How can I prove that under the risk-neutral probability:



$S_{t}$ is the stock price, K is the strike price, C is the call option price

Thank you !


Your posting has an error, that is, the identity should be \begin{align*} -P(0, T) \mathbb{P}(S_T > K) = \frac{\partial C}{\partial K}. \end{align*} The derivation below is based on this assumption. We denote by $f(x)$ the density function for $S_T$. Then \begin{align*} \mathbb{P}(S_T > K) = \int_K^{\infty} f(x) dx, \end{align*} and \begin{align*} C(K, T) &= P(0, T) \mathbb{E}\big((S_T-K)^+ \big)\\ &=P(0, T) \int_K^{\infty}(x-K) f(x) dx\\ &= P(0, T)\bigg[\int_K^{\infty} x f(x) dx - K \int_K^{\infty}f(x) dx \bigg]. \end{align*} Then, \begin{align*} \frac{\partial C}{\partial K} = -P(0, T)\int_K^{\infty} f(x) dx. \end{align*} That is, \begin{align*} -P(0, T) \mathbb{P}(S_T > K) = \frac{\partial C}{\partial K}. \end{align*}

We can additionally obtain that \begin{align*} P(0, T) f(K) = \frac{\partial^2 C}{\partial K^2}. \end{align*}

  • $\begingroup$ Okay thank you very much . Now I understand where this formula comes from. In my formula, it was supposed that r = 0 that's why there is not the term P(0,T) but I think there is no effect about the false formula I wrote ... $\endgroup$
    – glork
    May 5 '15 at 7:42
  • $\begingroup$ Just an interrogation: $\mathbb{E}[(S_{T}-K)+]P(0,T)=C(K,T)$ is this a formula that we can prove or is this the definition of the price of the option ? $\endgroup$
    – glork
    May 5 '15 at 7:53
  • $\begingroup$ @glork: The formula $\mathbb{E}[(S_T-K)^+]P(0, T) = C(K, T)$ is obtained by assuming deterministic interest rates, or by treating $\mathbb{E}$ as the expectation operator under the $T$-forward measure. $\endgroup$
    – Gordon
    May 5 '15 at 12:31

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.