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

So basically

$dS_t=\mu S_tdt+\sigma S_tdWt$



I have just been thinking about this later equation. This is very interesting because it ties together risk-free rate, volatility and asset drift. I always like and try to look at equation from some simple perspective, for example assuming that something is huge or very small or 0, and trying to watch how it impacts other variables. This is good approach to remember some dependencies.

So looking at this later equation, first thing to note is the negative sign of volatility. This is OK when trying to explain why VIX is index of fear and that "investors" don't like increase in volatilities. But increasing risk-free rate in macroeconomics theory translates to increased demand for bonds and decrease in demand for stocks, so their prices drop - this assumption is quite real in today's market - when US Treasuries yields rise stocks go down and vice versa.

So this is not in agreement with this also fundamental assumption $\mu=r-\frac12\sigma^2$.

How do you interpret this fact?

share|improve this question
Generally from a purely empirical standpoint over many different market cycles, there is an inverse relationship in the demand for fixed income instruments and equities. Demand and supply for different asset classes is one thing, the purely technical relationship between yields and bond prices an entirely different. – Matt Wolf Mar 23 '13 at 9:06
up vote 10 down vote accepted

I think you are interpreting too much into the matter. The $-\frac12\sigma^2$ is just a correction term that comes from Jensen's inequality.

You need this when switching from supposedly symmetric returns (normal distribution) to the skewed price process (log-normal distribution).

I think there are no deeper truths to be found here.

share|improve this answer
Agree with that notion. – Matt Wolf Mar 23 '13 at 9:07
Agreed, it's just a convexity correction, there is no economic meaning. – experquisite Mar 23 '13 at 18:07
yes, but again: mi is asset drift, it is mi from first equation which has known interpretation in physics if this equation has to describe asset move. but, OK, this is not simply average rate of move – where_is_tftp Mar 23 '13 at 19:13
@vonjd Jensen inequality is one thing and this relationship is other. you don't need Jensen ineq to derive this, this comes straight from the first assumption and from the fact that $E(S_T)=S_0e^{rT}$ – where_is_tftp Mar 24 '13 at 12:05

One thing to keep in mind here is that the world of risk-free/arbitrage-free models is not necessarily the real world. Specifically, this equation

$$ \mu = r - \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2 $$

occurs not because this is the way stocks behave in reality (they don't! For S&P 500, long-run $\mu$ is closer to 6-9%, if I recall correctly), but because using any other number in the pricing formula would create arbitrage.

share|improve this answer
yes, but still mi is asset drift, it is mi from first equation which has known interpretation in physics if this equation has to describe asset move – where_is_tftp Mar 23 '13 at 19:09

Your Answer


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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.