) is often referred to as risk-neutral pricing rule. Theorem 1.13 shows in particular that in an arbitrage-free market two dierent admissible replicating strategies for
a claim have the same value such that the denition of the fair price of a claim (Denition 1.12) is logically consistent.
While the existence of a risk-neutral measure is related to absence of arbitrage, uniqueness
of a risk-neutral measure is related to market completeness. This is the content of the
so-called second fundamental theorem of asset pricing.
Theorem 1.14. An arbitrage-free market M is complete if and only if there exists a unique
equivalent martingale measure Q.
For a proof we refer to Section 4.3 of Bingham & Kiesel (1998); generalizations to models
with continuous security trading can be found in Harrison & Pliska (1981).
1.4
As an example we now present the binomial model of Cox et al. (1979). This simple model
is still popular with practitioners as it yields an approximation to the Black-Scholes model
7
under suitable rescaling of the model-parameters, which makes the CRR-model useful as a
tool for computing (approximate) prices of derivatives.
We consider rst a simple two-period example. Fix two numbers u and d with u > 1+r > d
which model the return of the stock in the up-state and in the down-state and an initial
stock-price-level S0 . In a two-period CRR-model the stock-price then evolves as depicted
in Figure ??.
2
u S0
u S0
H
HH
H ud S
S0 H
0
H
HH
d S0 H
HH
H d2 S
0
Note that the tree for the evolution of the stock-price is recombining, i.e. we obtain the
same value for the stock-price at time t = 2 independent of the order in which up- and down
movements occur. This property of the model facilitates its numerical implementation.
We now give a formal description of the N -period model. As state space we take the set
{u, d}N such that the elements of are N -tupels with entries i {u, d}, i = 1, . . . , N .
Dene for 1 n N jn () := #{i n ; i = u}, such that jn () gives the number of
up-movements in until t = n. We dene the stock-price process S 1 by
Sn1 () = S0 ujn () d(njn ()) ,
0nN.
(1.7)
As ltration {Fn } we take the ltration generated by the stock price process, i.e. we put
Fn = (Si1 , i n). The probability measure P is left unspecied, we only require that
P () > 0 for all .
Equivalent martingale measure: We start with the case N = 1. Here the equivalent
martingale measure Q must satisfy E Q ((1 + r)1 S11 ) = S0 . If we dene := Q(1 = u) we
obtain the following condition for
(1 + r) d
1
(uS0 + (1 )dS0 ) = S0 and hence =
.
1+r
ud
(1.8)
It is immediate that (0, 1) if and only if u > 1 + r > d; moreover, in that case
is uniquely determined. If N > 1 we use our results from the one-period case to dene
transition probabilities. We put
Q(n+1 = u|Fn ) := and Q(n+1 = d|Fn ) = 1 .
(1.9)
measure and Theorem 1.14. Alternatively, using the backward-induction principle we can
give an explicit recursive construction for hedging strategies for arbitrary claims. For
simplicity we explain the approach in the two-period model of Figure ??; the extension to
N periods is obvious. Consider some claim which matures in t = 2 and has payo H().
At time t = 2 the value of this claim is equal to its payo. At t = 1 we have to distinguish
between the up-state (1 = u) and the down-state (1 = d).
In the up-state our replicating portfolio (01 (u), 11 (u)) must satisfy the following system of
equations.
01 (u)(1 + r)2 + 11 (u)u2 S0 = H(u, u)
01 (u)(1 + r)2 + 11 (u)udS0 = H(u, d) .
As u > d this linear system of equations has a unique solution given by
11 (u) =
H(u, u) H(u, d)
,
uS0 (u d)
01 (u) =
dH(u, u) + uH(u, d)
.
(u d)(1 + r)2
(1.10)
1
(H(u, u) + (1 )H(u, d)) ,
1+r
which is in line with the risk-neutral pricing rule. In the down-state we can compute a
hedging portfolio (01 (d), 11 (d)) using a similar argument. The value of the portfolio at
t = 1 is given by
1
(H(d, u) + (1 )H(d, d)) .
V1 (d) =
1+r
We now determine a hedging portfolio at time t = 0. To nance our hedge in t = 1 the
value of our portfolio must be V1 (u) if the up-state occurs and V1 (d) in the down-state.
Hence our hedge (00 , 10 ) must solve the equations
00 (1 + r) + 10 uS0 = V1 (u) and 00 (1 + r) + 10 dS0 = V1 (d) ,
which determines uniquely 00 , 10 and V0 .
As the CRR-model is complete we may use the risk-neutral pricing rule to price arbitrary
contingent claims. In case of a European call option we obtain the following
Proposition 1.15. In a binomial CRR model with up-state-return u, down-state return d
and interest-rate r such that u > 1 + r > d the arbitrage price Cn at t = n of a European
call with strike price K and maturity N equals
N
n
+
1
N n j
N nj
j N nj
(1
)
()u
d
K
.
S
Cn =
n
(1 + r)N n
j
j=0
1
Q(|Fn )(SN () K)+ .
(1 + r)N n
Now note that for with jN () jn () = j (exactly j up-movements between now and
maturity) we obtain Q(|Fn ) = j (1 )N nj . Moreover, for these paths we have
SN () = Sn ()uj dN nj . Hence we obtain
N
n
+
1
#{, jN () jn () = j} j (1 )N nj Sn ()uj dN nj K .
Cn =
N
n
(1 + r)
j=0
10
N n
j
Chapter 2
2.1.1
Basic Notions
t Xt ()
Definition 2.1. Given two stochastic processes X and Y . Then X is called modication
of Y if for all t 0 we have
P { : Xt () = Yt ()} = 1.
The processes are called indistinguishable if
P { : Xt () = Yt () t > 0} = 1.
We obviously have that if X and Y are indistinguishable then X is a modication of Y .
For the converse implication extra regular assumptions on the trajectories are needed.
Lemma 2.2. Suppose that X and Y have right-continuous trajectories and that X is
a modication of Y . Then X and Y are indistinguishable.
2.1.2
Classes of Processes
1. Martingales: An adapted stochastic process X with E(|Xt |) < for all t > 0 is
a submartingale if t, s with t > s we have E(Xt |Fs ) Xs .
a supermartingale if t, s with t > s we have E(Xt |Fs ) Xs .
a martingale if X is both a sub- and a supermartingale, i.e. if E(Xt |Fs ) = Xs for all
t, s.
Important examples for martingales are the Brownian motion and the compensated Poisson
process. Both processes will be introduced below.
2. Semimartingales In nancial modelling we often encounter processes which are the
sum of a completely unpredictable part modelled by a martingale and a systematic
predictable component such as the long-term growth rate of an asset. If the systematic
component of such a process satises certain regularity properties these processes are called
semimartingales. A formal denition of semimartingales is given in Denition 3.12 below.
3. Markov-Processes: An adapted stochastic process X is called Markov process, if for
all t, s > 0 and all bounded functions f : R R
E(f (Xt+s ) | Ft ) = E(f (Xt+s ) | (Xt )).
12
(2.1)
Here (Xt ) denotes the -eld generated by the rv Xt , a notation which we will use throughout these notes. Intuitively speaking a process is Markovian if the conditional distribution
of future values Xt+s , s 0, of the process is completely determined by the present value Xt
of the process; in particular given the value of Xt , past values Xu , u < t of the process do
not contain any additional information which is useful for predicting Xt+s .
Remark 2.3. A Markov process X is called a strong Markov-process, if (2.1) holds for
all stopping-times and not only for deterministic times t.1 All Markov-processes we will
encounter are also strong Markov processes, but there are a few pathological exceptions.
4. Diffusions: A diusion is a strong Markov process with continuous trajectories such
that for all (t, x) the limits:
1
E(Xt+h Xt |Xt = x) and
h
1
2 (t, x) = lim E((Xt+h Xt )2 |Xt = x)
h0 h
(t, x) = lim
h0
(2.2)
(2.3)
exist. Then (t, x) is called the drift, 2 (t, x) the diusion coecient. The name diusion stems from applications in physics; the most important mathematical examples are
solutions to stochastic dierential equations.
5. Point processes and the Poisson process: Assume that certain relevant events
for instance claims in an insurance context or defaults of counterparties in a nancial
context occur at random points in time 0 < 1 < . . .. The corresponding point process Nt is then given by Nt := sup{n, n t}, i.e. Nt measures the number of events which
have occurred up to time t.
The Poisson process is a special point process. To construct it we take a sequence Yn of
independent exponentially distributed random variables with P (Yn x) = 1 ex and
dene n := nj=1 Yj , such that Yn is the waiting time between event n 1 and event n.
The process Nt = sup{n : n t} is then a Poisson process with intensity . It has among
others the following properties
P (Nt = k) = et (t)
k! , k = 0, 1, . . . , t 0.
k
2.2
2.2.1
Stopping Times
Definition 2.4. A rv : [0, ] is called stopping time wrt. {Ft } if for all t 0 it
holds that { t} Ft .
1
As in discrete time a random variable with values in [0, ] will be called a stopping time if for all t 0
the set { , () t} belongs to the sigma-eld Ft ; see Section 2.2 below.
13
Remark 2.5. can be interpreted as the time of the occurrence of an observed event.
{ = } means that the event never occurs.
Lemma 2.6. Let {Ft } be right-continuous, i.e. Ft = >0 Ft+ , for all t 0. Then
: [0, ] is a stopping time if and only if { < t} Ft , t 0.
Proof. It holds { t} = >0 { < t + }. Let { < t} Ft , t 0. Hence { < t + }
Ft+ = Ft . For the converse statement note that
Ft+ and { t}
>0
{ < t} =
Q+
{ t } Ft .
Ft Ft
The most important example for stopping times are rst hitting times for Borel sets.
Definition 2.7. Given a stochastic process X and a Borel set A in R. Dene A := inf{t
0 : Xt A}. Then the rv A is called rst hitting time into the set A.
6
Xt ()
A := {x R : x > c}
-t
A ()
Next we address the question if A is a stopping time.
Lemma 2.8. Let X be {Ft }-adapted and right-continuous and let A Rd be open. If the
ltration {Ft } is right-continuous, then the hitting time A is a stopping time.
Proof. Suppose, that {Ft } is right-continuous. We only have to show {A < t} Ft for all
t > 0. Since X is right-continuous and A is open, it holds that
{Xq A} .
{A < t} =
q[0,t)Q
As {Xq A} Fq Ft and as the union of countable sets from Ft also belongs to Ft , the
claim follows.
Lemma 2.9. Let X be continuous and A R closed. Then A is a stopping time.
Proof. Dene open sets An A by An := {x : d(x, A) < 1/n}. Since X is continuous and
A is closed, it holds that
{ : A () t} = { : s [0, t], Xs () A} = { : n N s [0, t] with Xs () An }.
14
nN qQ[0,t]
{ : Xq () An } .
Fq Ft
The right-hand side consists of countably many operations on sets from Ft , hence it belongs
to Ft .
The sigma-field F .
to a stopping time .
(2.4)
Ft , as T
stopping time
and hence, A FT .
Lemma 2.12. Given two stopping times S and T . Then
i) S T := min{S, T } is a stopping time.
ii) S T := max{S, T } is a stopping time.
iii) FST = FS FT .
Proof. We have {S T t} = {S t} {T t}, {S T t} = {S t} {T t}. As
S and T are stopping times, that means {S t} Ft and {T t} Ft , claims i) and ii)
are proved.
iii) is proved as follows. From Lemma 2.11 we see, that, FST FS and FST FT ,
hence FST FS Ft . Now, let A FS FT . As S and T are stopping times we have
A {S t} Ft and A {T t} Ft . It holds
(A {S t}) (A {T t}) = A ({S t} {T t}) = A {S T t} Ft ,
and hence A FST .
15
Let (Xt )t0 be a right-continuous stochastic process and let T be a stopping time. We
dene the stopped rv XT by
XT () := XT () () 1{T <} (),
(2.5)
Xt (2 )
A (1 )
A (2 )
Lemma 2.14. Let (Xt )t0 be an {Ft }-adapted and right-continuous stochastic process and
let T be a stopping time. Then the rv XT is FT -measurable.
For a proof we refer to Protter (2005) or to Karatzas & Shreve (1988).
Definition 2.15. Given a right-continuous stochastic process (Xt )t0 and a stopping time
T . Then the in T stopped process X T = (XtT )t0 is dened by
XT () (), T () t.
T
(2.6)
Xt () := XtT () () =
T () > t.
Xt (),
Xt ()
XtT ()
XtT () = Xt ()
-t
T ()
16
Proof. We have XtT = Xt 1{t<T } + XT 1{tT } . The rst summand is Ft -measurable, since
it is a product consisting of two Ft -measurable rvs. For the second summand we conclude
as follows. XT 1{tT } = XT t 1{tT } . The rv XT t is FT t -measurable and FT t Ft .
The rv 1{tT } is Ft -measurable, as T is a stopping time.
Finally we give a more intuitive interpretation of FT , which legitimates the description
-eld of the observable events up to time T .
Lemma 2.17. Let T be a stopping time. If P (T < ) = 1, then FT = (X T , X adapted and cadlag).
Proof. Let X be adapted and cadlag. Then the rv XtT = XT t is FT t -measurable. Since
FT t FT the rv XtT is also FT -measurable, hence FT (X T , X adapted and cadlag).
Now, let A FT and dene a stochastic process X = (Xt )t0 by Xt () = 1A ()
1{T t} (). The process X is cadlag. It holds {Xt = 1} = A {T t} Ft , hence
2.2.2
The following result gives a crucial link between stopping times and martingales.
Theorem 2.18 (Optional sampling theorem). Consider an adapted stochastic process X =
(Xt )t0 with E(|Xt |) < , t 0. Then the following statements are equivalent.
(1) X is a martingale.
(2) For all bounded stopping times ( () C for some C > 0, all ) one has
E(X ) = E(X0 ).
(3) Given two stopping times S and T such that S T C for some C > 0. Then
E(XT | FS ) = XS .
We omit the proof; see for instance Protter (2005), Section I.2.
Corollary 2.19. Let X be a martingale with right-continuous trajectories and let be a
stopping time. Then the stopped process X with Xt = Xt is also a martingale.
See again Protter (2005), Section I.2 for a proof.
Corollary 2.20 (Martingale inequality). Let X be a right-continuous martingale such that
Xt > 0 a.s. Then we have for C > 0
1
P sup Xt > C E(X0 ).
C
t0
Proof. Put TC := inf{t 0 : Xt > C}. Since Xt > 0, we have for an arbitrary n N
1
1
XTC n = E(X0 ),
P sup Xt > C E
C
C
0tn
where the last equality is due to Theorem 2.18, (2). For n we obtain the result by
monotone convergence.
17
2.3
Brownian Motion
Brownian motion is the most important building block for continuous-time asset pricing
models. It has a long history in the modelling of random events in science. Around
1830 R. Brown, a Scottish botanist, discovered that molecules of water in a suspension
perform an erratic movement under the bueting of other water molecules. While Browns
research had no relation to mathematics this observation gave Brownian motion its name.
In 1900 Bachelier introduced Brownian motion as model for stock-prices; see Bachelier
(1900). In 1905 Einstein proposed Brownian motion as a mathematical model to describe
the movement of particles in a suspension. The rst rigorous theory of Brownian motion is
due to N. Wiener (1923); therefore Brownian motion is often referred to as Wiener process.
2.3.1
2.3.2
Proposition 2.24. Let Wt be standard Brownian motion and dene Ft := (Ws , s t).
Then a) (Wt )t0 b) (Wt2 t)t0 and c) exp(Wt 1/2 2 t) are martingales with respect to
the ltration {Ft }.
Proof. We start with claim a). Let t > s; by point (ii) of Denition 2.21 the increment
Wt Ws is independent of Fs . Hence we get
E(Wt |Fs ) = E(Wt Ws + Ws |Fs ) = E(Wt Ws ) + Ws = Ws .
To prove claim b) we rst show that E(Wt2 Ws2 |Fs ) = E((Wt Ws )2 |Fs ). We have
E((Wt Ws )2 |Fs ) = E(Wt2 2Wt Ws + Ws2 |Fs ) = E(Wt2 |Fs ) 2Ws E(Wt |Fs ) + Ws2
= E(Wt2 |Fs ) 2Ws2 + Ws2 = E(Wt2 Ws2 |Fs ).
The claim is proved if we canshow that E(Wt2 Ws2 |Fs ) = (t s). By the rst step of the
proof this is equivalent to E (Wt Ws )2 |Fs = (t s). Now Wt Ws is independent of
Fs ; hence E((Wt Ws )2 |Fs ) = E((Wt Ws )2 ) = t s, as Wt Ws N (0, t s).
1
Sketch of c) Let Gt = e(Wt Ws 2 (ts)) . Then we have, that E(Gt ) = Gs E(e(Wt Ws 2 (ts)) ).
Moreover, we get, using properties of lognormal distributions and the fact that Wt Ws is
independent of Ws , that
1
2.3.3
Quadratic Variation
Fix some point in time T , which represents the time-point where our model ends. To dene
rst and quadratic variation we need the notion of a partition of the interval [0, T ].
Definition 2.25. A partition of [0, T ] is a set of time-points t0 = 0 < t1 < . . . < tn = T .
The mesh of this partition is given by | | := sup1in |ti ti1 |.
Definition 2.26 (First Variation). Consider a function X : [0, T ] R. The rst variation
of X on [0, T ] is dened as
|X(ti ) X(ti1 )| , a partition of [0, T ] [0, ] .
(2.7)
Var(X) := sup
ti
19
Assume that for all t [0, T ] the limit [X]t := limn Vt2 (X; n ) exists. In that case X is
said to admit the quadratic variation [X]t . If the function t [X]t is moreover continuous,
we say that X has continuous quadratic variation.
In principle [X]t might depend on the sequence (n )nN . However, we are mainly interested
in the case where X is a sample path of a continuous semimartingale such as Brownian
motion. It can be shown that in this case [X]t is independent of the sequence of partitions
used in its denition. Obviously [X]t is increasing in t and hence in particular of nite
variation.
We now discuss the relation between rst and quadratic variation.
Proposition 2.28. If X : [0, T ] R is continuous and of nite variation, its quadratic
variation [X]t is zero.
By negating this result we have
Corollary 2.29. If X is continuous and if the function t [X]t is strictly increasing, X
is of innite rst variation on every subinterval [a, b] of [0, T ].
Proof. (of Proposition 2.28) Choose a sequence of partitions n of [0, T ] such that limn |n | =
0. Then
(X(ti ) X(ti1 ))2 sup |X(ti ) X(ti1 )|
|X(ti ) X(ti1 )|
ti n
ti n ; ti t
ti n
ti n
(2.8)
Now note that Var(X) < and that supti n |X(ti ) X(ti1 )| 0 for n as X is
continuous and as limn |n | = 0. Hence the right side of (2.8) converges to zero which
proves the proposition.
The following result allows us to conclude that the quadratic variation of the sample paths
of a continuous semimartingale is determined by the quadratic variation of its martingale
part.
Proposition 2.30. Assume that X is continuous with quadratic variation [X]t and consider a continuous function A : [0, T ] R which is of nite rst variation. Let Yt :=
Xt + At , t 0. Then we have [Y ]t = [X]t .
Proof. We have
(Yti Yti1 )2 =
ti n ; ti t
(Xti Xti1 )2 +
ti n ; ti t
+ 2
(Ati Ati1 )2
ti n ; ti t
ti n ; ti t
Now ti n ; ti t (Xti Xti1 )2 converges to [X]t by assumption and ti n (Ati Ati1 )2
converges to zero as A is continuous and of nite variation. The last term can be estimated
as follows:
(Xti Xti1 )(Ati Ati1 ) sup |Xti Xti1 |Var(A),
ti1 n
ti n ; ti t
Now we deal with quadratic variation of the sample paths B () of Brownian motion.
Roughly speaking, for (almost) all we have [B ()]t = t. The following theorem
makes this relation precise.
Theorem 2.31. Consider a sequenceof partitions n of [0,T ] such that limn |n | = 0.
2
Then we have for all t [0, T ] that E Vt2 (B (); n ) t
0 as n .
Proof. For a xed partition n we have
2
2
(Bti Bti1 ) t
=E
E
ti n ,ti <t
2
((Bti Bti1 ) (ti ti1 ))
ti n ,ti <t
(Bti Bti1 ) (ti ti1 ) (Btj Btj1 )2 (tj tj1 )
2
2
E (Bti Bti1 )2 (ti ti1 ) .
ti n ,ti <t
ti n ,ti <t
21
We have seen that Brownian motion is a martingale with continuous trajectories and
quadratic variation [B ()]t = t. The following theorem, which is usually referred to as
Levys characterization of Brownian motion, establishes the converse:
Theorem 2.35. If M is a martingale with continuous trajectories such that M0 = 0 and
[M ]t = t t then M is Brownian motion.
22
Chapter 3
Pathwise It
o-Calculus
Motivation. Consider a function f : R R which is once continuously dierentiable
(abbreviated f is a C 1 -function) with derivative f and a C 1 -function X : R+ R with
f (X(s))X(s)ds
=:
f (Xs )dXs .
(3.1)
A similar expression for the dierence f (Xt ) f (X0 ) can be given if X is not C 1 but only
continuous and of nite variation:
Proposition 3.1. Consider a continuous function X : [0, T ] R which is of nite variation and a C 1 -function f : R R with derivative f . Let n denote a sequence of partitions
of [0, T ] with limn |n | = 0. Then we have that
lim
ti n ,ti t
t
0
f (Xs )dXs
(3.2)
(3.3)
3.1
It
os formula
23
t
0
(3.5)
ti n ; ti t
Remarks: 1) The existence of the limit in (3.5) is shown in the proof of the theorem.
t
The integral 0 F (Xs )dXs is called It
o-integral; it is a continuous function of the upper
boundary t as is immediately apparent from (3.4).
2) The classical case of Proposition 3.1, where X is of nite variation is a special case of
t
Theorem 3.2. If [X]t is non-zero the additional correction-term 12 0 F (Xs )d[X]s enters
our formula for the dierential F (Xt ) F (X0 ). We will see that this term is of crucial
importance for most results in continuous-time nance.
3) Note that the sums used in dening the Ito-integral are non-anticipating, i.e. the integrand F (Xs ) is evaluated at the left boundary of the interval [ti1 , ti ]; we will see in
Section 4.2 below that this makes the It
o-integral the right tool for the modeling of gains
from trade.
4) Often formula (3.4) is expressed in the following short-hand notation: dF (Xt ) = F (Xt )dXt +
1
2 F (Xt )d[X]t .
5) It is possible to give extensions of this theorem to the case where X has discontinuous
sample paths; see for instance Chapter II.7 of Protter (2005).
Proof. As a rst step we establish the following
Lemma 3.3. For every piecewise continuous function g : [0, T ] R we have
lim
ti n ; ti t
t
0
g(s)d[X]s .
(3.6)
Proof of the Lemma. Recall the denition of Vt2 (X; n ) in Denition 2.27. For indicator
functions of the form g(t) = 1(a,b] (t) the convergence in (3.6) translates as
lim Vb2 (X; n ) Va2 (X; n ) = [X]b [X]a ,
n
24
which is satised by denition, as X admits the continuous quadratic variation [X]t . For a
general piecewise continuous function g the claim of the Lemma follows if we approximate
g by piecewise constant functions.
Now we turn to the theorem itself. Consider ti , ti1 n , such that ti t and denote by
(X)i,n the increment Xti Xti1 . We get from a Taylor-expansion of F
1
F (Xti ) F (Xti1 ) = F (Xti1 )(X)i,n + F (Xt)(X)2i,n
2
1
= F (Xti1 )(X)i,n + F (Xti1 )(X)2i,n + Ri,n ,
2
where t is some point in the interval (ti1 , ti ), and where Ri,n := 12 (F (Xt)F (Xti1 ))(X)2i,n .
Dene n := max{|Xt Xti1 | , t [ti1 , ti ], ti n }. As X is continuous and as |n | 0
for n we have n 0, n . Moreover,
1
max |F (x) F (y)| (X)2i,n =: n (X)2i,n .
|Ri,n |
2 |xy|<n
Now n 0, for n as F is uniformly continuous and as n 0. Hence
Ri,n
|Ri,n | n
(X)2i,n 0 as n ,
ti n
ti n
= lim
ti n ; ti t
1
2
F (Xti1 )(X)i,n +
ti n ; ti t
F (Xti1 )(X)2i,n +
ti n ; ti t
Ri,n .
ti n ; ti t
We have just shown that the sum over the Ri,n tends to zero. Moreover, by Lemma 3.3
t
2
ti n ; ti t F (Xti1 )(X)i,n converges to 0 F (Xs )d[X]s . Hence the limit
t
0
ti n ; ti t
t
0
eXs dXs +
25
1
2
t
0
3.2
3.2.1
Properties of the It
o-Integral
Quadratic Variation
Throughout this section we consider a continuous function X(t) with continuous quadratic
variation [X]t .
3.4. Let F C 1 (R); then the function t F (Xt ) has quadratic variation
Proposition
t
2
0 (F (Xs )) d[X]s .
t
o-integral It := 0 f (Xs )dXs is well-dened; its
Corollary 3.5. For f C 1 (R) the It
t
quadratic variation equals [I]t = 0 f 2 (Xs )d[X]s .
Proof. Denote by (n )nN a sequence of partitions of [0, T ] with |n | 0. Then
2
2
F (Xti ) F (Xti1 ) =
F (Xti )(X)i,n , ti (ti1 , ti )
ti n ; ti t
ti n ; ti t
ti n ; ti t
F (Xti1 )2 (X)2i,n +
t
The rst sum converges to 0 (F (Xs ))2 d[X]s by Lemma 3.3; a similar argument as in the
proof of Theorem 3.2 shows that the second sum converges to zero as n .
x
To proof the Corollary we dene F (x) = 0 f (y)dy, such that F = f . As F is a C 2 -function
t
the existence of the integral It = 0 F (Xs )dXs follows from Theorem 3.2. Moreover, we
get from It
os formula that
t
1 t
f (Xs )dXs +
f (Xs )d[X]s =: F (X0 ) + It + At .
F (Xt ) = F (X0 ) +
2 0
0
As the function A is of nite variation we get [I]t = [F (X)]t . By Proposition (3.4), we
t
know that [F (X)]t = 0 f 2 (Xs )d[X]s , which proves the corollary.
Example: We compute the quadratic variation
of the square of Brownian
B. We
t
t motion
t
2
2
2
have Bt = 0 2Bs dBs + t. Dene It := 0 2Bs dBs . We get [B ]t = [I]t = 0 4Bs ds.
3.2.2
Martingale-property of the It
o-integral
Up to now we have only used analytic properties of the function X such as the fact that X
admits a continuous quadratic variation in our analysis of the Ito-integral. If X(t) is the
sample path of a stochastic process
tsuch as Brownian motion we may study probabilistic
properties of the process It () = 0 f (Xs ())dXs (). In particular we may consider the
case that our integrator is a martingale.
If M is a martingale with trajectories of continuous quadratic variation and f a C 1 funct
tion we expect the Ito-integral It := 0 f (Ms )dMs to inherit the martingale property
from M , as It is dened as limit of non-anticipating sums, It = limn Itn with Itn =
n
ti n ; ti t f (Mti1 )(Mti Mti1 ) . The martingale property of the It is just a variation of
the you cant gain by betting on a martingale argument used already in our proof that
26
the discounted gains from trade of an admissible selnancing strategy are a martingale
under an equivalent martingale measure in Chapter 1 (Lemma 1.7). Unfortunately some
integrability problems arise when we pass from the approximating sums to the limit such
that only a slightly weaker result is true. To state this result we need the notion of a local
martingale.
Definition 3.6. A stochastic process M is called a local martingale, if there are stopping
times T1 . . . Tn . . . such that
(i) limn Tn () = a.s.
(ii) (MTn t )t0 is a martingale for all n.
Obviously every martingale in the sense of Section 2.1.2 (every true martingale) is a local
martingale. The opposite assertion is not true; see for instance Remark 3.10 below.
Theorem 3.7. Consider a local martingale M with continuous trajectories
and continuous
t
quadratic variation [M ]t and a function f C 1 (R). Then It () = 0 f (Ms ())dMs () is a
local martingale.
Partial proof. We restrict ourselves to the case where M is a bounded martingale and
where f is bounded; the general case follows by localization (introduction of an increasing
sequence of stopping time (Tn )nN ). The proof goes in two steps.
a) Let (n )nN be a sequence of partitions with |n | 0, and x n. Then the discrete-time
process Ikn := ti n , ik f (Mti1 )(Mti Mti1 ), k n, is a martingale wrt the discrete
ltration {Fkn }k with Fkn := Ftk , as can be seen from the following easy argument.
n
n
|Fk1
) =E(f (Mtk1 )(Mtk Mtk1 )|Ftk1 ) = f (Mtk1 )E((Mtk Mtk1 )|Ftk1 ),
E(Ikn Ik1
and the last term is obviously equal to zero as M is a martingale. Note that here we have
used the fact that the It
o-integral is non-anticipating.
b) Let s < t. We will show that E(It 1A ) = E(Is 1A ) for all A Fs , as this implies that
E(It |Fs ) = Is . Choose tn , sn n with tn t, sn s and tn > sn . By Step a) we have
E(Itn 1A ) = E(Isn 1A );
moreover Itn It , Isn Is , as I has continuous paths. Moreover, one can show that
(Itn )n and (Isn )n are uniformly integrable (using the boundedness of M and f ), so that
the claim follows from the theorem of Lebesgue.
t
Remark 3.8. If f is dened only on a subset G R the process It = 0 f (Ms )dMs can
/ G} and it can be shown that It is
be dened up to the stopping-time = inf{t > 0, Mt
a local martingale until .
In applications one often needs to decide if a local martingale M is in fact a true martingale.
The following Proposition provides a useful criterion for this
Proposition 3.9. Let M be a local martingale with continuous trajectories. Then the
following two assertions are equivalent.
(i) M is a true martingale and E(Mt2 ) < t 0.
27
1
1
=
.
1
2
||Wt ||
(Wt ) + (Wt2 )2 + (Wt3 )2
M02
+2
0
Ms dMs + [M ]t =
M02
+2
0
Ms dMs ,
For an argument how to deal with the case where Mt2 is only a local martingale we refer the reader to
Protter (2005).
28
3.3
3.3.1
Covariation
ti n ; ti t
1
([X + Y ]t [X]t [Y ]t ) .
2
(3.7)
Proof. Recall the notation (X)i,n = Xti Xti1 , for ti , ti1 n . We have
[X + Y ]t = lim
= lim
((X)i,n + (Y )i,n )2
ti n ; ti t
(X)2i,n +
ti n ; ti t
= [X]t + [Y ]t + 2 lim
(Y )2i,n + 2
ti n ; ti t
(X)i,n (Y )i,n
ti n ; ti t
(X)i,n (Y )i,n .
(3.8)
ti n ; ti t
Hence the last limit on the right hand side of (3.8) exists i [X + Y ]t exists. Solving for
this limit yields the polarization identity.
Note that [X, Y ]t is of nite variation as it is the dierence of monotone functions. We now
use the polarization identity to compute the covariation for a few important examples.
1) If X is a continuous function with continuous quadratic variation [X]t and A a continuous
function of nite variation we have [X + A]t = [X]t and hence [X, A]t = 0.
2) Consider two independent Brownian motions B 1 , B 2 on our probability space (, F, P ).
B 2 ()]t = 0. To prove this claim we have to compute [B 1 + B 2 ]t . Note that
Then [B 1 (),
(Bt1 + Bt2 )/ 2 is again a Brownian motion and has therefore quadratic variation equal to
t. Hence
1
1
([B 1 + B 2 ]t [B 1 ]t [B 2 ]t ) = (2t t t) = 0 .
2
2
1
3) Consider a continuous
quadratic variation, and
t function X with continuous
t
t C -functions
f and g. Dene Yt := 0 f (Xs )dXs and Zt := 0 g(Xs )dXs . Then [Y, Z]t = 0 f (Xs )g(Xs )d[X]s .
This follows from the polarization identity and the following computation:
t
t
2
(f + g) (Xs )d[X]s = [Y ]t + [Z]t + 2
f (Xs )g(Xs )d[X]s .
[Y + Z]t =
0
3.3.2
The d-dimensional It
o-formula
d
i=1
t
0
d
1 t 2
i
F (Xs )dXs +
F (Xs )d[X i , X j ]s .
xi
2
x
x
i
j
0
i,j=1
dF (Xt ) =
d
i=1
d
1
Fxi ,xj (Xt )d[X i , X j ]t .
2
i,j=1
d
i=1
t
0
1
+
2
d
i=1
t
0
(3.9)
Corollary 3.16 (Itos product formula). Given X, Y with continuous quadratic variation
[X]t , [Y ]t and covariation [X, Y ]t . Then
t
t
Xs dYs +
Ys dXs + [X, Y ]t .
Xt Yt = X0 Y0 +
0
In our short-notation the equation solved by S can be written as dSt = St dt + St dBt .
t
In the special case where = 0 we get that St = S0 + 0 Ss dBs is a local martingale.2
2) Brownian motion and the reverse heat-equation. Consider a function F (t, x) that solves
the reverse heat-equation Ft (t, x) + 1/2Fxx (t, x) = 0 and a Brownian motion B. Then
F (t, Bt ) is a local martingale. The proof is again based on Itos formula. We get
1 t
F (t, Bt ) = F (0, B0 ) +
Fx (s, Bs )dBs +
Ft (s, Bs )ds +
Fxx (s, Bs )d[B]s
2 0
0
0
t
t
1
= F (0, B0 ) +
Fx (s, Bs )dBs +
(Ft + Fxx )(s, Bs )ds
2
0
0
t
Fx (s, Bs )dBs .
= F (0, B0 ) +
In case that Fx (t, Bt ) is suciently integrable F (t, Bt ) is even a real martingale. In that
case one easily obtains a probabilistic representation of the solution of the reverse heat
equation. For more on the interplay between solutions of partial dierential equations and
stochastic processes we refer to Chapter 4 and 5 of Karatzas & Shreve (1988).
31
Chapter 4
4.1
As in the classical paper Black & Scholes (1973) we consider a market with two traded
assets, a risky non-dividend-paying stock and a riskless money market account. The price
of the stock at time t is denoted by St1 , the price of the money market account by St0 . For
simplicity we work with a deterministic continuously compounded interest rate r such that
St0 = exp(rt). We now look for appropriate models for the dynamics of the stock-price.
As usual we work on a ltered probability space (, F, P ), {Ft } supporting a standard
Brownian motion Wt representing the uncertainty in our market.
In his now famous PhD-thesis Bachelier (1900) proposed to model asset prices by an arithmetic Brownian motion, i.e. he suggested the model St1 = S0 + Wt + t for constants
, > 0. While this was a good rst approximation to the dynamics of stock prices, arithmetic Brownian motion has one serious drawback: as St1 is N (S0 + t, 2 t) distributed,
the asset price can become negative with positive probability, which is at odds with the
fact that real-world stock-prices are always nonnegative because of limited liability of the
shareholders.
Samuelson (1965) therefore suggested replacing arithmetic Brownian motion by geometric
Brownian motion
1
(4.1)
St1 = S01 exp Wt + ( 2 )t .
2
We know from (3.10) that this model solves the linear stochastic dierential equation (SDE)
dSt1 = St1 dt + St1 dWt .
Geometric Brownian motion - often referred to as Black-Scholes model - is nowadays widely
used as reference model both in option pricing theory and in the theory of portfoliooptimization; we therefore adopt it as our model for the stock price dynamics in this
32
4.2
Consider now a contingent claim with maturity date T and payo H. As in the discretetime setup of Chapter 1 we want to nd a dynamic trading strategy replicating the claim;
such a strategy can be used for pricing and hedging purposes. It can be shown that in the
framework of the Black-Scholes model such a strategy exists for every claim whose payo
is measurable with respect to the information generated by the asset price. However, such
t
a result requires the notion of the stochastic Ito-integral 0 s dSs1 for general predictable
processes which we do not have at our disposal. We therefore restrict our analysis to
so-called terminal value claims whose payo is of the form H = h(ST1 ). For these claims one
can nd Markov hedging strategies which are functions of time and the current stock-price.
33
This includes most examples which are relevant from a practical viewpoint; as shown in
Section 4.4.1 extensions to path-dependent derivatives are also possible. For the general
theory we refer the reader to Bingham & Kiesel (1998) or to the advanced text Karatzas
& Shreve (1998).
4.2.1
Basic Notions
tn ()
ti n
(4.3)
and Vtn = nt St1 + tn St0 . A well-known argument from discrete-time nance now yields that
this piecewise constant strategy is selnancing if and only if we have for all ti n
Vtni
= V0 +
Gnt ,
where
Gnt
i
=
ntj (St1j St1j1 ) + tnj (St0j St0j1 ) .
j=1
t
0
t
0
Definition 4.1. Given a Markov trading strategy ((t, St1 ), (t, St1 )) induced by smooth
functions , : [0, T ] R+ R.
(i) The gains from trade of this strategy are given by
t
t
(s, Ss1 )dSs1 +
(s, Ss1 )dSs0 .
Gt =
0
4.2.2
We now derive a partial dierential equation (PDE) for the value of the replicating strategy.
We have the following
34
Theorem 4.2. Let V : [0, T ] R+ R be a continuous function which solves the PDE
1
Vt (t, S) + 2 S 2 VSS (t, S) + rSVS (t, S) = rV (t, S) ,
2
(t, S) [0, T ) R+ .
(4.4)
Then the hedging strategy with stock-position (t, S) = VS (t, S) and value V (t, S) is selfnancing. If V satises moreover the terminal condition V (T, S) = h(S), the strategy
replicates the terminal value claim with payo h(ST1 ) and the fair price at time t of the
claim equals V (t, St1 ).
Proof. As a rst step we compute the quadratic variation of geometric Brownian motion.
Recall that
t
t
1
1
St = S0 +
Ss dWs +
Ss1 ds =: Mt + At .
0
t
0
2 (Ss1 )2 ds.
(0, S01 ) +
= V (0, S01 ) +
t
0
t
0
0
t
0
where (t, St1 ) = (V (t, St1 ) (t, St1 )St1 )/S 0 (t) is the position in the money-market account
which corresponds to our strategy. Hence our strategy is selnancing. The remaining
claims are obvious.
4.3
4.3.1
To price a European call option we have to solve the PDE (4.4) with terminal condition
h(S) = (S K)+ . To solve this problem analytically one usually reduces the PDE (4.4)
to the heat equation by a proper change of variables. This technique is useful also for the
implementation of numerical schemes to solve the pricing PDE; see for instance Wilmott,
Dewynne & Howison (1993). Details are given in the following Lemma.
Lemma 4.3. Dene (t) = 2 (T t) and z(t, S) = ln S + (r 12 2 )(T t). Denote
by u(t, z) : [0, T / 2 ] R R the solution of the heat-equation ut = 12 uzz with initial
condition u(0, z) = (ez K)+ . Then C(t, S) := er(T t) u( (t), z(t, S)) solves the terminal
value problem for the price of a European call.
35
Proof. We have C(T, S) = u( (T ), z(T, S)) = u(0, ln S) = (S K)+ , so that the function
C has the right value at maturity. Moreover,
C
= er(T t) ru 2 u + (1/2 2 r)uz
t
2C
C
= er(T t) uz 1/S ,
= er(T t) uzz (1/S)2 uz (1/S)2
2
S
S
Next we plug these expressions into the PDE (4.4). We get (omitting the arguments (t, S)
respectively ( (t), z(t, S)) )
C
1 2C
C
+ rS
+ 2 2 rC
t
S 2 S
1 2
r(T t)
2
2
ru u + (1/2 r)uz + ruz + (uzz uz ) ru
=e
2
1
= er(T t) 2 u + uzz ,
2
and the last term is obviously equal to zero as u solves the heat equation.
It is well-known that the solution u of the heat-equation with initial condition u(0, z) =
u0 (z) equals
(zx)2
1
u0 (x)e 2 dx.
u(, z) =
2
From this follows after tedious but straightforward computations (see for instance Sandmann (1999) or Wilmott et al. (1993))
Theorem 4.4. Denote by N () the standard normal distribution function. The no-arbitrage
price of a European call with strike K and time to maturity T in the Black-Scholes model
with volatility and interest rate r is given by
CBS (t, S; , r, K, T ) := SN (d1 ) er(T t) KN (d2 ) ,
with
d1 =
ln S/K + (r + 12 2 )(T t)
and d2 = d1 T t .
T t
(4.5)
(4.6)
4.3.2
Option prices. According to the Put-Call parity there is the following relation between
the price in t of a European call (denoted Ct ) and the price of a European put with the
same characteristics K, T (denoted Pt ): Ct + er(T t) K = St + Pt . This gives for the
Black-Scholes price of a European Put
PBS (t, S; , r, K, T ) = St N (d1 ) + Ker(T t) N (d2 ) ,
where d1 and d2 are as in (4.6). The next two pictures give the call and put price as a
function of the current stock price:
36
T=0
T=0
T=0.25
20
T=0.25
20
T=0.5
T=0.5
T=0.75
T=0.75
T=1
T=1
15
15
10
10
S_0
0
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
S_0
120
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
The hedge ratio or of an option. The delta of an option is the derivative wrt the
price of the underlying. In the Black Scholes model we have
C =
C
P
= N (d1 ) and P =
= C 1 = N (d1 )
S
S
S PBS
(d1 )
,
St T t
where denotes the density of the standard normal distribution. The Gamma measures
how fast the Delta changes and hence how often a hedge needs rebalancing. A large Gamma
means that small changes in the price of the underlying lead to large changes in the hedge
portfolio; options with a large Gamma are therefore dicult to hedge in practice.
Further Greeks. The other partial derivatives of the option price with respect to the
input parameters have (pseudo) Greek names as well. Most relevant is the so-called Vega
(not really a Greek letter). Vega is the derivative wrt volatility: VegaC = C
. It holds that
37
0.9
T=0.5
0.007
0.8
T=0.75
T=1
0.7
0.006
0.6
0.005
0.5
0.004
0.4
0.3
0.003
Tt=0.25
0.2
Tt=0.5
0.002
Tt=0.75
0.1
Tt=1
S_t
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
0.001
80
120
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
Figure 4.1: Delta (left) and Gamma (right) for a Call as a function of current price S for
sevaral values of T t
Vega einer Call oder PutOption im BlackScholes Modell (K=100, r=0.03, sigma=0.2)
Vega einer Call oder PutOption im BlackScholes Modell (K=100, r=0.03, Tt=1)
35
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
Tt=0.01
Tt=0.1
10
S=80
10
Tt=0.25
S=90
Tt=0.5
5
S=100
5
Tt=0.75
S=110
Tt=1
S=120
S_t
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
sigma
120
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Figure 4.2: Vega of a call/put as a function of S for dierent T t (left) and as a function
of for dierent S (right)
38
5
S=80
S=80
6
S=90
S=90
S=110
7
S=110
7
S=120
S=120
S=100
8
0.0
S=100
Tt
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
8
0.0
5.0
Tt
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Figure 4.3: Theta of a call (left) and of a put (right). Note that the Theta of a put can
become positive for small S.
Finally, we give the other Greeks.
C
t
P
P =
t
C
C =
r
P
P =
r
C =
4.3.3
St (d1 )
rKer(T t) N (d2 )(sensitivity wrt calender time)
=
2 T t
St (d1 )
+ rKer(T t) N (d2 )
=
2 T t
= K(T t)er(T t) N (d2 ) Rho (interest-rate sensitivity)
= K(T t)er(T t) N (d2 )
Volatility estimation
For an extensive discussion how the Black-Scholes formula can be applied in practice we
refer to Cox & Rubinstein (1985) and Hull (1997). Here we content ourselves with a few
remarks about possible approaches to determine the volatility . As volatility is not directly
observable in contrast to the other parameters in the Black-Scholes formula nding a
good value for is by for the most problematic part in applying the Black-Scholes formula.
The fact that in real markets volatility is rarely constant but tends to uctuate in a rather
unpredictable manner makes matters even worse.1 There are two common approaches to
determining .
1) Historical volatility: This approach is based on statistical considerations. Recall
that under (3.10) log-returns over non-overlapping periods of length are independent
and N (( 12 2 ), 2 ) distributed. Given asset price data at times ti , i = 1, . . . , N with
ti ti1 = (e.g. daily returns) dene Yi = ln Sti ln Sti1 . The standard estimator
from elementary statistics for , the volatility of the log-returns over the time-period
is given by
1
N
N
2 2
1
1
, where Y =
Yi .
Yi Y
=
N 1
N
i=1
i=1
1
The stochastic nature of volatility has given rise to the development of the stochastic volatility models;
see for instance Frey (1997) for an overview.
39
Estimated historical volatility is then given by
hist =
/ .
2) Implied volatility The idea underlying the implied volatility concept is the use of
observed prices of traded derivatives to nd the prediction of the market for the volatility
of the stock. To explain the concept we consider the following example:
Assume that a call option with strike K and maturity T is traded at time t and at a given
impl is then given by the solution
stock-price (St1 ) for a price of Ct . The implied volatility
to the equation
impl , K, T ) = Ct .
CBS (t, (St1 ) ;
As CBS is strictly increasing in a unique solution to this equation exists; it is usually
determined by numerical procedures.
In practice traders tend to use a combination of both approaches, implied volatility being
the slightly more popular concept.
4.4
4.4.1
Further applications
Path-dependent derivatives the case of barrier options
The approach of Section 4.2 can be extended to many exotic options with path-dependent
payo; see for instance Wilmott et al. (1993). Here we content ourselves with a simple
example.
Consider a so-called down-and-out call with strike price K and barrier M . The down-and
out call is a particular barrier option; the payo of this contract equals
(ST K)+ , if St1 > M for all t [0, T ],
H=
0 if St1 < M for some t [0, T ].
Dene the stopping-time = inf{t > 0 , St1 < M } and denote by V (t, St1 ) the value of the
down-and-out option on the set > t, i.e. provided that the stock-price has not yet crossed
the barrier. Again, we are looking for a selnancing strategy which replicates this payo.
We have the following
Proposition 4.5. Assume that V (t, S) solves the following boundary value problem
1
Vt (t, S) + 2 S 2 VSS (t, S) + rSVS (t, S) = rV (t, S) for (t, S) [0, T ) (M, )
2
(4.7)
with terminal condition V (T, S) = (S K)+ and boundary condition V (t, M ) = 0. Then
the fair price of the down-and-out call equals V (t, St1 ) if > t and 0 if t; if > t the
stock-position of the replicating strategy consists of (t, St1 ) := VS (t, St1 ) shares of stock.
The proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 4.2.
4.4.2
Model Risk
(4.8)
1
We assume that the trader follows the Black-Scholes model and holds hBS
S (t, St ) shares
of stock at time t. If he maintains a selnancing portfolio the actual value at T of his
portfolio equals
T
VT = V0 +
1
1
hBS
S (t, St )dSt .
T
0
1
(St1 )2 t2 ( )2 hBS
SS (t, St )dt.
The proposition shows that the tracking error is proportional to (t2 ( )2 ), the estimation
1
error for volatility, and to the average of the Gamma hBS
SS (t, St ) over the future path of the
BS
1
stock-price process. If hSS (t, St ) > 0 the hedge looses (gains) money if t > (t < );
1
if hBS
SS (t, St ) < 0 the hedge looses (gains) money if < (t > ).
Proof. As hBS (T, S) = h(S) we get from Itos formula:
BS
h(ST ) = h
(0, S0 ) +
1
1
hBS
S (t, St )dSt
+
0
1
hBS
t (t, St ) +
1 2 1 2 BS
1
(S ) hSS (t, St ) dt .
2 t t
1
hBS
t (t, St )
1 2 1 2 BS
1
+ t (St ) hSS (t, St ) dt .
2
1
2 2 BS
By the Black-Scholes PDE (4.8) we have hBS
t (t, S) = 2 ( ) S hSS (t, S); hence
1
eT =
2
0
1
(St1 )2 (t2 ( )2 )hBS
SS (t, St )dt .
41
Chapter 5
t
In this section we want to dene the stochastic integral 0 Hs dXs for semimartingales of
the form X = X0 + M + A, where M is a continuous martingale and A is a continuous
FV-process, and where H is a suitable limit of integrands of the form
Htn =
n1
ti n ,
i=0
where n is a xed partition of (0, T ], and where each of the hti is Fti -measurable. This
extends the pathwise Ito calculus to a larger class of integrands. This is reasonable from a
nancial viewpoint, as we want to work with a larger class of trading strategies
t than just
Markov strategies of the form (t, St ). The key point is to dene the integral 0 Hs dMs , as
M will typically have paths of innite rst variation, so that standard Stieltjes integration
does not apply. To overcome these problems we use special properties of the space M2 of
square integrable martingales.
5.1.1
(5.1)
st
(5.2)
i.e. (M n M )T = suptT |Mtn Mt | 0 in L2 (, FT , P ). It follows that (M n M )T converges to zero a.s. for a subsequence n , which implies the result, as the limit of continuous
functions in the supremum-norm is continuous.
Quadratic variation.
(Mi,n )2 ,
(5.3)
ti n ; ti <t
ti n ; ti t
exists if and only if [X + Y ]t exists and that [X, Y ]t = 12 ([X + Y ]t [X]t [Y ]t ), the socalled polarization identity. Now for M, N M2,c , M + N M2,c and [M + N ]t exists by
Theorem 5.5. Hence we get
Corollary 5.8. For M, N M2 the covariation
Mi,n Ni,n
[M, N ]t = lim
n
ti n ; ti t
(5.4)
= E (Mt Nt |Fs ) Ms Ns
= E ([M, N ]t [M, N ]s |Fs ) ,
where we have used the fact that Mt Nt [M, N ]t is a martingale.
44
=Ms Ns
Example 5.9 (Constructing correlated Brownian motions.). Let W1 and W2 be independent Brownian
motions and recall from Section 3.3.1 that [W1 , W2 ]t = 0. Put B1 = W1 ,
B2 = W1 + 1 2 W2 . Then
B1 and B2 are standard one-dimensional Brownian motions,
and [B1 , B2 ]t = [W1 , W1 ]t + 1 2 [W2 , W1 ]t = t.
5.1.2
n1
#
"
hti ()1(ti ,ti+1 ] (t) ,
H : Ht () =
(5.5)
i=0
for deterministic time points 0 = t0 < t1 < ... < tn1 < T = tn , n N, and bounded,
Fti -measurable random variables hti , 0 i n 1. Note that the elements of are
bounded and left-continuous. From a nancial point of view, elements of correspond to
simple, piecewise constant trading strategies.
Definition 5.10. For H and M M2,c we dene the stochastic integral (H.M ) by
t
Hs dMs :=
hti Mti+1 t Mti t , t T ;
(H.M )t :=
0
0in
(5.6)
hti (Mti+1 Mti )
= E
E (H.M )
0in
E hti E Mti+1 Mti |Fti .
0in
By the optional sampling theorem E Mti+1 Mti |Fti = 0, and the martingale propt
erty of (H.M ) follows. In order to show that [(H.M )]t = 0 Hs2 d[M ]s , we show that
t
(H.M )2t 0 Hs2 d[M ]s is a martingale, which gives the result by Statement 3 of Theorem
5.5. Again we use the optional sampling theorem. Consider a stopping time T . We
have
n+1
2
E hti1 htj1 Mi Mj ,
(5.7)
E (H.M ) =
i,j=1
45
where Mi = Mti Mti1 . Suppose that i < j. By conditioning on Ftj1 we see that
)
(
E hti1 htj1 Mi Mj = 0. Hence (5.7) equals
n+1
n+1
2
2
E hti1 (Mi ) =
E h2ti1 [M ]ti [M ]ti1 ,
i=1
i=1
n+1
2
i=1
i=1
= E
0
Ht2 d[M ]t .
T
The relation E (H.M )2T = E 0 Hs2 d[M ]s , which we obtain by putting T , shows
that (H.M )T L2 (, FT , P ), as H is bounded and as E ([M ]T ) = E MT2 < since
M M2 .
5.1.3
The Ito-isometry to extend the integral (H.M ) from to a larger class of integrands that
is dened next.
2,c
Definition 5.13. Fix some martingale M
denotes the set of all adapted,
M . Then
T
2
left-continuous processes H such that E 0 Hs d[M ]s < .
The following theorem shows that the stochastic integral (H.M ) can be dened for H :
Theorem 5.14.
Fix M M2,c and consider an adapted, left-continuous processes H ,
T
i.e. with E 0 Hs2 d[M ]s < .
i) There exists a sequence of simple predictable strategies H n with
T
n
2
(Hs Hs ) d[M ]s = 0.
lim E
n
ii) There is a process (H.M ) M2,c with limn (H n .M ) (H.M )M2 = 0, and
(H.M ) is independent of the sequence H n .
Definition 5.15. (H.M ) is called stochastic integral of H with respect to M ; H is called
integrand, M is the integrator.
Proof. The proof of (i) is quite technical, see for instance Karatzas & Shreve(1988), Chap-
T
ter III. In order to establish (ii) we begin with an abstract interpretation of E 0 Hs2 d[M ]s
for M M2,c xed.
F by
= [0, T ], F = FT B([0, T ]) and dene a measure PM on ,
Put
T
1A (, t) d[M ]t , A F.
PM (A) = E
0
46
(5.8)
T
0
Hs2 d[M ]s
F)
with
is the L2 -norm of H (regarded as a random variable on ,
respect to the measure PM . By Corollary 5.8 the mapping
i.e. E
T
0
Hs2 d[M ]s
I : M2,c ,
H (H.M )
2,c
is therefore an isometry from (, L2 (,
F ,PM ) ) to (M , M2 ).
a) Localisation.
T 2 If H is adapted, leftcontinuous and M is a continuous local martingale
sequence of stopping times
with 0 Hs d[M ]s < P -a.s. we (may nd an increasing
)
T 2
2,c
n
n
n T such that M M , E 0 Hs d[M ]s < . Then, for t < n we put
(H.M )t = (H.M n )t ,
(5.9)
where the right hand side is dened by Denition ??. It is easily shown that (5.9) gives
a consistent denition of (H.M )t , and that (H.M )t is a continuous local martingale.
b) Semimartingales as integrators. Let X = X0 + M + A, where M is a continuous
local martingale and A a continuous FV-process. Then one denes for H adapted
T
T
and left continuous such that 0 Hs2 d[M ]s + 0 |Hs | d|A|s < ,
t
t
t
Hs dXs =
Hs dMs +
Hs dAs ,
0
5.1.4
t
0
Hs dAs is an
Kunita-Watanabe characterization
M2,c
satises [L, N ]t =
t
0
47
i.e. the scalar product [L, N ]M2 is determined from (5.10) for all N M2,c , , so that L is
uniquely determined.
Further Properties of (H.M ). Theorem 5.17 allows us to establish a number of very
useful properties of the stochastic integral (H.M ).
Quadratic covariation. If we put N = M we get
t
t
Hs d[M, M ]s =
Hs d[M ]s ,
[(H.M ), M ]t =
0
and hence
t
Hs d[H.M, M ]
[(H.M )]t = [(H.M ), (H.M )]t =
0
t
s
Hs d
Hu d[M ]u
=
0
0
t
Hs2 d[M ]s ,
=
(5.11)
t
0
Hs2 d[M ]s
Chain rule
Consider two integrands H1 , H2 such that
)
( of stochastic integration.
T
2
E 0 (H1,s H2,s ) d[M ]s < . Then we have (H1 . (H2 . M )) = (H1 H2 . M ) or, in
the long version,
t
H1,s d(H2 . M )s =
H1,s d
s
0
H2,u d[M, N ]u
t
0
t
H1,s d[(H2 . M ), N ]s =
=
Hence Lt =
48
(5.12)
T
and E(L 0 Hs dMs ) = 0 for all H . Dene the martingale L via Lt = E(LT | Ft ). Then
L is the desired martingale. It remains to show that [L, M ] 0. Here one uses that MH is
MH
MH implies that also the stopped martingale M
stable under stopping, i.e. M
for an arbitrary stopping time ; we omit the details.
5.2
It
o Processes and the Feynman-Kac formula
It
o processes. It
o processes are solutions of stochastic dierential equations driven by
Brownian motion; they will be our basic model for asset price dynamics.
Definition 5.19. Given a d-dimensional Brownian motion W = (Wt,1 , ..., Wt,d )t0 , a time
point t0 0, some vector x Rn and functions : R+ Rn Rn and : R+ Rn Rnd .
o process with initial
Then the n-dimensional process X = (Xt,1 , ..., Xt,n )t0 is called an It
value t0 , x, drift and dispersion matrix if X satises the SDE
Xt,i = xi +
t
t0
i (s, Xs ) ds +
d
j=1
t
t0
ij (s, Xs ) dWsj ,
t t0 .
(5.13)
In short notation (5.13) is often written in the form dXt = (t, Xt ) dt + (t, Xt ) dWt .
Moreover, one frequently takes t0 = 0.
An intuitive way to understand the SDE (5.13) is the Euler approximation. For a small
time step t one has with tn = nt
Xtn+1 = Xtn + (tn , Xtn )t +
d
(5.14)
j=1
where n,j are iid N (0, t). (5.14) can be used to generate (approximations of) the
trajectories of X on a computer.
49
d
k=1 0
d t
k,l=1 0
d t
k=1 0
t
=
0
ik dWs,k ,
d
l=1
jl dWs,l ]t
ik jl d [Wk , Wl ]s
=kl s
ik jk ds
n
i (t, x)
i=1
n
f
1
2f
(x) +
Cij (t, x)
(t, x).
xi
2
xi xj
(5.15)
i,j=1
= f (X0 ) +
+
1
2
n t
i=1 0
n
t
i,j=1 0
= f (X0 ) +
i,j=1
f
(Xs )i (s, Xs ) ds +
xi
n
i=1 j=1
f
(Xs )ij (s, Xs ) dWs,j
xi
2f
Cij (s, Xs ) ds
xi xj
n
d
i=1 j=1
f
(Xs )i (s, Xs ) dWs,j +
xi
Af (s, Xs )ds.
t
Hence f (Xt ) 0 Af (Xs ) ds can be represented as a sum of stochastic integrals wrt Brownian assumed motion, and is therefore a local martingale. Since f and its derivatives are
bounded by assumption, this expression is a true martingale and the claim follows.
In the following theorem we give conditions ensuring that a solution to the SDE (5.13)
exists.
Theorem 5.21. Suppose that , satisfy Lipschitz and growth conditions of the form
(t, X) (t, Y ) KX Y ,
t 0,
t 0,
t 0.
Then for all initial values (t0 , x) [0, )Rn a unique solution to (5.13) exists. Moreover,
this solution is (FtW )-adapted, where FtW = (Ws,i : 1 i d, s t).
The Feynman Kac formula. Lemma 5.20 forms the basis for a close interplay between
stochastic processes and solution of parabolic PDEs, which is extremely fruitful in nancial
mathematics. The basic result is the celebrated Feynman Kac formula.
We concentrate on the one-dimensional case, which is notationally easier. Consider scalar
functions (t, x), (t, x), and r(t, x) and some function on R. Suppose that F (t, x) is a
solution to the terminal value problem
F
1
2F
F
(t, x) + (t, x)
(t, x) + 2 (t, x) 2 (t, x) =r(t, x)F (t, x),
t
x
2
x
F (T, x) =(x).
(5.16)
(5.17)
Xt0 = x
(5.18)
f
1
2f
+ 2 (t, x) 2 ,
x 2
x
f C 1,2 ,
F
+ AF )(t, Xt )Dt }dt
t
F
(t, Xt )dWt .
x
Using the PDE (5.16) for F we see that the dt terms vanish, i.e.
Zt = Zt0 +
t
t0
F
(s, Xs )Ds (s, Xs )dWs
x
is a (local) martingale and a true martingale given sucient integrality, which we assume
form now on. Moreover, by denition Dt0 = 1 so that Zt0 = F(t0 , Xt0 ) = f (t0 , x). The
T
martingale property of Z now gives, as ZT = exp t0 r(s, Xs )ds (XT ) because of (5.17),
t0
r(s, Xs )ds (XT ) .
Formula (5.19) is called Feynman Kac formula. It can be used in two ways:
51
(5.19)
We can use probabilistic techniques or Monte-Carlo simulation to compute the expectation on the rhs of (5.19) in order to solve numerically the PDE (5.16), (5.17).
We can try to solve the PDE (5.16), (5.17), perhaps numerically, in order to compute
the expectation on the rhs of (5.19).
Both approaches are frequently used in nancial mathematics. For a generalization of
(5.19) to multi-dimensional processes and for a precise statement of the necessary integrality
conditions we refer to Section 5.7 of Karatzas & Shreve (1988).
Example 5.22 (The Black-Scholes PDE). In Theorem 4.2 we showed that the fair price
Vt = (t, St ) of a terminal-value claim with payo h(ST ) in the Black-Scholes Model solves
the terminal value problem
1
ut + rSuS + 2 S 2 uSS = ru,
2
u(T, S) = h(S).
with generator A = rS S
+ 12 2 S 2 S
2 , and we obtain from (5.19)
u(t0 , S) = Et0 ,S er(T t0 ) h(ST ) ,
t0 T.
(5.20)
This can be viewed as risk-neutral pricing formula in continuous time. In the next Chapter
we give a derivation of (5.20) using only probabilistic techniques.
5.3
5.3.1
In discrete-time models, it was shown that the price in t < T of any attainable claim with
FT -measurable payo H is given by the risk-neutral pricing formula
H
| Ft , t T.
(5.21)
Ht = St,0 E Q
ST,0
Here St,0 > 0 represents the numeraire at time t (often St,0 = exp(rt)), and Q satises the
following properties:
(i) Q P , i.e. Q(A) > 0 P (A) > 0,
A FT .
(ii) Thediscounted
price processes St,i = St,i /St,0 , 1 i n, are Q-martingales, i.e.
E Q St,i |Fs = Ss,i , 0 s t T .
In this section we provide the mathematical tools for extending (5.21) to continuous-time
models driven by Brownian motion.
52
(5.22)
2
2
1
1
= 1,
= exp 2 exp
2
2 2
dQ
dP
1 2
x
2
2 2
g(x) exp
E (g(X)) = E (Zg(x)) =
2 2
(x )2
1
g(x) exp
dx,
=
2 2
2 2
Q
x2
e 22 dx
5.3.2
Density martingales
Now we return to the change of measure for stochastic processes. Suppose that we have
a ltered probability space (, F, P ), (Ft )0tT , and a strictly positive, FT -measurable
random variable Z with E(Z) = 1, and dene the measure Q by E Q (X) = E P (XZ), X
bounded, FT -measurable. Dene the associated density martingale by
Zt = E P (Z|Ft ) ,
53
0 t T.
(5.23)
Lemma 5.25. (Zt )0tT is a martingale, and for every Ft -measurable random variable Y
we have E Q (Y ) = E P (Y Zt ), t T .
Proof. The martingale property of (Zt )t0 is obvious. For the second claim note that by
iterated conditioning
E Q (Y ) = E P (Y Z) = E P E P (Y Z|Ft ) = E P Y E P (Z|Ft ) = E P (Y Zt ) .
E Q (Y |Fs ) =
(5.24)
Proof. We have to check that the right hand side of (5.24) satises the characterizing
equation of conditional expectations, i.e.
1 P
Q
E (Y Zt |Fs ) 1A = E Q (Y 1A ) , A Fs .
E
Zs
Using Lemma 5.25, the left hand side equals, as A Fs ,
1 P
P
Zs E (Y Zt |Fs ) 1A = E P E P (Y Zt 1A |Fs ) = E P (Y Zt 1A ) ,
E
Zs
which is equal to E Q (Y 1A ) by Lemma 5.25.
Lemma 5.27. Let Q P with dQ
dP = Z. An adapted process (Mt )0tT is a Q-martingale
if and only if the process (Mt Zt )0tT is a P -martingale.
Proof. By the Bayes formula (5.24) we have for t T with ZT := Z
E Q (MT |Ft ) =
1 P
E (MT ZT |Ft ) .
Zt
(5.25)
If (Mt Zt )0tT is a P -martingale the right hand side equals Z1t Mt Zt = Mt and M is a Qmartingale. Conversely, if M is a Q-martingale the left hand side equals Mt and multiplying
(5.25) with Zt gives Mt Zt = E P (MT ZT |Ft ).
5.3.3
We begin with the one-dimensional version. Let (Wt )0tT be a one-dimensional Brownian
motion on the ltered probability space (, F, P ), (Ft )0tT . Let (t )0tT be an adapted
process, and dene
t
1 t 2
s dWs
ds , 0 t T.
(5.26)
Zt = exp
2 0 s
0
54
t
0
s ds,
0tT
(5.27)
55
Now we have
, Z]t
[W
(i)
(ii)
=
=
(5.28)
dier only by a continuous FV process and (ii) the Kunitausing (i) that W and W
Watanabe characterization (Theorem 5.17). Hence we get, using (5.28) and the chain-rule
for stochastic integrals (5.13),
t Zt = W
t t Zt dWt + Zt dWt Zt t dt + Zt t dt
dW
t t Zt + Zt ) dWt .
= (W
t Zt has a representation as an integral with respect to the
This shows that the product W
P -Brownian motion (Wt )0tT and is therefore a P -local martingale, proving the result.
Theorem 5.28 is easily extended to the case of a d-dimensional Brownian motion.
Theorem 5.31 (Girsanov, d-dimensional version.). Consider a d-dimensional Bownian
motion on (, F, P ), (Ft )0tT and some adapted process = (t,1 , . . . , t,d ) . Dene
Zt = exp
d
i=1
t
0
1
s,i dWs,i
2
t
0
s 2 ds .
Suppose that Z is a martingale (and not only a local martingale) so that E(ZT ) = 1. Dene
t
0
s,i ds,
0tT
(5.29)
T
0
s 2 Zs2 ds < (integrable quadratic variation).
0 t T,
(5.30)
with W some Brownian motion. Start with some probability space (, F, P ), (Ft )0tT ,
supporting a Brownian motion (Xt )0tT . Dene a measure Q via
T
1 T 2
dQ
=
Z
:=
exp
(s,
X
)
dX
(s,
X
)
ds
.
T
s
s
s
dP FT
2 0
0
By Theorem 5.28, Wt := Xt
t
0
Xt = Wt +
t
0
(s, Xs ) ds
A .
(5.31)
= T .
57
Chapter 6
Financial Mathematics in
Continuous-Time
6.1
6.1.1
Basic Concepts
The Model
We start with a general model for a frictionless security market with continuous trading.
Fix some horizon date T and consider some probability space (, F, P ) with a ltration
{Ft }0tT . There are d + 1 traded assets with price process S = (S 0 , . . . , S d ). We assume
We assume
throughout that S 0 , . . . , S d follow semimartingales with continuous trajectories.
t
0
0
0
that S (t) > 0 P a.s. for all t and use S as numeraire; often S (t) = exp( 0 rs ds) for some
adapted process r with rs 0. In that case S 0 represents the so-called savings account
and r is the short rate of interest.
d+1
adapted and left-continuous proSelffinancing
strategies: A R -valued
0 trading
d
cess (t) = t , . . . , t is called a trading strategy; it represents the number of units of
i
security i in the portfolio
t i ati time t. We assume that is suciently integrable so that the
stochastic integral 0 s dSs is well dened.
Definition 6.1. (i) The value of the portfolio at time t equals Vt = Vt = di=0 it Sti ;
V = (Vt )0tT is called value process of the strategy.
=
0
u dSu :=
d
i=0
t
0
iu dSui
and the discounted value process Vt = Vt /St0 = di=0 it Sti . Intuitively, one would expect
that a change of numeraire has no substantial economic implications. The next result
conrms this fact.
Proposition 6.2 (Numeraire Invariance). Selnancing strategies remain selnancing after a change of numeraire.
1
. We have, using Ito s product formula, that
Proof. Let Xt = St0
dStk = dStk Xt = Stk dXt + Xt dStk + d[S k , X]t .
(6.2)
d
k k
By denition we have Vt =
k=0 t St . Moreover, as is selnancing, it holds that
d
dVt = k=0 kt dStk . This gives the following dynamics of the discounted wealth V :
dVt = Vt dXt + Xt dVt + d[X, V ]t
=
d
k=0
d
k=0
d
d
d
kt Stk dXt + Xt d
kt dStk +
kt d[X, S k ]t
k=0
k=0
kt d Stk dXt + Xt dStk + d[S k , X]t
(6.3)
k=0
d
kt dStk ,
k=0
as follows by comparing (6.3) and (6.2). Hence we have shown that dVt = dk=0 kt dStk so
that the discounted value process can be represented as sum of the discounted initial value
and of the gains process wrt the discounted securities prices.
Corollary 6.3.
V = V0 + G
t
with
=
G
t
d
k=1
t
0
kt dStk .
(6.4)
(ii) A selnancing strategy is completely determined by the initial investment V0 and the
position 1 , . . . , d in the assets S 1 , . . . , S d .
Proof. Statement (i) follows immediately from the numeraire invariance (note that St0 1,
t
so that 0 0t dSt0 0).
For the second statement note that V0 and 1 , . . . , d uniquely determine the discounted
wealth process Vt by (6.4) and hence the undiscounted valued process Vt ; the position 0t
is then given by
d
kt Stk }.
0t = (St0 )1 {Vt
k=1
59
6.1.2
Definition 6.4 (Arbitrage). A selnancing portfolio such that P (Vt 0 for all
t T ) = 1, V0 = 0 and P (VT > 0) > 0 is an arbitrage opportunity.
Arbitrage opportunities represent a chance to create risk free prots and should not exist
in a well-functioning market.
Definition 6.5 (Martingale measure). A probability measure Q is called an equivalent
martingale measure if
(i) Q P on FT , i.e. for every A FT , Q(A) = 0 P (A) = 0.
(ii) The discounted price processes Sk , 1 k d are Q-local martingales.
Note that a martingale measure is always related to a given numeraire (due to the discountt
ing in (ii)). If the numeraire is of the form St0 = exp( 0 rs ds), r the spot rate of interest, Q
is also called spot martingale measure. Often we are interested in the situation where the
asset prices are true martingales (and not just local ones); this will be mentioned where
appropriate.
Lemma 6.6. Q is a spot martingale measure, if and only if every price process S i has
Q-dynamics of the form
dSti = rt Sti dt + dMti ,
0 i d,
(6.5)
Q(VT > 0) > 0. Hence also V0 > 0, so that an arbitrage opportunity cannot exist.
60
Remark 6.8. The converse statement (the fact that absence of arbitrage implies the
existence of equivalent martingale measures) is in principle correct as well. This is the
famous rst fundamental theorem of arbitrage, established in full generality by Delbaen &
Schachermayer (1994). A good discussion of the more technical aspects surrounding this
result is also given in Chapter 10 of Bjork (2004).
6.1.3
:=
(ii) The nancial market model is called complete, if any contingent claim X with X
X/ST0 L1 (, FT , Q) is attainable.
The nancial motivation for the denition is of course the fact that by initially investing
V0 and then following the trading strategy the claim can be replicated without any
further cost or risk. Note that in reality the performance of the trading strategy may be
sub-optimal due to market frictions or model errors, and perfect replication of the claim
may be impossible.
The next result links attainability to martingale representation.
= X/S 0 L1 (, FT , Q).
Lemma 6.11. Consider a contingent claim X such that X
T
t ) admits a
Then X is attainable if and only if the Q-martingale M with Mt = E Q (X|F
representation as stochastic integral of the form
d t
iu dSui , 0 t T,
(6.6)
Mt = x +
i=1
X
= V ,
|Ft ) = x + G
t
t
0
ST
(6.8)
where the last equality follows form Corollary 6.3. Multiplying both side of (6.8) with St0
proves the claim.
Remark 6.14. If the market is complete, we must have for any two martingale measures
that
Q1 and Q2 and any bounded random variable X
= V (0) = E Q2 (X),
E Q1 (X)
0 (which exists by market completeness).
where is a replicating strategy for X = XS
T
Hence we must have Q1 = Q2 , which is the if part of Theorem 6.12.
62
6.1.4
Change of numeraire
We now discuss the technique of change of numeraire, which will be very useful for the
valuation of claims under stochastic interest rates in the next section. We consider a model
with d + 1 assets S 0 , S 1 , . . . , S d and assume that there is a martingale measure Q such that
the discounted asset prices Sti = Sti /St0 , 1 i d are Q-martingales. Consider now a new
asset Xt > 0. The following theorem shows which martingale measure we have to use in
order to work with X as new numeraire.
Theorem 6.15 (Change of numeraire). Consider a non-dividend-paying numeraire Xt
such that Xt /St0 is a true Q-martingale. Dene a measure QX by putting
Xt S 0
dQX
|Ft = t := 0 0 .
dQ
St X0
(6.9)
Then the processes Sti /Xt , 1 i d (the basic security process discounted using X)
are QX -martingales. Moreover, we have for every contingent claim H such that H/ST0
L1 (, FT , Q) the change-of-numeraire formula
St0 E Q (H/ST0 |Ft ) = Xt E Q (H/XT |Ft ).
X
(6.10)
We mention that the theorem remains true for a general change of numeraire where one
S00 Q XT
S00 Xt
E
|F
= t ;
t =
0
X0
X0 St0
ST
H
1
H
X S0
H S0X
i
T
0
T 0 T
|Ft = E Q
T |Ft = 0 t E Q
|F
t
XT
t
XT
S0 Xt
XT X0 ST0
H
H
S0
ii
T
t
|F
=
,
= t EQ
t
0
Xt
Xt
ST
T
t is a Q-martingale.
where we have used i the denition of in (6.9) and ii the fact that H
The above computation shows that Ht /Xt is a QX -martingale and thus proves the rst
part of the theorem.
t = E Q HT /S 0 | Ft and let
For the change-of-numeraire formula dene the martingale H
T
t (the risk-neutral price of H). Then we get from the rst part of the proof that
Ht = St0 H
EQ
H
H
t
|Ft =
,
XT
Xt
63
6.2
Setup. As in the previous section we consider a model with two traded assets, stock and
money market account, with dynamics given by
dSt0 = rSt0 dt,
dSt1
St1 dt
S00 = 1
+ St1 dWt ,
(6.11)
S01
= S0 > 0.
(6.12)
Note that (6.11) implies that St0 = exp(rt). We dene the discount factor by Dt = (St0 )1 =
exp(rt). The discounted stock price is given by St := Dt St1 ; the discounted price of S 0 is
by denition equal to 1. In economic terms discounting corresponds to taking the money
os-formula to compute the dynamics
market account S 0 as new numeraire. We now use It
of the discounted stock price. Since dDt = r(Dt )dt, the Ito-product-formula yields
dSt1 = St1 dDt + Dt dSt1 + d[St1 , Dt ]t = r St1 dt + St1 dt + St1 dWt
= ( r)S1 dt + S1 dWt ,
t
Recall from
Lemma 6.16. 6.6 that the discounted price process S1 is a Q-martingale if and only if
t
S 1 itself has dynamics of the form St1 = S0 + 0 rSs1 ds + MtQ , where M Q is a Q-local
martingale. Comparison with the Black-Scholes SDE shows that we need to dene Q in
such a way that by going from P to Q the drift is changed from to r .
Now we apply Girsanovs theorem to determine the1 equivalent martingale measure in the
Black-Scholes model. We have
t
t
Ss1 ds +
Ss1 dWs
St1 = S0 +
0
0
t
t
t
r
1
1
Ss ds +
= S0 +
rSs ds +
Ss1 dWs
0
0
0
t
t
1
s
= S0 +
rSs ds +
Ss1 dW
0
t = Wt + t r ds. Dene := r ; is often referred to as market price of risk
where W
0
t
t we need to turn
of the stock. In order for S to be of the form St1 = S0 + 0 rSs1 ds + M
t
t = Wt + ds into a martingale by a change of measure. Girsanovs theorem tells us
W
0
that under Q with
dQ
= exp(WT 1/22 T )
dP
s is a Q-local
is a Q-Brownian motion, hence the It
t = t S 1 dW
the process W
o-integral M
0
We will see in Section 6.3.3 that the Black-Scholes model is complete, so that the equivalent martingale
measure is unique by the second fundamental theorem.
64
Proposition 6.17. Consider a Black-Scholes model with stock-price dynamics of the form
dSt1 = St1 dWt + St1 dt for constants , . Then the equivalent martingale measure Q is
r
2
given by the density dQ
dP = GT := exp(WT 1/2 T ), where = is the market price
of risk of the stock. Under Q the stock-price process solves the SDE
t
dSt1 = rSt1 dt + St1 dW
(6.13)
(I)
ln K ln S0 (r 1/2 2 )T
W
T >
2 T
2 T
.
= N (d2 ) .
Q(ST1 > K) = Q Z <
T
To deal with term (I) we need to apply Girsanovs theorem once more. Note that erT ST1 =
T 1/2 2 T ) has the form of a Girsanov-density. Dene a new
S0 YT where YT := exp( W
measure QS by dQS /dQ = YT . Then we have
S
E Q erT ST1 1{S 1 >K} = S0 E Q YT 1{S 1 >K} = S0 E Q (1{S 1 >K} ) = S0 QS (ln ST1 > ln K) .
T
6.3
6.3.1
The traded assets consist of one money-market account S 0 and d stocks S 1 , . . . , S d . Given
a ltrated probability space (, F, P ), {Ft }, 0 t T , we assume that the stock-price is
65
an It
o-process of the form
dSti = it Sti dt + Sti
n
ij (t)dWtj ,
1 i d,
(6.14)
j=1
for an n-dimensional standard Brownian motion Wt = (Wt1 , . . . , Wtn ) and adapted process
it , 1 i d and ij (t), 1 i d, 1 j n. The initial values are given by
S0 = (S01 , . . . , S0d ). The money-market account satises
t
0
St = exp( rs ds)
0
for some adapted process (rs )0st modelling the (random) short-rate of the interest. We
now give a more intuitive description of the model (6.14). Dene
i (t) =
n
ij (t)2
1
2
(6.15)
j=1
and assume that i (t) > 0 a.s.. Dene processes Bti , 1 i d, via
n t
ij (s)
i
dWsj .
Bt =
(s)
i
0
(6.16)
j=1
(t)
i
j (t)
0
Note that ij (t) [1, 1]; it is termed instantaneous correlation of B i and B j . In terms of
the B i the asset price dynamics can be written in the form
dSti = it Sti dt + i (t)Sti dBti ,
1 i d,
(6.17)
os formula
so that i (t) is the volatility of S i at time t. Moreover, we get from It
1
d ln Sti = (it i2 (t))dt + i (t)dBti ,
2
so that
i
[ln S , ln S ]t =
i
i (s)j (s)d[B , B ]s =
The quantity ij therefore models the instantaneous correlation of the logarithmic return
processes: for h small we have
j
i
ln Sti )(ln St+h
ln Stj )|Ft (i j ij )h.
E (ln St+h
As in the case of the one-dimensional Black-Scholes model the dynamics of the discounted
stock prices Sti = Sti /St0 are given by
n
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
ij (t)dWtj ).
dSt =(t rt )St dt + i (t)St dBt = (t rt )St dt + St d(
j=1
66
(6.18)
6.3.2
The following Proposition gives sucient conditions for the existence of an equivalent martingale measure, and hence for the absence of arbitrage in the model (6.14).
Proposition 6.18. Suppose that for all 0 t T there is a solution t = (t1 , . . . , tn ) of
the so-called market-price-of-risk equations
it rt =
1 T
n
ij (t)tj ,
1 i d,
(6.19)
j=1
s 2 ds) < . Then the model (6.14) admits an equivalent martin-
Proof. Using the process t from (6.19) we can write the SDE (6.18) for the discounted
stock price S1 , . . . Sd in the form in the form
n
n
j
i
i
i
i
i
ij (t)dWt = St
ij (t)d Wtj + tj dt
(6.20)
dSt =(t rt )St dt + St
j=1
t
j=1
ti (it rt ) = 0,
and
(t)t = 0,
i=1
otherwise (t rt 1) ker (t) = Im(t), which contradicts the fact that the market-price-ofrisk equation has no solution. Dene a trading-strategy by it = ti /Sti . The corresponding
discounted wealth process V satises
dVt =
d
i=1
ti (it rt )dt +
n
d
d
(
ij (t)ti )dWtj =
ti (it rt )dt,
j=1 i=1
i=1
where we have used that i=1 ij (t)ti = (t)t j = 0 as t ker (t). Hence we have
constructed a locally riskless selnancing trading strategy whose discounted wealth-process
is non-constant, and it is easy to construct arbitrage-opportunities from this. Hence we
have shown the following result:
d
67
Theorem 6.19. Modulo integrability conditions, the model (6.14) is arbitrage-free if and
only if the market-price of risk equation (6.19) admits a solution.
6.3.3
As before, we consider a model with d + 1 traded assets and dynamics of the form dSt0 =
rt St0 dt, and
dSti
it Sti dt
n
ij (t)Sti dWtj ,
1 i d,
(6.22)
j=1
n
j,
ij (t)dW
t
(6.23)
j=1
Using Itos representation theorem (Theorem 6.20) and the assumption {Ft } = {FtW } it is
straightforward that M has a unique representation of the form
n t
sj .
hjs dW
(6.25)
Mt = M0 +
j=1
68
On the other hand, writing (6.24) in short-hand notation and using (6.23) we get that the
martingale representation of M in (6.24) is equivalent to
dMt =
d
Sti it
i=1
n
j =
ij (t)dW
t
j=1
n
d
j=1
j.
Sti ij (t)it dW
t
(6.26)
i=1
d
ij (t)Sti it =
i=1
d
ij (t)it ,
(6.27)
i=1
where it = it Sti . This equation does indeed have a solution since we assumed that
Im (t) = Rn and we have shown the existence of a replication strategy.
The proof of the converse direction is based on the observation that if Im (t) is a strict
subset of Rd we can nd a process h such that (6.27) does not have a solution, so that
t
sj cannot be represented as stochastic integral
the martingale Mt = M0 + nj=1 0 (h )js dW
with respect to the stock price processes; we omit the details.
69
Chapter 7
Optimization Problems in
Continuous-Time Finance
7.1
In this section we give an introduction to portfolio optimization via stochastic control theory.
The main result is the derivation of a nonlinear PDE for the value function of the control
problem. Our exposition follows closely the textbook Bj
ork (2004).
7.1.1
Consider a market with two traded assets S 0 and S 1 ,; assume that St0 = exp(rt), r > 0,
and that the dynamics of S 1 is given by the Black Scholes model, so that S 1 solves the SDE
dSt1 = St1 dt + St1 dWt for constants and > 0 and a Brownian motion W . We are
interested in the trading strategy of an investor in this market with initial wealth v0 who
wants to invest in some sense optimally. The rst step is to describe what we mean by an
optimal investment strategy. Here we assume that the investor wants to maximize expected
utility of the terminal wealth. Consider a horizon date T and a utility function u : R+ R
with u > 0 and u < 0. For concreteness and ease of computation we consider a utility
function of the form
x
, < 1, = 0,
(7.1)
u(x) =
and u(x) = ln x, if = 0. These utility functions have derivative u (x) = x , < 1, and
the so-called and Arrow-Pratt risk aversion u /u is given by (1 )x1 . Note that the
risk aversion is inversely proportional to the wealth x of the investor. For this reason a
utility function of the form (7.1) is said to exhibit constant relative risk aversion.
Formally, the problem of maximizing expected utility of terminal wealth amounts to nding
some selnancing strategy of the form t = (0t , 1t ) in stock and bond with wealth processes
Vt and initial wealth V0 = v0 that maximizes E u(VT ) over all admissible strategies with
initial wealth no larger than v0 . Sometimes one considers also a modied version of the
problem where some of the wealth is consumed before maturity. More precisely, it is assumed
that that the investor consumes his wealth at a rate ct dt for an adapted process ct 0 so
70
V0 v0 .
over all admissible (to be specied later) strategies (0 , 1 , c). Here 0 is some constant
that models the relative importance of intermediate and terminal consumption and r is a
subjective discount rate.
Formulation as stochastic control problem. Next we reformulate the optimization
problem as a stochastic control problem. We consider only strategies such that Vt () > 0.
Hence we may dene the relative portfolio weights by
t0 =
0t St0
,
Vt
t1 =
1t St1
.
Vt
Note that by denition ti gives the proportion of the overall wealth Vt invested in asset i
and that t0 + t1 = 1. It is quite natural to describe a portfolio strategy in terms of relative
portfolio weights since rules such asinvest 70 % in stock and 30 % in bond are typical
descriptions of investment strategies used in practice. The wealth equation can be rewritten
in terms of the relative portfolio weights as we now show. It holds that
t
t
t
0
0
1
1
s dSs +
s dSs
cs ds
Vt = V0 +
0
0
0
t
t
t
t
0
1
1
s rVs ds +
s Vs ds +
s Vs dWs
cs ds
= V0 +
0
0
0
0
t
t
t
t
rVs ds +
s1 Vs ( r)ds +
s1 Vs dWs
cs ds.
(7.2)
= V0 +
0
Hence V0 , and the processes t = t1 and ct determine the evolution of the wealth process
Vt ; in particular the stock price does not appear in this description of the wealth process.
The investor problem can now be rewritten in the form
T
ert u(ct )dt + u(VT ) such that
(7.3)
max E
,c
V0 = v0
(7.4)
(7.5)
Here we have implicitly used that it is always optimal to invest the initial capital v0 in full.
7.1.2
In this section we consider a general control problem that contains the portfolio optimization
problem (7.3) as a special case. Consider a Brownian motion W and functions : RRn
71
V0 = v0 .
(7.6)
. In this model the state process is controlled or steered by a proper choice of the ndimensional control strategy .
As a rst step for setting up a formal control problem we need to dene the class of admissible control processes. A minimal requirement is the fact that t should depend only on
the past values of the state process V . A class of strategies that satisfy this requirement are
feedback control strategies where
t = (t, Vt )
for a suitable function with values in Rn . In most problems one has to require that
takes its values in some subset K of Rn (so-called control constraints). For instance in the
portfolio optimization problem we required that ct 0.
Definition 7.1. An admissible feedback control strategy is a function : [0, ) R K
and such that for all initial values (t, v) [0, ) R the SDE
dVt = (Vt , (t, Vt ))dt + (Vt , (t, Vt ))dWt ,
Vt = v
(7.7)
has a unique solution. The set of admissible feedback control strategies is denoted by A.
Note that for a given strategy A the state process (7.7) is a Markov process. Hence
feedback control strategies are also known as Markov control strategies. For a given admissible strategy and initial value v the solution of the SDE (7.7) will sometimes be
denoted by V v, or by V . Moreover, for a given admissible feedback strategy we often
write
SDE (7.7) in the short
form dVt = (t, Vt )dt + (t, Vt )dWt , where, of course,
the
u : R R.
Now we dene the reward function of the control problem as the function J0 : A R with
T
v0 ,
v0 ,
v0 ,
F (t, Vt , (t, Vt ))dt + u VT
(7.8)
J0 () = E
0
The optimization problem is now to maximize J0 over all A. The optimal value is thus
A is optimal if J0 = J0 (
).
given by J0 = sup{J0 () : A}, and a strategy
Of course, as with any optimization problem it is not clear if an optimal control strategy
exists. In the sequel we will assume that an optimal strategy exists and we show how it can
(in principle) be computed using PDE methods. Moreover, we give a verication result that
gives sucient conditions which ensure that a candidate solution produced by our approach
is in fact an optimal strategy.
72
over all strategies A. The original problem is of course the problem P (0, v0 ).
Definition 7.2. (i) The reward function associated to the problem P (t, x) is the function
J : [0, T ] R+ A R with
T
x) = sup{J(t, x, ) : A}.
(ii) The value function is dened by J(t,
Step 2: The dynamic programming principle. The following result is crucial for
the analysis of control problems with dynamic programming.
Proposition 7.3 (Dynamic Programming principle). Denote by Tt,T the set of all stopping
times with t T .
1. For all admissible strategies A and all Tt,T it holds that
. V ) | Vt = x
F (s, Vs , s ) ds + J(,
J.(t, x) E
(7.9)
.
.
F (s, Vs ,
s ) ds + J(, V ) | Vt = x
J(t, x) E
t
F (s, Vs , s ) ds + J(, V , ) | Vt = x
(7.10)
J(t, x, ) = E
t
A for
Fix now some control A and some Tt,T . Choose an -optimal strategy
.
the problem starting at , that is a strategy
with J(, x) J(, x, )+ for all x. Dene
by
(s, y), s [t, ], y R+
;
(s, y) =
(s, y), s (, T ], y R+
. V ) | Vt = x , and for 0
. x) J(t, x, ) E F (s, Vs , s ) ds + J(,
Then J(t,
t
we get the rst inequality.
Now we turn to the second inequality in the proposition. Using the inequality J(, V , )
. V ) and (7.10) we get
J(,
.
F (s, Vs , s ) ds + J(, V ) | Vt = x and thus
J(t, x, ) E
t
.
F (s, Vs , s ) ds + J(, V ) | Vt = x .
J(t, x, ) inf E
Tt,T
73
A Tt,T
F (s, Vs , s ) ds
+ J.(, V )
| Vt = x .
.
.
J(t, x) inf E
F (s, Vs ,
s ) ds + J (, V ) | Vt = x ,
Tt,T
.
.
F (s, Vs , s ) ds + J(, V ) | Vt = x .
(7.11)
J (t, x) = sup E
A
Step 3: The HJB equation. We now use heuristic arguments and the dynamic pro this PDE will
gramming principle to derive a nonlinear PDE for the value-function J;
provide a method for computing the optimal strategy
as well. For this we denote for
1
f
2f
(x) + 2 (x, ) 2 (x).
x
2
x
(7.12)
Note that L is the generator of the state process V if a constant strategy t is being
used. For instance we get for the portfolio optimization problem with = (, c)
f
1
2f
(x) + 2 2 x2 2 (x).
L f (x) = (r + ( r))x c
x
2
x
In order to proceed we assume that
A1) The optimal value function J is once dierentiable in t and twice in x. Moreover, all
stochastic integrals with respect to Brownian motion are true martingales.
In the next step we use It
os Lemma to obtain a PDE for J. from the dynamic programming
principle. It holds that
t+h
t+h
Jt (s, Vs ) + L J(s, Vs ) ds +
Jx (s, Vs )s dWs .
J(t + h, Vt+h ) = J(t, x) +
t
By assumption the stochastic integral with respect to W is a true martingale and has expectation zero. Hence we obtain
t+h
.
Jt (s, Vs ) + L J(s, Vs )ds
E J(t + h, Vt+h ) | Vt = x = J(t, x) + E
t
74
(7.13)
Dividing (7.13) by h and letting h 0 in (7.13) we obtain from the fundamental theorem
of calculus that for K
F (t, x, ) + Jt (t, x) + L J(t, x) 0.
Moreover, we get from the second inequality in the dynamic programming principle that
t+h
Vs ) ds = 0 .
F (s, Vs , s ) + Jt (s, Vs ) + L J(s,
sup E
A
(7.14)
H(T, x) = u(x)
Ht (s, Vs ) + Ls H(s, Vs ) ds
u(VT ) = H(T, VT ) = H(t, x) +
t
T
Hx (s, Vs )dWs .
+
t
The HJB equation implies that Ht (s, Vs ) + Ls H(s, Vs ) + F (s, Vs , s ) 0. Hence we get
that
T
T
Ht (s, Vs ) + Ls H(s, Vs ) ds
F (s, Vs , s )ds
t
75
and thus
H(t, x)
t
F (s, Vs , s )ds
u(VT )
Hx (s, Vs )dWs
Assuming enough integrability so that the integral wrt dW is a martingale (this is the
integrability condition on H()) we get by taking expectations that
T
F (s, Vs , s )ds + u(VT ) | Vt = x = J(t, x, ),
H(t, x) E
t
Step 1. Solve the static optimization problem sup L H(t, x), making an educated
guess about structural properties of H. This gives
in terms of H and its derivatives.
Step 2. Substitute the solution
from Step 1 into the HJB equation and try to solve
the resulting highly nonlinear equation, verifying the educated guess made in Step 1.
Note that explicit solutions to HJB equations exist only in very exceptional cases.
Example 7.7 (The stochastic regulator). This is a classical example of a control problem
that can be solved with the approach sketched above. The problem is as follows
T
s2 ds + XT2
(7.15)
subject to dXt = (aXt + t )dt + dWt
minimizeE
0
Here a R and > 0 are given parameters. The control t can take arbitrary values, that
is we take K = R. The interpretation of (7.15) is as follows: Xt represents the location of
a particle that is moving randomly. The controller wants to steer the particle by a proper
choice of t so that it is close to the origin at the terminal time T . However, he has to
balance
deviation from the origin at T against the fuel cost of his strategy as given
T the
2
by 0 s ds.
The generator of X for given is L f (x) = (ax + )fx + 12 fxx so that the HJB equation is
1
J.t (t, x) + inf 2 + (ax + )J.x (t, x) + J.xx (t, x) = 0,
R
2
. x) = x2 .
J(T,
i) We rst consider the static problem minR { 2 + (ax + )J.x (t, x)}. This is a quadratic
minimization problem and since > 0 the minimum is given by the FOC, that is we obtain
.(t, x) =
1 .
Jx (t, x).
2
76
c(t)x 2
c(t)x
1
) + ax +
2c(t)x + 2c(t) = 0
Simplifying and collecting the terms with an x2 and the terms independent of x separately
gives
c2 (t)
+ 2ac(t) + (d (t) + c(t)) = 0 .
x2 c (t)
It follows that each of the brackets needs to be zero. This gives the following ODE for c:
c (t) c2 (t)/ + 2ac(t) = 0, with terminal condition c(T ) = 1. This is a so-called Ricatti
equation that permits an explicit (but somewhat messy) solution; we omit the
T details.
Given c(t) we get from the second bracket that d (t) = c(t) and hence d(t) = t c(s)ds.
7.1.3
Finally we apply Proposition 7.4 to the portfolio optimization problem. For simplicity we
ignore the case of intermediate dividend payments, that is we put C = 0 in (7.3). In order
to nd a solution of the HJB equation (7.14) we proceed in two steps.
Step 1. In the rst step we solve the static optimization problem sup L H(t, x). In this
way we express the optimal strategy in terms of the candidate value function H and its
derivatives. We have
1
L H(t, x) = rxHx + ( r)xHx + 2 x2 2 Hxx
2
(7.16)
Assume now that H inherits the qualitative properties of the the utility function u via the
terminal condition H(T, x) = u(x), so that Hx > 0 and Hxx < 0. . In that case (7.16) is
maximized by setting
( r)Hx
(t, x).
(t, x) = 2
xHxx
Step 2. (Solving the HJB equation) Plugging our candidate for
into the HJB-equation
(7.14), we obtain the PDE
Ht (t, x) + rxHx
( r)2 Hx2
1 ( r)2 Hx2
+
=0
2
Hxx 2 2
Hxx
This is a highly nonlinear equation. In order to solve this equation we conjecture that the
solution is of the form H(t, x) = f (t)x /, = 0 and H(t, x) = f (t)+ln(x) for = 0. With
77
this conjecture we have that Hx /(xHxx ) = 1/(1 ) (recall that < 1 by assumption)
and the optimal strategy takes the form
(t, x) =
r
.
(1 ) 2
(7.17)
This form of the optimal strategy is quite intuitive: the investor should hold a long position
if the growth rate is larger than the risk free rate r and he should hold a short position
in the stocks whenever < r. The size of his position is inversely proportional to his risk
aversion coecient (1 ) and to the instantaneous variance 2 of the stock. It remains
to show that H is in fact a solution of the HJB equation for a proper choice of f (). We
consider only the case = 0. For
as in (7.17) the HJB equation becomes Ht + L H = 0.
1
1
1
+
xx
xx
= 0.
f (t)(x )/ + f (t) rxx
(1 ) 2
2 (1 ) 2
Dividing this equation by x shows that f satises a linear ODE. The terminal condition
H(T, x) = u(x) gives the terminal condition f (T ) = 1, and f is easily computed. Hence we
have in fact found a solution of the HJB equation of the form H(t, x) = f (t)x /, and
given in (7.17) is the optimal strategy by the verication theorem.
For further information on stochastic control theory we refer to the recent textbook Pham
(2009).
78
Chapter 8
Term-Structure Modelling
In this chapter we give an introduction to the modelling of interest-rate risk. Our presentation is largely based on Bj
ork (2004); further information can be found in the textbook Filipovic (2009).
8.1
We begin by describing the market for interest-rate related products at a given point in time
t.
Zero coupon bond. A zero coupon bond with maturity T > t, also called T -bond guarantees the holder e1 to be paid at the maturity date T . The price in t < T is denoted by
p(t, T ). Since we assume that bonds do not default it holds that p(T, T ) = 1. The family
p(t, T ), T t describes the term-structure of interest rates at time t. We assume that
There is a frictionless market for T -bonds for all T > t
For xed t the mapping T p(t, T ) is continuously dierentiable; we write pT (t, T ) =
T p(t, T ).
Note that the mapping t p(t, T ) (the price trajectory of a bond with xed maturity date)
is usually quite irregular with sample path properties similar to those of Brownian motion.
Forward price of bonds. Consider time points t < S < T . The price, contracted in
t, to be paid in S for e1 at time T is the forward price of the T -bond with maturity S,
denoted by F (t, S, T ). It is well-known that F (t, S, T ) = p(t, T )/p(t, S). Alternatively, if
we make a contract at t to invest e1 over the time period [S, T ] we obtain an amount of
1/F (t, S, T ) = p(t, S)/p(t, T ) at T .
From this relation we can dene various interest rates.
Definition 8.1. (Interest rates, continuous compounding) Let t < S < T .
1. The (continuously compounded) forward rate over (S, T ], contracted at t, R(t; S, T )
79
p(t, S)
,
p(t, T )
ln p(t, T ) ln p(t, S)
.
T S
ln p(t, T )
.
T t
4. The (instantaneous) short-rate of interest is r(t) = f (t, t), i.e. r(t) = T ln p(t, T )|T =t .
t
As usual we dene the money market account account process by Bt = exp( 0 rs ds), so
that B has dynamics dBt = rt Bt dt with initial value B0 = 1.
Relation between f (t, ) and p(t, ). We get from the fundamental theorem of calculus
T
T
T ln p(t, u)du = ln p(t, S)
f (t, u)du.
ln p(t, T ) = ln p(t, S) +
S
T
and therefore p(t, T ) = p(t, S) exp S f (t, u)du . In particular
f (t, u)du),
p(t, T ) = exp(
(8.1)
as p(t, t) = 1. This shows that there is a one-to-one relation between the family p(t, ) of
bond prices and the family f (t, ) of instantaneous forward rates.
Dynamic Modelling. Term-structure modelling is the task of constructing a probabilistic
model for the evolution of the family of zero coupon bond price processes p(, T ). There are
a number of requirements for such a model.
p(, T ) needs to satisfy the nal condition p(T, T ) = 1.
Absence of arbitrage between the security prices {p(, T ), T t} (a challenge as we
are dealing with many price processes simultaneously).
Calibration. At the initial date t0 the price p(t0 , T ) has to be consistent with the bond
prices or interest rates observed in the market at time t0 ).
The short rate r(t) is a nominal interest rate and should be nonnegative (but this
requirement is sometimes relaxed).
In these lecture notes we consider two approaches for term-structure modelling, so-called
short-rate models and forward-rate- or HJM models.
80
8.2
8.2.1
Short-Rate Models
Martingale Modelling and Term-Structure Equation
Consider a ltered probability space (, F, Q), (Ft ) supporting an adapted process (rt )t0
which models the instantaneous short rate of interest. We view Q as risk-neutral measure
and dene the price of a T -bond at t T by the risk-neutral pricing rule, that is we put
T
1
t rs ds
(8.2)
Ft = E e
p(t, T ) = Bt E
Ft .
BT
The approach of modelling the dynamics of traded securities directly under some martingale
measure (and not under the historical measure P ) is termed martingale modelling; it is
motivated by the observation that at least in a complete market only the risk-neutral measure
Q matters for the pricing of derivative securities. Martingale modelling has become very
popular. The approach has the following advantages:
The approach ensures that the model is arbitrage-free.
Bond prices are automatically consistent with the terminal condition p(T, T ) = 1.
Disadvantages/ problems:
Bond prices dened via (8.2) are not automatically consistent with the prices observed
in the market at time t; for this one needs to adjust parameters in the dynamics of the
short rate process (calibration), which can be dicult from a computational viewpoint.
The approach has conceptual diculties in incomplete markets (but that is less relevant in the context of term-structure models).
Assumption 8.2. We assume that under the xed martingale measure Q the short-rate
has dynamics of the form drt = (t, rt )dt + (t, rt )dWt for a Q-Brownian motion W .
Under Assumption 8.2 the short-rate is a Markov process, and we have for p(t, T ) as dened
in (8.2)
p(t, T ) = E exp
T
t
rs ds Ft = Et,rt exp
T
t
rs ds
(8.3)
and the right side is obviously a function of t and rt which we denote by F T (t, rt ).
Proposition 8.3 (Term-structure equation.). The function F T solves the parabolic PDE
1
t F + r F + 2 rr F = rF, t < T
2
(8.4)
81
8.2.2
Next we look for conditions such that the term structure equation is easy to solve. The
main result in this direction is the existence of an ane term structure.
Definition 8.4. A short-rate model has an ane term structure (ATS), if the bond-prices
are of the form
p(t, T ) = F T (t, rt ) = exp(A(t, T ) B(t, T )rt )
(8.5)
(8.6)
Then the model has an ATS (8.5) where A and B satisfy the ODE-system
1
Bt (t, T ) + (t)B(t, T ) (t)B 2 (t, T ) = 1
2
1
At (t, T ) (t)B(t, T ) + (t)B 2 (t, T ) = 0,
2
(8.7)
82
(8.8)
1
At (t, T ) B(t, T ) + B 2 (t, T ) r Bt (t, T ) + 1 + (t, T ) B 2 (t, T ) = 0.
2
This equation holds for all values of r if and only if both brackets are zero, which gives
(8.7). The terminal condition on A and B ensures that F T (T, T ) = 1.
Example 8.6. (Term-structure equation in the Vasicek-model.) Here the ODE-system
(8.7) becomes, as = a, = b, = 0, = 2 ,
1
Bt (t, T ) aB(t, T ) = 1, At (t, T ) = bB(t, T ) 2 B 2 (t, T ).
2
Since the ODE for B is linear, one has, as B(T, T ) = 0,
1
(1 exp (a(T t))),
a
T
2 T
and, by integration, A(t, T ) = t bB(s, T )ds + 2 t B 2 (s, T )ds .
B(t, T ) =
8.2.3
Calibration
All short-rate models considered so-far have dynamics which depend on a number of unknown parameters. In order to apply the model these parameters need to be determined.
Here two dierent approaches can be distinguished.
a) Statistical estimation from a time series (rs )st of the past values of the short-rate.
Here we face the following conceptual problem: in order to compute the bond prices we use
the Q-dynamics of the short-rate, whereas the statistical estimation gives a estimate of the
parameters under P , and the drift of the short-rate may change in the transition from P
to Q.
b) Calibration to market prices. Schematically, the approach is as follows: Denote current
time by t0 .
Fix a concrete short-rate model, say, the CIR model with parameter vector =
(b, a, ).
Solve the term-structure equation for all maturities T , denote the solution by F T (t0 , rt0 ; ).
Go to the market and obtain observed prices {p (t0 , T1 ), . . . , p (t0 , Tm )} for maturities
T1 , . . . , Tm and obtain moreover an estimate of the current short-rate rt0 .
Determine as solution of the minimization problem
min
m
2
wi p (t0 , Ti ) F Ti (t0 , rt0 ; ) ,
(8.9)
i=1
On the practical side, the model may not be exible enough so that model- and market
prices diverge widely even for optimal .
With very little price observation there may be many solutions to (8.9), i.e. can not
be determined from observable prices.
The parameter vector may uctuate a lot over time, whereas in pricing it is assumed
that this parameter is constant.
Time series properties of the short rate (or of observed bond prices) are ignored completely.
8.3
HJM-Models
Basic approach. In the HJM-approach to term structure modelling one models simultaneously the dynamics of all forward-rates f (t, T ), T t and computes bond-price dynamics
from the relation
T
f (t, u)du
(8.10)
p(t, T ) = exp
t
(recall that f (t, T ) = T ln p(t, T )). In this way the calibration to the observed bond prices
is ensured by design, as the current forward-rate curve f (0, T ) is taken as initial value
of the forward-rate dynamics; moreover (8.10) ensures that p(T, T ) = exp(0) = 1. On the
other hand, it is a priori not clear if the model generated in this way is actually arbitragefree, as one models innitely many securities (all bond prices), but has typically only nitely
many sources of randomness in the model; this issue is taken up below.
Assumption 8.7. (Forward-rate dynamics) Given a probability space (, F, P ), (Ft ), P
the historical measure, let W be a d-dimensional Brownian motion on this space. Then for
each xed T the forward rate f (t, T ) has a stochastic dierential of the form
df (t, T ) = (t, T )dt + (t, T )dWt
(8.11)
where
(, T ) and (, T ) are adapted process with values in R respective Rd , and where
T
d
t
i=1 0 i (t, T )dWt,i . Moreover and are continuously
0 (t, T )dWt is shorthand for
dierentiable in the T -variable.
In order to give conditions on (t, T ) and (t, T ) in (8.11) ensuring that the model is free
of arbitrage we need to compute the dynamics of the bond prices using (8.10).
Proposition 8.8 (Short-rate dynamics and bond price dynamics in HJM). If the family
of forward rates satises Assumption 8.7, the short rate r(t) = f (t, t) has the dierential
drt = a(t)dt + b(t)dWt , with a(t) = T f (t, t) + (t, t) and b(t) = (t, t).
T
Moreover, p(t, T ) = exp t f (t, u)du satises
1
dp(t, T ) = p(t, T ){r(t) + A(t, T ) + S(t, T )2 }dt + p(t, T )S(t, T )dWt , with
2
T
T
(t, u)du, and S(t, T ) =
(t, u)du
A(t, T ) =
t
84
(8.12)
(8.13)
(8.14)
(8.15)
t
Now write (s, t) = (s, s) + s T (s, u)du, and similarly for . Substitution into (8.15)
gives
t
t
(s, s)ds +
(s, s)dWs
r(t) =
0
0
t t
t t
+ f (0, t) +
T (s, u)duds +
T (s, u)dudWs .
(8.16)
0
T (s, u)dsdu,
(8.17)
tu
tt
and similarly 0 s T (s, u)dudWs = 0 0 T (s, u)dWs du. Moreover, f (0, t) = r(0) +
t
0 T f (0, u)du. On the other hand one has
u
u
T (s, u)ds +
T (s, u)dWs .
T f (u, u) = T f (0, u) +
0
t
In order to identify
the bond price dynamics (8.13) and (8.14) one argues as follows: Dene
T
Y (t, T ) := t f (t, s)ds so that p(t, T ) = exp(Y (t, T )). Recall that under Assumption 8.7,
(u, s)du +
f (t, s) = f (0, s) +
0
(u, s)dWu .
(u, s)dsdWu .
0
0
u
0
u
t t
t t
t
f (0, s)ds +
(u, s)dsdu +
(u, s)dsdWu
+
0
0
u
0
u
t
t
= Y (0, T ) +
A(u, T )du +
S(u, T )dWu
0
0
t
t s
t s
+
f (0, s)ds +
(u, s)duds +
(u, s)dWu ds,
0
(8.18)
(8.19)
Absence of arbitrage Recall that we consider a market with innitely many assets but
only nitely many sources of uncertainty, namely W1 , . . . , Wd . Hence we need special conditions on the forward rate dynamics in order to ensure that the model is free of arbitrage.
Proposition 8.9. Suppose that there is a process t = (t,1 , . . . , t,d ) such that for all
T > 0 and all 0 t T
T
(t, T ) = (t, T )
(t, s) ds + (t, T )(t)
(8.20)
and such that Zt = exp
is free of arbitrage.
t
0 s dWs
2
ds
is a true martingale. Then the model
s
0
1 t
2
Note that Condition (8.20) is a restriction on the drift of the forward rates, as this equation
has to hold simultaneously for all maturity dates T .
Proof. According to Propostion 8.8, bond prices are of the form
1
2
dp(t, T ) = p(t, T )r(t)dt + p(t, T ) A(t, T ) + S(t, T ) dt + p(t, T )S(t, T )dWt .
2
Dene a new measure Q by dQ
dP |FT = ZT ; Q is well-dened as Z is a true martingale.
t
/t = Wt + s ds is a Q-Brownian Motion by the Girsanov theorem. Now note
Moreover, W
0
that under Q the nite-variation part of p(, T ) equals
0
1
t
1
2
p(s, T ) r(s) + A(s, T ) + S(s, T ) S(s, T )s ds.
(8.21)
2
0
We get from (8.20) and the denition of S(s, T ) in (8.14) that
T
(s, u)s du (by (8.14))
S(s, T )s =
s
1
u
T0
(s, ) d du (by (8.20))
(s, u) (s, u)
=
s
1
= A(s, T ) + S(s, T )2 .
2
The last relation follows from (by (8.14)) and the observation that
u
1
2
S(s, u) = S(s, u) S(s, u) =
(s, )d ((s, u) ).
u 2
u
s
t
Hence the nite variation part of p(, T ) in (8.21) equals 0 p(s, T )r(s)ds, and discounted
bond prices are Q-local martingales.
Obviously the measure Q constructed in the proof of Proposition 8.9 is a risk-neutral measure. It is interesting to study the forward-rate and price dynamics under Q
Corollary 8.10. Under Q the forward-rate dynamics are
T
/t
(t, s) ds dt + (t, T )dW
df (t, T ) = (t, T )
t
/t ,
dp(t, T ) = r(t)p(t, T )dt + p(t, T )S(t, T )dW
/ a Q-Brownian motion.
W
86
This follows immediately from the proof of Proposition 8.9. The fact that the risk-neutral
drift of f (t, T ) is of the form
Q (t, T ) = (t, T )
(t, s) ds
f (t, T ) = f (0, T ) +
(s, T )ds +
0
T
t
/t .
(t, T )dW
/t ,
dp(t, T ) = p(t, T )r(t)dt + p(t, T )S(t, T )dW
for S(t, T ) =
T
t
(t, u)du.
Example 8.11 (The Ho-Lee model). Assume that (t, T ) = . Then the drift of the
T
forward-rates equals Q (t, T ) = t ds = 2 (T t) and the forward rates are given by
2 (T s)ds + Wt
t
2
+ Wt .
= f (0, T ) + t T
2
f (t, T ) = f (0, T ) +
t2
+ Wt ,
2
or, in dierential form, drt = T f (0, t) + 2 t dt + dWt . Short-rate dynamics of this
form are known as Ho-Lee model (the Vasicek or Hull-White model for a = 0). Note that
the HJM-approach automatically ensures that the model is calibrated to the initial yield
curve.
Example 8.12 (The Vasicek-model). Here we take (t, T ) = ea(T t) for some a > 0.
Hence we get
T
2 a(T t)
Q
e
(t, s)ds =
1 ea(T t) .
(t, T ) = (t, T )
a
t
87
In order to identify the corresponding short-rate dynamics we use Proposition 8.8. The
volatility of the short-rate dynamics is given by (t, t) = . Identifying the drift (t, r)
is more involved. According to Proposition 8.8, we have (t, rt ) = Q (t, t) + T f (t, t) =
T f (t, t), as Q (t, t) = 0. Now we have, using the forward rate dynamics
T f (t, t) = T f (0, T ) +
t
0
T (s, t)ds +
t
0
T (s, t)dWs .
= af (t, t) + g(t)
with g(t) = T f (0, t) af (0, t) +
short-rate dynamics
t
0
8.3.1
still to do
8.4
This section, which is based on Frey & Sommer (1996), discusses the valuation and hedging
of non path-dependent European options on one or several underlyings in a model of an
international economy which allows for both, interest rate risk and exchange rate risk.
We study options on stocks, bonds, future contracts, interest rates and exchange rates;
their payo may be in any currency and a relatively complex function of one or several
underlyings. We use an international economy model similar to the one introduced by Amin
& Jarrow (1991) as framework of our analysis. Their model combines a fully developed
stochastic theory of the term structure of interest rates in the sense of Heath, Jarrow &
Morton (1992) with models for the valuation of exchange rate and stock options. The main
tools of our analysis are stochastic methods and in particular the change of numeraire
technique introduced in Section 6.1.4. Since pricing formulas are of limited practical use
without knowledge of the corresponding hedge portfolio we present a systematic approach to
computing hedging strategies. In order to illustrate the exibility of our method we derive
explicit formulas for prices and hedge portfolios for a wide range of examples containing
among others currency options or guaranteed-exchange-rate options or options on interest
rates.
88
8.4.1
The Model
ln pn (t, T ) .
T T = t
(8.22)
n := exp( T r n ds) we denote the savings-account of country n. Apart from zero
By t,T
s
t
coupon bonds we consider other primitive assets such as dividend free stocks. They are
denoted by S n,j , 0 n N, 0 j in where S n,j is the price of asset j in country n.
We now introduce our model of asset price dynamics. When modelling asset price processes one usually starts from assumptions on their dynamics under the so-called historical
probabilities which govern the actual evolution of asset prices. Since we are only interested
in the pricing of derivatives by no-arbitrage arguments it is legitimate to model the asset
price dynamics directly under a domestic risk-neutral measure Q. Under such a measure
all non-dividend paying domestic assets are martingales after discounting with the domestic
savings account. This implies that their drift is equal to r 0 .
Assumption 8.13. Let there be given a ltered probability space (, F, Q), (Ft )t[0,TF ]
supporting a d-dimensional Brownian Motion W = (Wt )0tTf . We work with the following
assumptions on asset price dynamics: We put for the domestic assets
dp0 (t, T ) = rt0 p0 (t, T )dt + 0 (t, T )p0 (t, T )dWt
dSt0,j
(8.23)
dpn (t, T ) = (rtn n (t, T ) e (t))pn (t, T )dt + n (t, T )pn (t, T )dWt
dStn,j
(8.24)
89
(8.25)
Here n (t, T ), n,j (t), e (t) : [0, TF ] Rd are deterministic square integrable functions
of time. For the bonds we require moreover that n (t, T ) = 0 t T and that n (t, T ) is
smooth in the second argument.
Note that the assumption of deterministic dispersion coecients is essential as we want to
obtain explicit pricing formulas. An explicit construction of the bond price model is easily
done using the HJM approach explained in the previous section. As shown by Amin &
Jarrow (1991) the dynamics of asset prices and exchange rates given in Assumption 8.13
actually specify an arbitrage-free model of an international economy with Q representing a
domestic risk-neutral measure. The drift terms of the exchange rate and the foreign assets
are determined by absence of arbitrage considerations. As an example we derive the drift
n
. By absence of arbitrage its drift must
of en . Consider the domestic asset Y := en (0,)
0
os Lemma to compute the dynamics of Y it is immediate that the drift of
equal r . Using It
Y equals r 0 if and only if the drift of the exchange rate equals the interest rate dierential.
The volatility of asset S n,j is given by n,j (t) := | n,j (t)|. The instantaneous correlations
between the assets in our economy are given by
(S n1 ,j1 , S n2 ,j2 ) :=
n1 ,j1 n2 ,j2 1
.
n1 ,j1 n2 ,j2
Only volatilities and instantaneous correlations matter for the pricing of derivatives, since
they determine the law of the asset prices under the domestic risk neutral measure. In
our analysis this is reected by the fact that only inner products of the dispersion coecients and hence instantaneous covariances enter the pricing formulas. Nonetheless we
start with independent Brownian motions and model correlations by means of the dispersion coecients because this facilitates the use of stochastic calculus. To compute these
coecients from the estimated instantaneous covariance matrix of the processes one may
use the Cholesky decomposition of this matrix.
Finally we note that the price process of a discounted foreign asset is not a martingale
under the domestic risk-neutral measure as can be seen from (8.24); hence this measure
must not be used for the valuation of derivatives paying o in foreign currencies.
For our pricing theory we need to assume that the markets in our economy are complete.
Assumption 8.14. There are d traded domestic assets such that for all t [0, TF ] the
instantaneous covariance matrix of these assets is strictly positive denite.
As shown in Proposition 6.21, his assumption guarantees that every contingent claim
adapted to the ltration generated by the asset prices can be replicated by a dynamic trading
strategy in the d assets and the domestic savings-account. Hence the domestic risk neutral
measure is unique and the price at time t of every domestic contingent claim H with single
FT measurable and integrable payo HT at time T is given by
)
(
1
0
HT Ft .
(8.26)
Ht := E Q t,T
We now introduce the class of admissible underlyings for the derivative contracts considered in this section. A typical example of the kind of options we want to analyze is the
guaranteed-exchange-rate call. This contract is dened by its terminal payo [
eSTf K]+ ,
where STf is some primitive foreign asset and e is a guaranteed exchange rate which will be
1
90
applied at time T to convert the price of the foreign asset into domestic currency. Now,
eSTf is not the time T value of a traded domestic asset. However, it denes a domestic
contingent claim X whose price Xt = E Q [(t,T )1 eSTf |Ft ] is given by
Xt = X0 exp
t
0
sX dWs
t
0
|sX |2 ds
+
0
rsd ds
(
)
with X0 = E Q (0,T )1 XT
and sX a deterministic Rd -valued function of time. We will see in section 8.4.3 below that
this structure is found in many ostensibly complex option contracts. This motivates the
following denition.
Definition 8.15. A domestic contingent-claim X with a single payo XT at a certain date
T is called a lognormal claim2 if its price process (Xt )0tT given by
,
1
Q
d
Xt := E
XT Ft
t,T
admits a representation of the form
t
t
1 t X2
sX dWs
|s | ds +
rsd ds
Xt = X0 exp
2 0
0
0
(8.27)
Hence under our assumption on asset price dynamics every primitive domestic asset, interpreted as contingent claim with payo equal to the assets price at time T , is a lognormal
claim. However, the class of contingent claims that satisfy Denition 8.15 is much larger.
For instance products and quotients of lognormal claims remain lognormal claims.
8.4.2
Next we give a rather general theorem which leads to a unied treatment of the pricing of
European options on various underlyings such as foreign and domestic zero coupon bonds,
foreign or domestic stocks or forward and future contracts on foreign and domestic assets.
2
This name is motivated by the fact that XT is lognormally distributed. This is immediate if one writes
XT = XT /p0 (T, T ) and then expresses the right hand side using (8.27) and the corresponding expression
for p0 (, T ).
91
1
d
XT 0,T
X0
Then for every domestic asset Z whose discounted price process is a martingale under Q
that is for every asset that pays no dividends in [0, T ) the process Z/X is a martingale
under QX , i.e. QX is the martingale measure corresponding to the numeraire X. Moreover
we have the transition formula
,
1
X
Q
d
XT ZT |Ft = Xt E Q [ZT |Ft ]
(8.28)
t,T
E
In our setup it is easy to determine the law of the asset price processes under QX by
X
means of the Girsanov
t X theorem. Applying this theorem Xto dQ /dQ immediately yields
X
that Wt := Wt 0 s ds is a Brownian Motion under Q .
Now it is easy to proof the rst part of the theorem. According to (8.26) the price of the
option is given by
,
1
Q
d
+
[XT YT ] Ft
t,T
Ct = E
,
,
1
1
d
d
XT 1{YT /XT <1} Ft E Q t,T
YT 1{XT /YT >1} Ft
= E Q t,T
)
)
(
(
X
Y
= Xt E Q 1{YT /XT <1} Ft Yt E Q 1{XT /YT >1} Ft
The last line follows from (8.28) if we take once X and once Y as numeraire. Now we get
under QX for YT /XT
Yt
YT
=
exp
XT
Xt
T
t
(sY sX )dWsX
92
1
2
t
|sY sX |2 ds
Hence
,
Q
+
*
YT
< 1 Ft = QX ln YT ln XT < 0 Ft
XT
T Y
1 T
X
X
Y
X
2
ln Xt ln Yt + 2 t |s s | ds
( s )dWs
2
= QX 2t s
<
T
T
Y
X
2
Y
X
2
t |s s | ds
t |s s | ds
2
T
T
Since X and Y are deterministic, t (sY sX )dWsX / t |sY sX |2 ds is a standard
normally distributed random variable so that
,
X YT
< 1 Ft = N (d1t ) .
Q
XT
+
*
Analogously we get QY XT /YT > 1 Ft = N (d2t ) , and the rst part of the theorem
follows.
Now we turn to the hedging part. Let (Z)M denote the (uniquely determined) martingale
part of a continuous semimartingale Z. To prove the second claim we note that the proposed
selnancing hedge portfolio duplicates the option if it holds that
2
M
d (C)M = N (d1t )d(X)M
t N (dt )d(Y )t ,
(8.29)
and if moreover the value of the hedge portfolio equals the options price for all 0 t T .
We now check these two conditions. (i) As Ct is a function only of Xt and Yt we get from
It
os Lemma
C
C
(t, Xt , Yt )d (X)M
(t, Xt , Yt )d (Y )M
d (C)M
t =
t +
t .
x
y
Now following El Karoui, Myneni & Viswanathan (1992) we may compute the derivatives
of the option price:
,
1
C
d
(t, Xt , Yt ) = EtQ
[XT YT ]+
t,T
x
Xt
,
1
XT
Q
d
1{XT YT }
t,T
= Et
Xt
,
1 Q d 1
E
1{XT YT } XT
t,T
=
Xt t
As shown in the rst part of the proof this expression equals N (d1t ). Similarly we get
C/y (t, Xt , Yt ) = N (d2t ), and hence (8.29).
(ii) By Eulers Theorem we get from the linear homogeneity of C in Xt and Yt
Ct =
C
C
(t, Xt , Yt ) Xt +
(t, Xt , Yt ) Yt = N (d1t )Xt N (d2t )Yt ,
x
y
guaranteed by Assumption 8.14; it can be computed as in the proof of Theorem 8.17. The
following observation then shows how to construct hedging strategies for C from the hedge
portfolios for X and Y . Suppose that the hedge portfolios for X and Y in terms of domestic
assets HiX and HiY for which we assume the existence of liquid markets are given by
L
X
PtX
L
Y
iX (t)HiX
and
PtY
i=1
iY (t)HiY .
i=1
Then the hedge portfolio for the exchange option on X and Y in terms of HiX and HiY is
given by
LX
LY
1
X
X
N (dt ) i (t)Hi
N (d2t ) iY (t)HiY .
Pt =
i=1
i=1
8.4.3
Now we want to use Theorem 8.17 in order to price a number of practically relevant contracts.
Currency Options: The payo of a plain vanilla currency option equals [eT K]+ . Dene
the domestic assets X := e pf (, T ) and Y := Kpd (, T ); the parameters of their price processes can be read o from the asset price dynamics and are given by X0 = e0 pf (0, T ),
X (t) = e (t) + f (t, T ) and Y0 = Kpd (0, T ), Y (t) = d (t, T ), respectively. Since
pd (T, T ) = pf (T, T ) = 1 the options payo equals [XT YT ]+ , and its price can be computed
by means of Theorem 8.17. We obtain
Ct = et pf (t, T )N (d1 ) Kpd (t, T )N (d2 ) with
T
ln(et pf (t, T )/pd (t, T )) ln K + t | e (s) + f (s, T ) d (s, T )|2 ds
2
d1 =
T
e
f
d
2
t | (s) + (s, T ) (s, T )| ds
2
T
f
d
e
f
d
2
and d2 = d1
t | (s) + (s, T ) (s, T )| ds. Since we assume p and p to be traded
assets we can use directly Theorem 8.17 to compute a feasible hedge portfolio.
Currency Converted Options: There are two types of currency converted options. The
payo of a Foreign Asset/ Domestic Strike Option equals [eT STf K]+ . To deal with this
claim we set X := eS f and notice that this is a lognormal claim with Xt = et Stf and
f
X = e + S . Next set Y := K pd (, T ). Theorem 8.17 can now be directly applied to
give the price and the hedging strategy of this contract. Similarly for a Domestic Asset/
Foreign Strike Option with payo [STd eT K]+ , where K is in foreign currency we use the
lognormal claims X := S d and Y = Kepf (, T ).
Guaranteed-Exchange-Rate Options:
The payo of this derivative equals
f
+
f
[
eST eK] , where S is a foreign asset and e some predetermined exchange rate. This
contract can be interpreted as an option to exchange the lognormal claims X and Y with
payo XT = eSTf and YT := eK. Whereas YT equals the time T value of K e units of
94
pf (, T ), there is no traded asset whose value at T is equal to XT . To price and hedge the
option we therefore have to compute the parameters of X. We have
T
d
f
f p (0, T )
exp
| f (s, T )|2 + S (s) d (s, T ) + e (s) f (s, T ) (8.30)
X0 = eS0 f
p (0, T )
0
f
The price of the option can now be computed by plugging these parameters into the pricing
formula of Theorem 8.17. Next we want to determine the hedge portfolio for the option.
As XT is not the terminal value of a traded asset we have to go through the procedure
outlined after the proof of Theorem 8.17. To replicate XT by a dynamic trading strategy
of the domestic assets e S f ,
we rst note that by (8.30) Xt is given by a function X
d
f
f
f = X/(e
t pf (t, T ))
p (t, T ) and ep (t, T ) with derivatives X/eS = X/(et Stf ), X/ep
d = X/p
d (t, T ). As X
is linear homogenous in the prices of these assets, an
and X/p
argument similar to the proof of the second part of Theorem 8.17 shows that the hedge
portfolio for X equals
X
eS
f (t) =
Xt
et
Stf
X
ep
f (t) =
Xt
,
et pf (t, T )
pXd (t) =
Xt
d
p (t, T )
t)
Options on Forwards: Assume that (X
0tT is the price process of a lognormal claim.
Consider two points in time T1 and T2 with 0 < T1 T2 . The payo in T1 of an op
tion
with maturity date
)+ T1 on a forward contract on X with maturity date T2 is given by
(
T pd (T1 , T2 )K . For t < T1 price and hedge portfolio of this contract immediately
X
1
As the payo of this caplet is known already at T we may compute its present value at T
which equals V [1 (K + 1) pd (T, T + )]+ . From this we see that the price and the hedge
portfolio for caplets can be inferred directly from Theorem 8.17 if we use the lognormal
claims X = pd (, T ) and Y = (K + 1) pd (, T + ). Of course this choice of X and Y
reects the well-known fact that caplets can be considered as options on zero coupon bonds.
95
Appendix A
Mathematical Background
A.1
Conditional Expectation
Given a probability space (, F, P ) and a random variable X. A priori, the best prediction
for X is E(X). If we have additional information about the outcome of the experiment
modelled by (, F, P ), we can give a better prediction of X. The best-possible prediction
in an L2 -sense is the conditional expectation. We rst study this idea in an elementary
setting where information is modelled by a (nite) partition of , which leads us to an
explicit formula for the conditional expectation. In a second step we will use the properties
of this elementary conditional expectation to extend the notion to general probability spaces.
A.1.1
Definition A.1. A set A = {A1 , . . . , An } of measurable subsets of with P (Ai ) > 0 for
all i is called a partition of if Ai Aj = for i = j and if moreover = A1 An .
Now consider a partition A of . Suppose that we have the additional information that
the result of our random experiment belongs to a particular subset Ai0 A. Our best
prediction for the rv X is now
E(X|Ai0 ) :=
1
E(X1Ai0 )
P (Ai0 )
The prediction-mechanism which gives the prediction of X if we are given the additional
information which set from the partition A actually occurs is therefore given by the random
variable
n
n
E(X1Ai0 )
.
1Ai ()E(X|Ai ) =
1Ai ()
P (Ai )
i=1
i=1
E(X|F )() =
n
1Ai ()E(X|Ai ) =
i=1
n
1Ai ()
i=1
E(X1Ai )
.
P (Ai )
n
cj E(X1Aj ) =
i=1
= E
cj P (Aj )
i=1
n
i=1
A.1.2
n
E(X1Aj )
1Aj
cj
P (Aj )
E(X1Aj )
P (Aj )
= E(Y E(X|F A )) .
The explicit denition of the conditional expectation works only if P (Ai ) 0 for all sets
in our partition. However, in continuous models this is usually not the case. We therefore
use the properties of the conditional expectation obtained in Proposition A.4 to dene the
conditional expectation in more general situations.
Definition A.5. Given an integrable rv X on (, F, P ) and a sigma-eld G F. A random
variable Z is called conditional expectation of X given G, Z = E(X|G), if
(i) Z is G-measurable.
(ii) E(Y X) = E(Y Z) for all rvs Y which are G-measurable.
Theorem A.6. There is exactly one random variable Z which satises (i), (ii).
The proof can be found in any standard textbook on probability theory.
Examples:
97
98
Bibliography
Amin, K. I. & Jarrow, R. A. (1991), Pricing foreign currency options under stochastic
interest rates, Journal of International Money and Finance 10, 310330.
Bachelier, L. (1900), Theorie de la speculation, in P. H. Cootner, ed., The Random
Character of Stock Market Prices (1964), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1778.
Bingham, N. H. & Kiesel, R. (1998), Risk-Neutral Valuation, Springer, Berlin.
Bj
ork, T. (2004), Arbitrage Theory in Continuous Time, second edn, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Black, F. & Scholes, M. (1973), The pricing of options and corporate liabilities, Journal
of Political Economy 81(3), 637654.
Canter, M. S., Cole, J. B. & Sandor, R. S. (1996), Insurance derivatives: A new asset
class for the capital markets and a new hedging tool for the insurance industry, Journal
of Derivatives Winter 1996, 89104.
Cont, R. (2006), Model uncertainty and its impact on the pricing of derivative instruments, Mathematical Finance 16(3), 519542.
Cont, R. & Tankov, P. (2003), Financial Modelling with Jump Processes, Chapman &
Hall.
Cox, J. C., Ross, S. A. & Rubinstein, M. (1979), Option pricing: A simplied approach,
Journal of Financial Economics 7, 229263.
Cox, J. C. & Rubinstein, M. (1985), Options Markets, Prentice Hall, Englewood Clis,
NJ.
Delbaen, F. & Schachermayer, W. (1994), A general version of the fundamental theorem
of asset pricing, Mathematische Annalen 300, 463520.
El Karoui, N., Jeanblanc-Picque, M. & Shreve, S. E. (1998), Robustness of the Black and
Scholes formula, Mathematical Finance 8, 93126.
El Karoui, N., Myneni, R. & Viswanathan, R. (1992), Arbitrage pricing and hedging of
interest rate claims with state variables: 2, applications, Preprint, University of Paris
VI.
Embrechts, P., Kl
uppelberg, C. & Mikosch, T. (1997), Modelling Extremal Events for
Insurance and Finance, Springer, Berlin.
99
101
Bien plus que des documents.
Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.
Annulez à tout moment.