Tag Info

19

The way you do it in the first place is a discretization of the Geometric Brownian Motion (GBM) process. This method is most useful when you want to compute the path between $S_0$ and $S_t$, i.e. you want to know all the intermediary points $S_i$ for $0 \leq i \leq t$. The second equation is a closed form solution for the GBM given $S_0$. A simple ...

10

Baxter and Rennie say it better than me, so I will summarize them. Suppose that $N_t$ is not stochastic and $f(.)$ is a smooth function then the Taylor expansion is $$df(N_t) = f'(N_t)dN_t + \frac{1}{2}f''(N_t)(dN_t)^2 + \frac{1}{3!} f'''(N_t)(dN_t)^3 + \ldots$$ and the term $(dN_T)^2$ and higher terms are zero. Ito showed that this is not the case in the ...

9

One reference is "The Econometrics of Financial Markets" by John Y. Campbell, Andrew W. Lo, & A. Craig MacKinlay -- http://press.princeton.edu/TOCs/c5904.html. In particular: 9.3.1 Parameter Estimation of Asset Price Dynamics 356 9.3.4 The Effects of Asset Return Predictability 369 You might also take a look at Chan (1992) "An Empirical Comparison ...

8

Yes, you need Cholesky factorization. You can find the general idea here: http://www.goddardconsulting.ca/option-pricing-monte-carlo-basket.html Plus the implementation in MATLAB here: http://www.goddardconsulting.ca/matlab-monte-carlo-assetpaths-corr.html The code in general should be easily translatable. The only difficulty is the Cholesky factorization ...

8

Martingales + Markovian Here is the motivation. Conditional expectations are martingales by the tower property of conditional expectations (an easy exercise to show). Suppose $r=0$, by the risk neutral pricing theorem $E^\star\left[h(X_T)\bigg|\mathscr{F}_t,\,X_t=x\right]$ is the price of any derivative security with $X$ as the underlying asset and payoff ...

7

The Feynman-Kac theorem primarily makes sense in a pricing context. If you know that some function solves the Feynman-Kac equation you can represent it's soluation as an Expectation with respect to the process. (confer this document) On the other hand a pricing function solves the FK-PDE. Thus often one would try solving the PDE to get a closed form ...

7

It's a lemma! Ito's Lemma gives the change of coordinates rule for stochastic calculus. The multiplication rule is a shorthand way of expressing it.

6

I like Richard's answer, but I think we can compute the mean and the variance of $\int_0^T W_t dt$ by ourselves using Ito's lemma. Let $f(W_t, t) = t W_t$. $$d( t W_t ) = W_t dt + t dW_t .$$ Integrating both sides, and re-arranging the terms, we get $$\int_0^T W_t dt = T W_T - \int_0^T t dW_t \, .$$ We'll be using Ito's isometry formula $\mathbb{E} ... 6 The model for the stock is the Bachelier model with the solution $$S(t) = S(0) + \sigma W(t)$$ Thus the law of the stock$S(t)$is Gaussian with mean$S(0)$and variance$\sigma^2 t$. For average process$Z(T)$is thus the average of linear Brownian motion, we can rewrite this as $$Z(T) = \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T S(0) + \sigma W(t) dt = S(0) + ... 6 well, it is absolutely in agreement with theory. the correlation as measured by Pearson's coefficient \rho is linear measure in the sense that the bounds [-1,1] are obtained only when transformations of our variables are linear, so if we have variables X and Y then something like aX+bY+c where a,b\in\mathbb{R^*}, c\in\mathbb{R} will have ... 6 To complement @SRKX comment ,i'll try to explain the "simple mathematical proof" beetween both formula : I assume you know the geometric or arithmetic brownian motion : Geometric: \begin{equation*} dS = \mu S dt + \sigma Sdz \end{equation*} Arithmetic : \begin{equation*} dS = \mu dt + \sigma dz \end{equation*} Then another important stochastic tool you ... 6 If at first you don't have a model at all, then geometric Brownian motion is not bad. As others before me said: log-returns are normally distributed in this model. This is debatable and there are times and markets where this is not true. There is more than enough research about this. But why is a model based on Brownian motion not that bad? The reason is ... 6 To provide a straight forward answer: It is not a good model. It never was, it never will be. Until we all do not come up with a better model that provides better modeling accuracy while it is equally intuitive and makes similarly simplifying assumptions the BS model with its geometric brownian motion component is here to stay. It actually does not matter ... 6 The trick is to start with the highest power, rewrite it as something you know (a third order moment) and then work backwards on the remaining terms. By that I mean you can complete the cube as follows:$$E[W_t^3 - 3tW_t|\mathcal{F}_s] = E[(W_t-W_s)^3 - C -3tW_t|\mathcal{F}_s]$$where you'll need to find C such that the equality holds (i.e. C=W_s^3 + ... 5 For completeness, let's restate that the discrete case goes like this:$$\Delta S_t = S_{t+\Delta t}- S_t = \mu S_t \Delta t + \sigma \sqrt{\Delta t} Z_t $$with Z_t \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1). What you are doing in your case (although there is a typo in your formula) is to use the exact solution of the SDE to model the move between two points of S. ... 5 As you said, \mu is the expected return that is the expected value (mathematical expectation) of the random variable "stock return" under the objective probability measure. Assuming that returns are stationary*, the obvious way to estimate it is to compute a large number N of returns R_i, then to average them. You also want to annualize this average ... 5 I would calculate it this way, \mathbb{E}[(W_s+W_t−2W_0)^2] = \mathbb{E}\left[\left((W_s-W_0)+(W_t-W_0)\right)^2\right]\\ \hspace{4cm}=\mathbb{E}[(W_s-W_0)^2]+\mathbb{E}[(W_t-W_0)^2]+2\mathbb{E}[(W_s-W_0)(W_t-W_0)] \\ \hspace{4cm}=s+t+2\mathbb{E}[W_sW_t]\\ \hspace{4cm}=s+t+2\min(s,t) 5 The convexity of the exponential function of the stochastic variable W makes its expectation greater than the exponentiation of the expectation of W. This is an example of Jensen's inequality, E[e^{\sigma W}]> e^{\sigma E[W]}=1. \sigma can be interpreted as the magnitude of the convexity of the exponential function. This can be seen by Taylor ... 5$$ \textbf{Preface} $$I am assuming log normal asset but this is not clear from the question? Or rather I have misinterpreted the question! Well as I see it from a a purely mathematical exercise$$ d\left(\dfrac{S_t}{M_t}\right) =\frac{1}{M_t}dS_t - \frac{S_t}{M_t^2}dM_t +O(dt^2) $$using Ito's lemma. Then we can sub in the original processes yields ... 5 Brownian motion - because it is simple, and results in intuitive closed form solutions, and it's not a terrible description of asset prices, especially when employed in high-frequency event time. Geometric - because the returns compound, and equities cannot go below zero due to the fact that they are limited liability corporations There are many, many ... 5 You ask 2 questions and I try to answer: 1) Why do we use geometric Brownian motion (\ln S_t-\ln S_0 is normally distributed)? In this case you have$$ S_t = S_0 \exp( (\mu-\sigma^2/2) t + \sigma B_t), $$which means that you model positive prices. Furthermore the log-return$$ \ln(S_t/S_0) = (\mu-\sigma^2/2) t + \sigma B_t, $$is normally distributed. ... 5 The first process is a BM. The second does not exist in continuous time. The variance goes down too slowly with dt and the process blows up at the limit. You can break the (0,1) interval into 1, 100, 1000, 1000000 steps and see that happening. Variance of a martingale has to scale with dt: if it is too fast then the process dies, if it is too slow then ... 4 So where to begin? Continuity is a big thing as it fails to take into account jumps, the Gaussian assumption is another big one. However, looking deeper into it stationarity is a huge problem as it applies to financial time series. However, it does an OK job at simulation stuff in the long-run. 4 Note: There is a typo in your third equations. Instead of S(u) it should be S(t_{i}) and in place of S(t) there should be S(t_{i+1}). In fact, given S(t_{i}) we have that$$S(t_{i+1}) = S(t_{i}) \exp\left( (\mu - \frac{1}{2} \sigma^2) (t_{i+1} - t_{i}) + \sigma (W(t_{i+1}) - W(t_{i})) \right)$$is the exact solution of the SDE. Hence, the ... 4 The formula is given in your link. For the real world probability without jump:$$x_t = x_{t-1} e^{-\eta \Delta t} + \hat{x}(1-e^{-\eta \Delta t}) +\sigma \sqrt{\frac{1-e^{- 2 \eta \Delta t}}{2 \eta}} N(0,1) $$where: x_t: price x_{t-1}: PreviousPrice \hat{x}: long term mean (a parameter) \Delta t: Time step (one fraction) \eta: ... 4 Most of the time, when you have a simple SDE without a drift, it's a martingale because the Wiener process itself is a martingale. In your example, you have a constant with the Wiener process, therefore the whole process must also be a martingale because the expectation is clearly X(t). However, we can't conclude a driftless SDE is always a martingale. ... 4 The solution to the above SDE is (this is will known and can be seen by applying Ito's lemma)$$ S_t = S_0 \exp\left( (u-\sigma^2/2) t + \sigma B_t \right), $$Thus the log-return is given by$$ \log(S_t/S_0) = (u-\sigma^2/2) t + \sigma B_t $$and is normally distributed as B_t, Brownian motion at time t, is normally distributed. In fact the distribution ... 4 Since W_{2t}-W_{t} is independent of W_t and has the same law as W_{2t-t}=W_t we only have to compute$$P(X(X+Y)<0)$$where$(X,Y)$follows a bivariate normal distribution (with zero correlation). From there you can split the probability in two cases : either$X<0$and$X+Y>0$or the opposite. The two events have the same probability since ... 4 For a Brownian motion, if you wait$dt$, the variance will grow linearly with (proportionally to)$dt$. For a fractional Brownian motion, it will grow with a power law of$dt$, in fact in$dt^{H}$, where$H$is the Hurst exponent. See wikipedia for more details. It means the fBM will somehow keep memory of the past. When$H\$ is lower than 1/2, it will mean ...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible