As a follow up of my previous question, I am now simulating the GBM step by step for $n$ steps.

I am using the following implementation for the simulation:

$$S_{t+1} = S_t \exp \left[ \left(\mu-\frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right) \Delta t + \sigma \sqrt{\Delta t} Z_t \right], ~ Z_t \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$$

Each step represents a unit of time so $\Delta t = 1$.

I use the following MATLAB code:

function paths = gbm_exp(mu,vol,s0,nbr_steps,nbr_paths)

shocks = randn(nbr_steps,nbr_paths/2);
shocks_ant = [shocks, -shocks];

paths = zeros(nbr_steps+1,nbr_paths);

paths(1,:) = s0;

for i=1:nbr_paths
    for j=1:nbr_steps
        paths( j + 1, i ) = paths( j, i ) * exp( (mu - vol^2/2) + vol * shocks_ant( j, i ) );

As you can see, I use antithetic path to try to reduce the overall variance.

The thing is, again, I should have $\mathbb{E}(S_t) = S_0 ~ \forall t$ if I set $\mu=0$.

So I do the following:

>> test=gbm_exp(0,.3,100,300,2000);
>> mean(test(end,:))

This means that I simulate 300 steps, with $\sigma=0.3$, $\mu=0$ and $S_0 = 100$.

The mean I get though, is something quite small, around 20 on average. So, not at all the excpected 100.

So, I tried increasing my number of paths to 200k and I get a mean of roughly 40 on average.

So I'm suprised by this behavior, I would expect it to converge much more quickly, especially with antithetic paths.

Did I miss something obvious again?


You should look at confidence interval. Normally, your confidence interval size is proportional to the standard deviation, looking something like: with probability $p$ your value will be in the interval: $$[\bar{S} - k*StdDev, \bar{S} + k*StdDev]$$

Then, getting back to your simulation, we can say that your time step is very big (1 year) and you simulate 300 points, meaning that you simulate outcome in 300 years.

$$\mathbb{E}(S_t) = S_0e^{\mu t} \\ \mathbb{Var}(S_t) = S_0^2e^{2\mu t} (e^{\sigma^2t}-1)$$

In your case, e.g. $\{\mu = 0\}$ we obtain: $$\mathbb{E}(S_t) = S_0 \\ \mathbb{Var}(S_t) = S_0^2(e^{\sigma^2t}-1)$$

Plugging in $\{S_0 = 100, \sigma =.3, t = 300\}$ we obtain: $$\mathbb{E}(S_t) = 100 \\ \mathbb{Var}(S_t) = 100^2(e^{27}-1)$$

I tested similar code with Mathematica (without antithetic) for 300 time steps with 1 year step and got {Paths, Mean, StdDev, {Min, Max}} = {10^6, 60.2203, 16363.3, {2.40216*10^-15, 1.2311*10^7}}. As you can see the standard deviation is very important, it means that your confidence interval will be also big.

Just try to test for 1 year and you should get good average: {Paths, Mean, StdDev, {Min, Max}} = {10^6, 100.028, 30.6978, {22.5584, 370.411}}

  • $\begingroup$ Ok, this is a good answer, but it's still incomplete in my opinion. The variance and mean of the process are key. According to the central limit theorem, the mean of all $S_{300}$ is normally distributed with mean $\mathbb{E}[S_{300}]$ and variance $\frac{Var[S_{300}]}{n}$. These values can be computed as you illustrate. $\endgroup$ – SRKX Sep 5 '14 at 6:07
  • $\begingroup$ I would, however, remove you last paragraph, as I think it's missing the point. Of course it works for low-volatility or short periods of times, I'm in particular trying to test what happens in more extreme cases. $\endgroup$ – SRKX Sep 5 '14 at 6:08

The GBM is a continuous model, so using large integer time steps naturally leaves large discretization error (which vanishes when you increase the number of steps).

Use small time step 0.001:

paths(j + 1,i) = paths(j,i) * exp((mu - vol^2/2)*0.001 + vol * 0.001^0.5*shocks_ant(j,i));

Then the mean is almost exactly 100 as expected.


appearantly your sampling variance is too large. I reimplemented your example in R. What I first saw is, that the mean got worse if I took more time steps (you take $300$). Your volatility is $0.3$ which is $30\%$ per year and you sample $300$ years. What you should do is the following:

  • define a variable nbr_steps_peryear
  • choose the number of years
  • then you take nbr_steps = years*nbr_steps_peryear
  • define a variable dt = 1/nbr_steps_peryear

The dt will control your variance. I get nice results with the following set-up:

nbr_steps_peryear = 20
years = 5
nbr_steps = years*nbr_steps_peryear
dt = 1/nbr_steps_peryear
nbr_paths = 10^3
S0 = 100
mu = 0.0
vol = 0.3

The dt term balances between the drift term $\mu-\sigma^2/2$ and the volatility term.

The main source of the problem is the large number of years - as already mentioned above. With a reasonable number of years and intermediate time steps to balance th drift it should look fine. nbr_steps_peryear = 20 years = 5 nbr_steps = years*nbr_steps_peryear dt = 1/nbr_steps_peryear nbr_paths = 10^3 S0 = 100 mu = 0.0 vol = 0.3

shocks <- replicate(nbr_paths/2,rnorm(nbr_steps))
shocks_ant = cbind(shocks,-shocks)

paths = matrix(0,nrow=nbr_steps+1,ncol=nbr_paths)
paths[1,]  = S0

for (j in 1:nbr_steps){
    paths[j+1,] = paths[j,]*exp((mu-vol^2/2)*dt + vol*sqrt(dt)*shocks_ant[j,])

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well, I agree that high volatility is the source, but I don't think it's a problem. In the end, the model should work alright even with high volatilities and long samples. I was trying to understand whether results looked rational for that kind of $\sigma$... $\endgroup$ – SRKX Sep 4 '14 at 10:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is not the value $0.3$ ... but the discretization error if you sample full years. You have to discretize the year. You have $300$ one-year steps. Try to cut a year in, sy $20$ steps and simulate first $1,2,3$ years and look what happens. You have $\Delta t$ in you formula but you don't use it in the code. $\endgroup$ – Richard Sep 4 '14 at 11:39
  • $\begingroup$ I understand what you say, but I think the problem would be exactly the same if I take $n = 300 \cdot \frac{1}{\Delta t}$ steps... (i assume $\Delta t$ is expressed as a fraction of a year here...) $\endgroup$ – SRKX Sep 5 '14 at 5:59
  • $\begingroup$ Besides, I'm not using the euler approximation here. So the number of steps I take won't change anything; I have the exact solution anyway... $\endgroup$ – SRKX Sep 5 '14 at 6:10
  • $\begingroup$ If you choose $\Delta t$ small, then you sample more often during one year - right. I will reread some works about MC simulation of stochastic processes/SDEs but I think smaller $\Delta t$ is better. if not - then why not take just a single time step of 300 years? $\endgroup$ – Richard Sep 5 '14 at 7:33

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.