Hot answers tagged

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.


7

Stochastics are usually applied in the field of derivatives pricing. In this setting the task is to price a derivative such that it fits into the landscape of tradable instruments (no-arbitrage). We work using the risk-neutral measure - usually denoted by $Q$. The measure is derived from other traded instruments. In risk analysis (e.g. calculate the VaR, ES ...


7

A stochastic differential equation is nothing more than a short-hand notation for a corresponding integral equation. So the initial SDE you provided actually means $$ \int_0^t d S_u = \int_0^t \mu(S_u, u) du + \int_0^t\sigma(S_u, u) dW_u$$ This is how the SDE is defined (see e.g. here). The reason is that you cannot differentiate a Brownian motion. It does ...


6

As @SRKX suggested, full answers are provided below. (a). Using Ito's lemma \begin{align*} d\left(W_t^3\right) &= 3W_t^2 dW_t +3W_t dt. \end{align*} Integrating on both sides, we obtain that \begin{align*} W_t^3 = 3\int_0^t W_s^2 dW_s +3\int_0^t W_s ds. \end{align*} Consequently, \begin{align*} \int_0^t W_s^2 dW_s = \frac{1}{3}W_t^3 -\int_0^t W_s ...


5

The problem is equivalent to given to 2 independent standard normals $W$ and $Z$ the probability of $$ W > 0, \text{ and } W+Z<0. $$ or $$ W > 0, \text{ and } Z<-W. $$ Plotting this set we see it is the bottom half of the lower right quadrant. The probability of being in the lower right quadrant is clearly $0.25$ by symmetry. The probability ...


4

Maybe I'm missing something? Given $f:\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m$, you can write $f = (f_1,\ldots,f_m)$, where each $f_i:\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. Apply Ito to each $f_i$ separately.


4

Formally, this is a shorthand for the quadratic variation. For a more rudimentary definition, $\langle W, W\rangle$ is a process such that $W^2-\langle W, W\rangle$ is a martingale. Moreover, $\langle W, W\rangle_t$ is a limit, in probability, of the variation \begin{align*} \sum_{i=1}^n|W_{t_{i}}-W_{t_{i-1}}|^2, \end{align*} over the partition ...


4

I thought this was an interesting example to add. It concerns a "ratio model" of habit (as opposed to a "difference" model of habit). See, for example, Abel (1990, American Economic Review). Let $$ x_t = \lambda \int_{-\infty}^t e^{-\lambda(t-s)} c_s ds. $$ (For context, $x_t$ is a log habit index that is given by a geometric average of past consumption, ...


4

B1~N(0,1) and B2=B1+Z, for Z~N(0,1). From that E(B1*B1)=E(B1*B2)=1, E(B2*B2)=2. Therefore they are bivariate Gaussian with covariance matrix (1,1;1,2) therefore probability is around 12%, which is the volume over the bottom-right quadrant.


4

In this case it is just the notion that your payoff function should not explode at some point - made mathematically rigorous. Have a look at the following picture from wikipedia: Intuitively the Lipschitz condition (or Lipschitz continuity) ensures that your payoff function always remains entirely outside the white cone, so it cannot e.g. become ...


4

You know that $E\left[\int_{0}^{s}W_udu\right]=E\left[\int_{0}^{t}W_vdv\right]=0$. By definition \begin{align} & Cov\left(\int_{0}^{s}W_u\,du\,\,,\,\int_{0}^{t}W_v\,dv\right)=E\left[\int_{0}^{s}W_u\,du\int_{0}^{t}W_v\,dv\right]-0 \end{align} then \begin{align} & ...


4

Feynman–Kac Theorem: Assume that $F$ is a solution to the boundary value problem \begin{align} &F_t+\mu(t,x)F_x+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2(t,x)F_{xx}-rF=0\\ &F(T,x)=\Phi(x), \end{align} Assume furthermore that the process $e^{-r_s}\sigma(s,X_s)F_s$ is in $\mathcal L^2$ where \begin{align} dX_s=\mu(s,x)ds+\sigma(s,x)dW_s, \end{align} then $F$ has the ...


4

Let $\{P_t \mid t \geq 0\}$ be a compound Poisson process, where \begin{align*} P_t = \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} (V_i -1), \end{align*} and $N_t$ is a Poisson process with intensity $\lambda$ and jump times $\tau_i$, $i = 1, \ldots, \infty$. Let $Y_i=\ln V_i$ and $f(x)$ be the density function. Then \begin{align*} P_t - \lambda t E(V_1) &= P_t - \lambda t ...


4

I think all they are doing is integrating and estimating $$P(|W_t| \leq 2) = \int_{-2}^{2} \frac{d}{dr} P(W_t \leq r) dr $$ so $$ P(|W_t| \leq 2) \leq 4 \sup \limits_{r \in [-2,2]} \frac{d}{dr}P(W_t \leq r) $$ The normal density is maximal at zero and we are done.


4

We consider the case where the Novikov condition is satisfied, that is, \begin{align*} E\left[\exp\left(\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T \theta^2_s ds \right)\right] < \infty. \end{align*} Then $\{L_t \mid t \ge 0\}$ is a $(\mathscr{F}_t, \mathbb{P})$-martingale. On $\mathscr{F}_T$, we define the probability measure $Q$ by \begin{align*} ...


3

For the last question. We assume that \begin{align*} S_t = S_0 e^{(r-q-\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)t + \sigma W_t}, \end{align*} where $W$ is a standard Brownian motion, $r$ is the interest rate, $q$ is the dividend yield, and $\sigma$ is the volatility. Then, \begin{align*} X_{u+a}-X_a &= (r-q-\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)a + \sigma(W_{u+a}-W_u)\\ &\sim ...


3

The logic from Bob Jansen is correct. The problem is abuse of ideas and notation the integral symbol from the deterministic world gets sloppily applied to random variables. Unlike normal $dt$, which is always positive, $dW_t$ can go 'backwards'. Thus increments of terms like $W_t dW_t$ have a first element that goes up and down with the second element ...


3

What you need is to identify the distribution of the asset price $S_T$, conditional on the information set $\mathcal{F}_{t}$ at time $t$, for $0\leq t < T$. Note that \begin{align*} S_T &= S_t \exp\bigg(\int_{t}^T \Big(r_s-\frac{\sigma_s^2}{2}\Big)ds + \int_t^T\sigma_s dW_s \bigg). \end{align*} Let \begin{align*} P(t, T) = \exp\bigg(-\int_t^T r_s ds ...


3

Note that, for $0 \leq s < t$, \begin{align*} W_t^3 &= (W_t-W_s+W_s)^3\\ &= (W_t-W_s)^3 + 3(W_t-W_s)^2 W_s + 3 (W_t-W_s) W_s^2 + W_s^3. \end{align*} Moreover, \begin{align*} E\big( (W_t-W_s)^3 \mid \mathcal{F}_s\big) &= E\big( (W_t-W_s)^3\big)\\ &= 0,\\ E\big((W_t-W_s)^2 W_s \mid \mathcal{F}_s\big) &= W_s E\big( (W_t-W_s)^2\big)\\ ...


3

It is nearly a Bronwian motion. Just the variance is not correct: The question is more tricky than it seems. A Brownian motion has the distribution properties stated below, so does a linear combination of BMs. But after all it is a martingale in a certain filtration (set of information) which has to be defined. $B_t$ is a BM in its own filtration, so is ...


3

Your notations are really hard to follow as you define $\mathbb{P}$ twice at the beginning. The notation $\mathbb{P} = \mathbb{\hat{P}}$ and $\mathbb{P} =\mathbb{\tilde{P}}$ is not meaningful as the probability measure $\mathbb{P}$ is already fixed and used for the real world probability measure. I think that this is the reason why you are getting confused. ...


3

There is somewhere summary of methods that can be used to estimate parameters of SDE? If you'd like a brief survey, consider the following packages as well as the accompanying papers (note: you may want to follow the citations listed therein): https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Sim.DiffProc/ "Estimation of Stochastic Differential Equations with ...


3

Given efficient markets, asset prices should be unpredictable in the sense that any upcoming returns are uncorrelated with current or past returns. Hence for traded assets the price should follow something more similar to a GBM than an O-U process. However, many financial metrics are not prices; for example interest rates or volatility. O-U processes may ...


2

The above question was a typo due to the author -- the expression should be evaluated as \begin{equation} E(t|\mathcal{F}_{s}^{W}) = t \end{equation} due to the reasoning in the question. Sorry for the noise.


2

if we forget about $S_0$, you are just trying to price a power option, i.e. an option on $S^\alpha$. By Ito $$ d \log S^\alpha = \alpha d\log S = \alpha (r- q - \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2 ) dt + \alpha\sigma dW_t $$ This can be rewritten $$ d \log S^\alpha = (r-q'-\frac{1}{2}\sigma'^2 ) dt + \sigma' dW_t $$ If you set $\sigma' = \alpha \sigma$ $q' = r ...


2

this is not the way to do it. The Black-_Scholes argument requires the underlying to be tradable. $S_{t}^{0.5}$ is not tradable. Instead, recognize that the underlying is still $S_t$ but the pay-off has changed to $$ (\alpha S_{t}^{1/2} - \beta)_+ $$ for appropriate constants $\alpha,\beta.$ So the derivation of the BS equation still holds and the ...


2

The portfolio is self-financing. You simply forgot a term in $b$ and a $-t$ term in $V$: \begin{eqnarray} V_t &=& a_t S_t + b_t \beta_t = (2B_t ) (10+ B_t) + (- t - B_t^2 - 20B_t)1 \\ &=& 20B_t + 2B_t^2 - t - B_t^2 - 20B_t \\ &=& B_t^2 - t \end{eqnarray} Applying Ito's lemma \begin{eqnarray} dV_t &=& (2B_t dB_t + ...


2

I think to gain intution you have to understand that the same agents that value the stocks will value the options. And agents compensate for volatility by demanding higher expected returns. Therefore you should ask: Why are stocks priced as they are in the first place? In your example, the stock with higher volatility has much lower expected return. This ...


2

Yes and No. In the absence of arbitragers, the price of the option will be different for each speculator based on their drift expectations (and each speculator has a risk in his position and will limit his ability to trade large sizes to avoid bankruptcy) and the option price will converge to priced off a supply-and-demand driven drift expectation. ...



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