The following is a summary of the derivation of the Black-Scholes equation as given on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-Scholes_equation#Derivation) - I have a question regarding the assumption that the specified portfolio is self-financing.

We have a two asset market:

$dB_t = B_t r dt $

$dS_t = S_t (\mu dt + \sigma dW_t)$

We introduce a European option with price $v(t,S_t)$ at time $t$. We now consider a portfolio consisting of one option and -$\frac{\partial v}{ \partial S}$ stocks. Therefore if $X_t$ is our wealth at time $t$, we must have $X_t = v(t,S_t) - \frac{\partial v}{ \partial S} S_t$.

It is then claimed that we have $dX_t = dv(t,S_t) - \frac{\partial v}{ \partial S} dS_t$, as the portfolio is self-financing.

However, it seems to me that if we have a constant holding of 1 option in our portfolio, then the only way to make the overall portfolio self-financing is to have a constant holding of stock too (otherwise, if we increase/decrease our holding in stock, where do the extra funds for this come from?).

Typically, the way I have seen self-financing portfolios constructed is that the holding in 1 asset (for example, the risk-free asset) is not explicitly specified, and is determined by the self-financing condition (i.e. the condition that $X_t = \pi_t \cdot P_t$ and $dX_t = \pi_t \cdot dP_t$, where $\pi$ is the portfolio and $P_t$ is the price process - this gives a linear equation for the unspecified holding).

Based on the above, it seems that in order to have a self-financing portfolio where we hold a constant 1 option and $- \frac{\partial v}{ \partial S}$ shares, we must also have a dynamic holding in the risk-free asset which allows us to ensure that we can always have $- \frac{\partial v}{ \partial S}$ shares in our portfolio without injecting external funds (and thus breaking the self-financing condition). However, if we do have this holding of the risk-free asset in our portfolio as well, then our equation for the wealth process ($X_t = v(t,S_t) - \frac{\partial v}{ \partial S} S_t$) becomes incorrect, as we are not taking into account our holding in the risk-free asset.

In summary, I don't believe that the portfolio of 1 option and $-\frac{\partial v}{ \partial S}$ shares specified in the wikipedia derivation of the Black-Scholes equation is self-financing, but the derivation makes use of the fact that it [i]is[/i] self-financing. Am I missing something?


If the portfolio consisting of 1 option and $-\frac{\partial V}{\partial S}$ shares is self-financing, then we have the following:

$X_t = V(t,S_t) - \frac{\partial V}{\partial S}S_t$ (definition of wealth process)

$dX_t = dV(t,S_t) - \frac{\partial V}{\partial S}dS_t$ (as portfolio is assumed to be self-financing)

$dX_t = dV(t,S_t) - d(\frac{\partial V}{\partial S}S_t)$ (simply by definition of differentials)

Equating the RHS of the second and third equations above gives:

$dV(t,S_t) - \frac{\partial V}{\partial S}dS_t = dV(t,S_t) - d(\frac{\partial V}{\partial S}S_t)$

So $\frac{\partial V}{\partial S}dS_t = d(\frac{\partial V}{\partial S}S_t)$.

Using Ito's lemma on the RHS gives: $\frac{\partial V}{\partial S}dS_t = d(\frac{\partial V}{\partial S})S_t + \frac{\partial V}{\partial S}dS_t + d<\frac{\partial V}{\partial S},S>_t$.

And so $d(\frac{\partial V}{\partial S})S_t + d<\frac{\partial V}{\partial S},S>_t = 0$. (*)

Now, $d(\frac{\partial V}{\partial S}) = \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S \partial t} dt + \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S^2} dS_t + \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^3 V}{\partial S^3}d<S>_t$.

Therefore $d<\frac{\partial V}{\partial S},S>_t = \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S^2}S_t^2 \sigma^2 dt$.

Plugging these into (*) gives:

$\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S \partial t} dt + \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S^2} dS_t + \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^3 V}{\partial S^3}d<S>_t + \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S^2}S_t^2 \sigma^2 dt = 0$.

Therefore $\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S \partial t} dt + \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S^2} dS_t + \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^3 V}{\partial S^3}\sigma^2 S_t^2 dt + \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S^2}S_t^2 \sigma^2 dt = 0$.

The cofficient of $dS_t$ must be zero, so $\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S^2} = 0$, so $V(t, S) = f(t) + Sg(t)$. We could stop at this point, because we know that we can't satisfy the boundary condition $v(T,S) = \max(0,S-K)$, and therefore our assumption that we could hedge an option with a self-financing portfolio consisting of 1 option and $-\frac{\partial V}{\partial S}$ shares is wrong.

However, note that the coefficient of $dt$ must also be zero, and since we already have $\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S^2} = 0$, this gives $\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S \partial t} = 0$. Since $V(t, S) = f(t) + Sg(t)$, this implies that $g$ is constant. Therefore $\frac{\partial V}{\partial S}$ is constant, as I claimed in the comments below - i.e. in order for this to be a self-financing portfolio at all, the holding in the stock must be constant.

  • $\begingroup$ quant.stackexchange.com/questions/12788/… $\endgroup$ – athos Aug 14 '14 at 9:52
  • $\begingroup$ I believe the question in the link actually refers to the case where the claim is replicated through a portfolio of bond and stock - my question is regarding the hedging portfolio of claim and stock. $\endgroup$ – Mark Aug 14 '14 at 10:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ it's the same... $\endgroup$ – athos Aug 14 '14 at 10:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Mark I added the Ito-proof on the self-fin. condition $\endgroup$ – emcor Aug 14 '14 at 20:09
  • $\begingroup$ I have noticed that the rating of this question has fluctuated up and down, but haven't been given any reason as to why this might be - if there are forum rules which I'm not abiding by, please do let me know. $\endgroup$ – Mark Aug 14 '14 at 20:25

You are correct that showing the self-financing condition for the BS-portfolio is not as straightforward as one may think:

A portfolio $V_t(\alpha_t,\beta_t)$ (for stock $S_t$ and zerobond $B_t$) is self-financing iff:

$$V_t=\alpha_tS_t+\beta_t B_t$$

It further implies


To replicate a derivative $C(S_t,t)$ by a self-financing portfolio of stock and bond, set: $$dV_t=dC_t$$

The dynamics of $dC$ can be specified using Ito's Lemma on $C(S_t,t)$:


Next assume $C$ satisfies the BS-PDE:

$$\partial_tC+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2S_t^2\partial_{SS}C=rC-rS_t\partial_S C$$

Inserting this into $dC$:


Now we further have the bond-dynamics $dB_t=B_trdt$, so:

$$dC=\partial_SC\cdot dS_t+\left(\frac{C_t}{B_t}-\frac{S_t}{B_t}\partial_SC\right)\cdot dB_t$$

Finally, the coefficients before $dS_t$ and $dB_t$ are exactly the self-financing portfolio weights:


  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. I understand how a European call is replicated using a portfolio of stock and risk-free bond, but the wikipedia article I linked to has an argument involving a portfolio consisting of holdings in the claim and the stock. In your example, we specify that $\alpha_t = \frac{\partial V}{\partial S}$, and then $\beta_t$, the holding in the bond, is determined by the self-financing condition. However, in the wikipedia example, the holdings in the option and stock are fully specified, and I don't believe this leads to a self-financing portfolio. $\endgroup$ – Mark Aug 13 '14 at 23:29
  • $\begingroup$ @Mark I see your point, the article uses Ansatz-technique which is not as straightforward. You can see that the portfolio $\pi$ is self-financing by calculating out the partial derivative of the black-scholes price, then you get: $dC=\partial_S CdS$ (where $C$ is the Black-Scholes-Formula), so $\Pi=0\forall t$, which is then obviously self-financing. $\endgroup$ – emcor Aug 13 '14 at 23:49
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks again for your response. I don't see that the portfolio value being uniform shows that the portfolio is self-financing - consider a holding in the risk-free bond of $B_0^{-1}e^(-rt)$ at time $t$ - this portfolio always has value 1, but is not self-financing. For the portfolio suggested by wikipedia, the wealth process is $X_t = V(t, S_t) - \frac{\partial V}{\partial S} S_t$. The self-financing condition is $dX_t = dV(t, S_t) - \frac{\partial V}{\partial S} dS_t$... $\endgroup$ – Mark Aug 14 '14 at 0:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The comment in the final paragraph of p12 of math.nyu.edu/research/carrp/papers/pdf/faq2.pdf agrees that the portfolio is not self-financing. The change in the value of the option is irrelevant as we are not changing our holding in the option. Mathematically: $X_t = v(t,S_t) - dv/ds . S_t$ Self-financing says: $dX_t = dv(t,S_t) - dv/ds . dS_t$ But Ito says: $dX_t = dv(t,S_t) - d(dv/ds) . S_t - dv/ds .dSt - d<dv/ds,S>$ Equating these two expressions for $dX$ gives $d(dv/ds) S_t = - d<dv/ds,S>$, which is not true (RHS represents a Leb integral, LHS is an Ito integral). $\endgroup$ – Mark Aug 14 '14 at 10:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ...and so we have a contradiction. Thus, the original claim that the hedging portfolio is self-financing must be incorrect. This is supported by p12 of the document I linked to earlier: math.nyu.edu/research/carrp/papers/pdf/faq2.pdf. $\endgroup$ – Mark Aug 14 '14 at 10:56

To show: $X:=(1,-\partial_SC)$ is a self-financing portfolio:

$$X\text{ self-financing}\leftrightarrow dX_t=adC_t+bdS_t\,\forall t\geq0$$

Let $C(S_t,t)\in C^2$, then by Ito formula:


Let $C(S_t,t)$ satisfy the BS-PDE in discounted form: $$\partial_tC+\frac{1}{2}\partial_{SS}C\sigma^2S^2=0$$

(Undiscounted form is $\partial_tC+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2S^2\partial_{SS}C=rC-rS\partial_S C$).

Plugged in: $$dC=\partial_SCdS$$

So we get:

$$dX=adC+bdS=1dC-\partial_SCdS=\partial_SCdS-\partial_SCdS=0\,\,\forall t$$

So we have a riskless portfolio which satisfies the self-financing condition. (q.e.d.)

  • $\begingroup$ thanks again for your patience with my questions. If I have understood the above correctly, we're actually making two assertions about C: firstly, that the portfolio (1,-dC/dS) is self-financing [this is used to get the first equality in your final line of math], and we also assume that C satisfies a certain PDE, which implies that dC = dC/dS dS. However, it is not checked whether these two conditions on C are compatible, and I claim they are not (cont'd).. $\endgroup$ – Mark Aug 14 '14 at 20:18
  • $\begingroup$ I have edited my OP to demonstrate what constraints on C are implied by forcing (1,-dC/dS) to be a self-financing portfolio, and it turns out that in order for this portfolio to be self-financing, we have the following SDE: $\frac{\partial^2 C}{\partial S \partial t} dt + \frac{\partial^2 C}{\partial S^2} dS_t + \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^3 C}{\partial S^3}\sigma^2 S_t^2 dt + \frac{\partial^2 C}{\partial S^2}S_t^2 \sigma^2 dt = 0$ And this implies that C must be of the form $C(t,S) = f(t) + kS$. Please let me know if you think there are any mistakes in my derivation of this in the OP. $\endgroup$ – Mark Aug 14 '14 at 20:19
  • $\begingroup$ @Mark it looks like it makes sense but I'm too tired; obviously it can't be true because Black-Scholes model can also price e.g. inverted or squared options, I recommend to ask this as a separate new question on quant.se or math.se. Best, $\endgroup$ – emcor Aug 14 '14 at 22:53

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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