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 !


1 Answer 1


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, 2015 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, 2015 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, 2015 at 12:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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