I understand that in an arbitrage-free Binomial model, we assume that $S_{t+1} = S_t \cdot u$ in the event of an up-jump and $S_{t+1} = S_t \cdot d$ in the event of a down-jump. We call $u$ and $d$ the growth factors. A neccessary condition for no-arbitrage is that $d < e^{r \delta t} < u$, where $r$ is the risk-free lending rate and $\delta t$ is the time elapsed during each step. A common assumption, due to Cox, Ross and Rubinstein, is to let $u = 1/d = e^{\sigma \sqrt{\delta t}}$.

It seems that this assumption is inconsistent with no-arbitrage in the case where $e^{r \delta t} \geq e^{\sigma \sqrt{\delta t}}$ or, equivalently, when $r \geq \sigma / \sqrt{\delta t}$. What is the typical recourse in this situation?


if you let $\delta t$ be small enough, this won't happen. So the solution is to take more steps.

The CRR tree is very out dated in any case.

| improve this answer | |

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.