Quantitative Finance Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for finance professionals and academics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Was hoping somebody could help me with the following question.

Prove that under the risk-neutral probability $\tilde{\mathsf P}$ the stock and the bank account have the same average rate of growth. In other words, if $S_0$ and $S_N$ are the initial and final stock prices, and $B_0$ and $B_N$ the initial and final bank prices, show that:

$$ \tilde{\mathsf E}\left[\frac{S_N}{S_0}\right]=\tilde{\mathsf E}\left[\frac{B_N}{B_0}\right]=c $$ and find the constant c.

I have the following:

I know that the risk neutral (or non risk neutral) expectation of the bank account will simply be $B_N/B_0$, as the expectation of any bank related investment will simply be the same as whatever is in the bracket (there is no uncertainty in the bank).

Also, I know $B_N=B_0(1+r)^N$ ($B_N$ is equal to initial investment multiplied by interest rate to the power $N$), So I can simplify $$ \tilde{\mathsf E}\left[\frac{B_N}{B_0}\right]= B_N/B_0 = \frac{B_0(1+r)^N}{B_0}=(1+r)^N. $$

My problem is trying to show that this is the case for the stock $\tilde{\mathsf E}\left[\frac{S_N}{S_0}\right] = (1+r)^N.$ As the stock is a martingale, I know I can say that:

$$ S_0/(1+r)^0 = \text{(by multi step ahead property)} = \tilde{\mathsf E}\left[\frac{S_N}{S_0}\right]. $$But I cannot work out what to do after this. I have found a way online that says this implies: $\tilde{\mathsf E}\left[\frac{S_N}{S_0}\right]=(1+r)^N$, but I cannot see how the previous statement implies this.

Would greatly appreciate any help.

share|improve this question

migrated from math.stackexchange.com Apr 3 '12 at 15:56

This question came from our site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields.

I'm not currently working on that model. The question does not specify the possible increments for a stock, so I imagine there's no set boundary. – DFM Mar 22 '12 at 13:49
please put the definition of the martingale measure, that should help you – Ilya Mar 22 '12 at 13:53
When you say "as the stock is a martingale" it is fully correct. It is the discounted stock process that is a (local) martingale under Q. – Kolmo Mar 22 '12 at 14:02
@Kolmo: so it is fully correct or not? :) – Ilya Mar 22 '12 at 14:06
@Ilya of course it is not correct. – Kolmo Mar 22 '12 at 14:09

The classic argument using risk-neutral pricing is to assume that discounted stock prices are $\tilde{P}$-martingales where $\tilde{P}$ is the risk-neutral probability measure.

Then, you know that

$$\frac{S_t}{(1+r)^t}=\tilde{E}[\frac{S_T}{(1+r)^T} | \mathcal{F}_t]$$

by definition of a martingale process.

As the discounts are non-stochastic, you can safely remove it from the expectation, and as $S_t$ is $\mathcal{F_t}$-measurable, you can also include it freely in the expectation.

You then get

$$(1+r)^{T-t}=\tilde{E}[\frac{S_T}{S_t} | \mathcal{F}_t]$$

With your setup $T=N$ and $t=0$ and you get

$$(1+r)^{N}=\tilde{E}[\frac{S_N}{S_0} | \mathcal{F}_0]=\tilde{E}[\frac{S_N}{S_0}]$$

share|improve this answer

$$ \widetilde{E}[\frac{S_{N}}{S_{0}}]=\widetilde{E}[\frac{S_{N}}{S_{N-1}}\frac{S_{N-1}}{S_{N-2}}...\frac{S_{1}}{S_{0}}]=\widetilde{E}[\frac{S_{N}}{S_{N-1}}]\widetilde{E}[\frac{S_{N-1}}{S_{N-2}}]...\widetilde{E}[\frac{S_{1}}{S_{0}}]=(1+r)(1+r)...(1+r)=(1+r)^{N} $$

share|improve this answer
To understand that you need to know that under the risk-neutral measure, the expected return on an asset price is the risk-free rate $r$, by definition. – SRKX Apr 5 '12 at 8:10

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.