Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The Society for Financial Studies and Oxford University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Review of Financial Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
Stock Price Distributions with
Stochastic Volatility: An
Analytic Approach
Elias M. Stein
Princeton University
Jeremy C. Stein
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
dz2 are two independent Wiener processes. Thus, the model is one
where volatility is governed by an arithmetic Ornstein-Uhlenbeck
(or AR1) process, with a tendency to revert back to a long-run average
level of 0. We use analytic techniques (related to the heat equation
for the Heisenberg group) to derive a closed-form solution for the
distribution of stock prices in this case.
Our primary interest in doing so is to generate an options pricing
formula that is appropriate for the case where volatility follows an
autoregressive stochastic process. A large and growing literature sug-
gests that this case is empirically relevant. Although the empirical
literature offers many different models for time-varying volatility, of
which the AR1 is but one example, the AR1 model provides a natural
starting point for the types of questions we address here.1 It is par-
simonious enough that the analysis is tractable, yet (as we argue in
more detail below) it captures many of the documented features of
volatility data.
Recently, interesting papers by Johnson and Shanno (1987), Wig-
gins (1987), and Hull and White (1987) have also examined options
pricing in a world where stock price dynamics are similar to those
given by Equations (1) and (2). The first two papers use numerical
methods to determine options prices. In the third, Hull and White
solve explicitly for the options price by using a Taylor expansion
about k = 0 (i.e., about the point where volatility is nonstochastic).
It is not clear that such an expansion provides a good approximation
to options prices when k is significantly greater than zero. Further-
more, Hull and White only apply this series solution for the case 6 =
0. (They use numerical methods to study the case of nonzero 6.)
Although our closed-form solution is quite cumbersome, it is com-
posed entirely of elementary mathematical functions. Consequently,
it is readily and directly applied on a desktop computer. We are thus
able to avoid using more burdensome numerical methods, or any
assumptions about k being close to zero. Also, our method is capable
of handling a nonzero mean reversion parameter 6, which should be
valuable, given the empirical evidence that volatility is strongly mean-
reverting.
In addition to deriving an exact closed-form solution for the stock
price distribution, we also use analytic techniques to develop an
approximation to the distribution. The approximation has the advan-
tage of being even less computationally demanding than the exact
'Empirical articles that model volatility as an AR1 process include Poterba and Summers (1986),
Stein (1989), and Merville and Pieptea (1989). (The latter allows the AR1 process to be displaced
by white noise.) Alternative models include the ARCH model of Engle (1982) and its descendants
such as Bollerslev (1986), Engle and Bollerslev (1986), and Engle, Lilien, and Robins (1987). [See
also French, Schwert, and Stambaugh (1987) and Schwert (1987, 1989).]
728
Stochastic Volatility
solution. For most parameter values, we also find that the approxi-
mation is reasonably accurate-it leads to options prices close to
those obtained with the exact formula.
A by-product of our analysis is that it allows us to draw a direct link
between the parameters of the volatility process and the extent to
which stock price distributions have "fat tails" compared to the log-
normal distribution [see, e.g., Fama (1963, 1965) and Mandlebrot
(1963)]. We are able to show explicitly how the shape of stock price
distributions depends on the parameters of our Equation (2), thereby
tracing fat tails back to their "primitive origins," the constants 6, 0,
and k.2
The remainder of the article is organized as follows. Our principal
results for exact and approximate stock price distributions are pre-
sented in Section 1. In Section 2, these results are applied to options
pricing. Using the empirical literature on stochastic volatility as a
guide, we select a range of "reasonable" parameter values and com-
pare the prices generated by our model to Black-Scholes (1973)
prices. In Section 3, we explore the connection between our model's
parameters and the degree to which stock price distributions over
different time horizons have fat tails. In Section 4, we conclude and
discuss some possible extensions of our work.
The problems studied in this article require a substantial amount
of mathematical analysis. In order not to interfere with the presen-
tation of the main ideas, most of it is omitted from the text. The
Appendixes contain a brief review of the important derivations. Fur-
ther detail is available from the authors on request.
Before proceeding, we ought to comment on our assumption that
volatility is driven by an arithmetic process, which raises the possi-
bility that a can become negative. This formulation is equivalent to
putting a reflecting barrier at ai = 0 in the volatility process, since a
enters everywhere else in squared fashion. Although this is not a very
natural feature, geometric models for a are much less analytically
tractable.3 Furthermore, as we argue in Section 2.1 below, any objec-
tions to the arithmetic process are more theoretical than practical.
For a wide range of relevant parameter values, the probability of
actually reaching the point a = 0 is so small as to be of no significant
consequence.
2
There are analogous results in the literature for different models of volatility. For example, Praetz
(1972) and Blattberg and Gonedes (1974) show that if r2 follows an inverted gamma distribution,
then prices are distributed as a log t [see also Clark (1973)]. Engle (1982) computes the kurtosis
of an ARCH process as an explicit function of the ARCH parameters.
3 While we have been able to solve a model where a follows a geometric random walk (and the
results are considerably more computationally cumbersome than those reported here), we have
been unable to make any progress on the case where a follows a geometric Ornstein-Uhlenbeck
process. Since mean reversion appears to be one of the most important empirical characteristics
of volatility, the practical usefulness of the geometric random walk model is unclear.
729
The Review of Financial Studies / v 4 n 4 1991
a -A 2- 2 2 2 .B2[A2-a2]
N- 2 2 [a2-AB2-B2a]k2t+ 2a 3
1 1 _
{log{( + 1 + -1 Ae)2ak2t (7)
and
l= exp(LU2/2 + Mao + N). (8)
Notice that I, in addition to being a function of the primitive param-
eters 6, 0, k, t, and ao, also depends on the dummy variable X. We
denote this relationship by writing I as I(X). We now write down an
expression for the stock price distribution in two steps. First, we define
So(P, t) as the time tstock price distribution in the special case where
the stock price drift At = 0. It is given by
730
Stochastic Volatility
The time t stock price distribution for the more general case of a
nonzero At,which we denote simply by S(P, t), is then
S(P, t) = e-tSo(Pe-t). (10)
731
The Review of Financial Studies/ v 4 n 4 1991
Fo = e-rtf
P=K
[P-K] S(P, It 6, r, k,0) dP. (15)
4Very similar expressions appear in Wiggins (1987) and Hull and White (1987). In particular, our
PDE is a simplification of Wiggins' equation (8) (p. 355) to the case where dz, and dz2 are
uncorrelated and where a follows an arithmetic, rather than geometric, process. Our model is not
as general as Wiggins' because we have been unable to apply our analytic techniques when dz,
and dz2 are correlated. However, it may be possible to capture the tendency for volatility and stock
prices to move together even without assuming an instantaneous correlation between dz, and dz2.
This might be accomplished in our framework by using a constant-elasticity-of-volatility general-
ization of Equation (1). We discuss this briefly in Section 4.
732
Stochastic Volatility
P00
5 Hull and White produce a similar result [equation (6), p. 283] also by effectively assuming that k
= 0.
6
Using implied volatilities for individual stocks, Merville and Pieptea (1989) argue that a better fit
is obtained by allowing the AR1 process to be displaced by white noise. One plausible interpretation
is that "true" volatility follows an AR1, but that their implied volatilities contain significant white
noise measurement errors.
733
The Review of Financial Studies / v 4 n 4 1991
It should be noted that the implied volatilities used in these studies are generated from pricing
models that assume nonstochastic volatility. If volatility is in reality stochastic, then the implied
volatilities will be subject to measurement error, and any parameter estimates derived from them
may be biased. However, as Stein (1989) argues, any such biases are likely to be extremely small.
This is because variations in measurement errors for a given option are dwarfed by variations in
the level of volatility. (Table 1 provides some intuition for how the measurement error on a given
option changes with a change in the level of volatility.) Moreover, the parameter values used below
are only intended to give a rough, "ballpark" idea of the relevant magnitudes. We do not intend
to suggest that they represent the best possible statistical estimates.
8 These estimates of the half-life of stock index volatility are broadly consistent with those seen in
a number of other studies using a variety of other empirical formulations.
9 Merville and Pieptea (1989) do not present k directly, since they are not exactly estimating an AR1
process. However, it is straightforward to recombine their parameter estimates to calculate what k
would have been had they specified their empirical model as an ARL. In particular, k = OD/(1 -
NVR) 2, where the variables are defined in their table 4 (p. 205).
734
Stochastic Volatility
735
The Review of Financial Studies / v 4 n 4 1991
Table 1
Comparison of Black-Scholes and new prices
736
Stochastic Volatility
Table 1
Continued
737
The Review of Financial Studies / v 4 n 4 1991
738
Stochastic Volatility
Table 2
Comparison of exact and approximate prices
1 Month
90 10.88 10.92 10.91
95 6.56 6.61 6.61
100 3.28 3.31 3.34
105 1.31 1.35 1.37
110 0.41 0.46 0.45
115 0.10 0.14 0.12
120 0.02 0.04 0.03
3 Months
90 13.03 13.13 13.13
95 9.26 9.37 9.39
100 6.19 6.30 6.34
105 3.88 4.00 4.04
110 2.28 2.40 2.43
115 1.26 1.38 1.38
120 0.66 0.76 0.75
6 Months
90 15.94 16.09 16.10
95 12.44 12.62 12.65
100 9.45 9.65 9.68
105 6.99 7.20 7.23
110 5.03 5.24 5.28
115 3.54 3.74 3.76
120 2.42 2.61 2.63
percent more than its Black-Scholes price of 0.19, and which cor-
responds to an implied volatility of 36.9 percent.
In Table 2, the approximate prices [based on the approximate dis-
tribution S(P, t)] are compared to the exact new prices. Black-Scholes
prices are also included as a benchmark for comparison.10 In Table
2, the same parameter values are used as in panel F of Table 1, and
the results are representative of those seen with other parameter
values. As the table shows, the approximate prices are quite close to
the exact prices for away-from-the-money options. For example, at a
maturity of three months and a strike price of 120, the approximate
10 By comparing the errors incurred with our approximation technique to the errors incurred with
the Black-Scholes formula, one can get a rough idea of how useful the approximation technique
is relative to the "default" option of not modeling stochastic volatility at all.
739
The Review of Financial Studies / v 4 n 4 1991
"The fact that there are larger errors at-the-money suggests that our approximate distribution does
a better job of matching the tails of the true distribution than it does of matching the central part
of the true distribution. Clearly, a more complete analysis would involve a detailed comparison
(perhaps via simulation) of the approximate and true distributions. Our aim is not so much to
make a strong case for the use of the particular approximation described here, especially since the
exact formula is relatively easily implemented. Rather, we believe that the general method of
approximation is instructive-as we explain in Section 4, it may be of practical relevance in more
complicated models whose exact solutions prove elusive.
12 Empirical studies often quantify fat tails by computing an estimate of the kurtosis, or fourth moment
of the distribution. Unfortunately, such higher moments do not always converge for our theoretical
stochastic volatility distributions, so we are unable to make a direct comparison in this regard.
740
Stochastic Volatility
by the limiting behavior of a(Q) and b(Q) as ai gets large. Thus, the
noteworthy difference between an arithmetic and a geometric Brown-
ian motion model for ai is that in the former b(G) remains constant
as ai gets larger, while in the latter it increases indefinitely with a.
The fact that b(G) is also constant for small ai may be an unrealistic
aspect of arithmetic Brownian motion, but it does not affect asymptotic
stock price distributions-a more reasonable process that had b(G)
shrinking for small a but remaining bounded for large a would lead
to the same basic conclusions.
Once the stock price distributions are given, their asymptotic order
can be recovered using a well-known technique called Laplace's
method, or the theory of stationary real phase. [For a complete descrip-
tion, see Erdelyi (1956, pp. 36-38).] The derivations are outlined in
Appendix D, where we also make the heuristic argument above more
precise. Here we simply present and discuss our results.
The benchmark for comparison is the lognormal distribution L(a).
Its asymptotic order is given by
L(a) ~exp(-(logP)2/2i2t) as P - 0 or P - oo. (19)
Thus, the relative thinness of the tails of the lognormal is reflected
in the rapid decrease of the exponential as P goes to zero or infinity.
In comparison, the stochastic volatility distributions studied here
have asymptotic behavior that can be written as
741
The Review of Financial Studies / v 4 n 4 1991
13
In contrast, we can show that a geometric process for a leads to "hyper-fat" tails-a y of 2 and an
unbounded variance for any nonzero values of t and k.
14 The question of whether volatility contains a unit root has been the subject of a great deal of direct
testing. Schwert (1987) provides a detailed discussion of the issues that arise in such direct testing
for stationarity.
742
Stocbastic Volatility
15 Cox and Ross (1976) provide a closed-form solution for this distribution in the case where j==2
743
The Review of Financial Studies / v 4 n 4 1991
That is, in this case, prices are still lognormally distributed, with a
variance that corresponds to the average i2 over the time interval.
In the case where i(t) is stochastic, and by Equation (2) is given
by an AR1 process, we can write a = , (t), where w is the point in
the probability space that labels the stochastic path. By the reasoning
above, each path w implies a price distribution L(a,, (t)), where
rb
744
Stochastic Volatility
chastic equations we consider in this article, and not just the particular
example at hand [see, e.g., Hull and White (1987)].
It is clear that what we need to understand next is the mixing
distribution mt(f). The key to this is the formula for the "moment
generating function,"
Lemma. For all X > 0, the function I(X) is given by Equation (8),
where the quantities appearing in its definition are given by Equa-
tions (3)-(7).
745
The Review of Financial Studies / v 4 n 4 1991
I(X) = f e-XC2
m(a) du.
0
746
Stochastic Volatility
U (X, - (X t) + t)
a)a
t)
k k2a _(X c(x)u(x, t) = '(X (B3)
2 OX2 9xa Ot
Therefore,
u(o, t) = I(Xt). (B4)
To simplify the presentation we now relabel the parameters above
so that our problem is reduced to that of solving the differential
equation
1a2 U(X, t) t) +
aOU(xl t)
aOU(xl
aX2t) + (Ax+ B) ' Cx2U(x,t) = (B5)
2 Ox2 x at
with the initial condition U(x, 0) 1.
It can be shown theoretically that this problem always has a solution
of the form
U(x, t) = exp(L1x2/2 + M1x + N1), (B6)
where L1, M1, and N1 are suitable functions of t. Once we know that
U(x, t) is of the above form, we can explicitly determine L1, M1, and
N1 by direct computation. The result is the following proposition.
747
The Review of Financial Studies / v 4 n 4 1991
1 dLl (t)_ 1
= C + -(L1 (t))2 + AL1(t), (B7)
2 dt 2
748
Stocbastic Volatility
Go t~2m(o) du ? ec3Xl12,
which asserts that the claimed estimate (C3) holds on the average,
at least. The fact that the full estimate (C3) holds is proved by a more
refined version of this argument.
The third important fact about the mixing distribution we want to
point out is that
00
f o2mt(o) d -I' (0), (C6)
749
The Review of Financial Studies / v 4 n 4 1991
so that the mean of a-2 with respect to the mixing distribution is easily
determinable from the function I(X). Equation (C6) follows imme-
diately from the definition
and
A(x,a) = -(x + ta2/2 -rt)2/2ta2 - a-2/2t, (D2)
B(x, a-) = (2lrta-2e 2x2rtl1/2 (D3)
with x = log P.
We are interested in the asymptotics as x - ?oo. Now it is not
750
Stochastic Volatility
difficult to see that the main contribution to the integral (Dl) when
x is large occurs for large values of a (with Ix I and o2 being roughly
of the same order of magnitude). Thus, if we disregard terms of
negligible size in A(x, a), we can simplify matters and replace A(x, a)
by A(x, a), where
A(x,)=o-(x + ta2/2)2/2tU2 - U2/2t. (D4)
According to the recipe of stationary phase, the asymptotic behavior
of this integral is given by
ei (X,
Ir*)
1A( *)1/2' B (x,, (D5)
A"(x *(x a*
aA (x,a)
a =0
d9a
The value of a* is readily determined, and substituting it in (D5)
leads to the formulas in the text.
References
Black, F., and M. Scholes, 1973, "The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities," Journal of
Political Economy, 81, 637-654.
Blattberg, R. C., and N. J. Gonedes, 1974, "A Comparison of the Stable and Student Distributions
as Statistical Models for Stock Prices," Journal of Business, 47, 244-280.
Bookstaber, R. M., and J. B. McDonald, 1987, "A General Distribution for Describing Security Price
Returns," Journal of Business, 60, 401-424.
Cameron, R. H., and W. T. Martin, 1944, "The Wiener Measure of Hilbert Neighborhoods in the
Space of Real Continuous Functions," Journal of Mathematical Physics, 34, 195-209.
Clark, P. K., 1973, "A Subordinate Stochastic Process Model with Finite Variance for Speculative
Prices," Econometrica, 41, 135-155.
Cox, J. C., and S. A. Ross, 1976, "The Valuation of Options for Alternative Stochastic Processes,"
Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 145-166.
Cox, J. C., J. E. Ingersoll, and S. A. Ross, 1985, "An Intertemporal General Equilibrium Model of
Asset Prices," Econometrica, 53, 363-384.
Durrett, R., 1984, Brownian Motion and Martingales in Analysis, Wadsworth, Belmont, Calif.
Engle, R. F., 1982, "Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity with Estimates of the Variance
of United Kingdom Inflation," Econometrica, 50, 987-1007.
Engle, R. F., and T. Bollerslev, 1986, "Modeling the Persistence of Conditional Variances," Econo-
metric Reviews, 5, 1-50.
751
The Review of Financial Studies / v 4 n 4 1991
Engle, R. F., D. M. Lilien, and R. D. Robins, 1987, "Estimating Time Varying Risk Premia in the
Term Structure: The ARCH-M Model," Econometrica, 55, 391-407.
Fama, E. F., 1963, "Mandelbrot and the Stable Paretian Hypothesis," Journal of Business, 36, 420-
429.
Fama, E. F., 1965, "The Behavior of Stock Market Prices," Journal of Business, 38, 34-105.
Freidlin, M., 1985, Functional Integration and Partial Differential Equations, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ.
French, K. R., G. W. Schwert, and R. F. Stambaugh, "Expected Stock Returns and Volatility," Journal
of Financial Economics, 19, 3-29.
Hsu, L. C., 1951, "On the Asymptotic Evaluation of a Class of Integrals Involving a Parameter,"
American Journal of Mathematics, 73, 625-634.
Hull, J., and A. White, 1987, "The Pricing of Options on Assets with Stochastic Volatilities," Journal
of Finance, 42, 281-300.
Johnson, H., and D. Shanno, 1987, "Option Pricing When the Variance is Changing," Journal of
Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 22, 143-151.
Mandelbrot, B., 1963, "The Variation of Certain Speculative Prices," Journal of Business, 36, 394-
419.
Merville, L. H., and D. R. Pieptea, 1989, "Stock Price Volatility, Mean-Reverting Diffusion, and
Noise," Journal of Financial Economics, 24, 193-214.
Poterba, J. M., and L. H. Summers, 1986, "The Persistence of Volatility and Stock Market Fluctua-
tions," American Economic Review, 76, 1142-1151.
Praetz, P. D., 1972, "The Distribution of Share Price Changes," Journal of Business, 45, 49-55.
Schwert, G. W., 1987, "Effects of Model Specification on Tests for Unit Roots in Macroeconomic
Data," Journal of Monetary Economics, 20, 73-103.
Schwert, G. W., 1989, "Why Does Stock Market Volatility Change Over Time?" Journal of Finance,
44, 1115-1153.
Stein, J., 1989, "Overreactions in the Options Market," Journal of Finance, 44, 1011-1023.
Wiener, N., 1933, The Fourier Integral and Certain of Its Applications, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, U.K.
Wiggins, J. B., 1987, "Option Values Under Stochastic Volatility: Theory and Empirical Estimates,"
Journal of Financial Economics, 19, 351-372.
752