Also now asked about here: Is it fair in an introductory stochastic calculus/derivatives pricing class to ask for the price when absence of arbitrage is violated?

Assume that we have a general one-period market model consisting of $d+1$ assets and $N$ states.

Using a replicating portfolio $\phi$, determine $\Pi(0;X)$, the price of a European call option, with payoff $X$, on the asset $S_1^2$ with strike price $K = 1$ given that

$$S_0 =\begin{bmatrix} 2 \\ 3\\ 1 \end{bmatrix}, S_1 = \begin{bmatrix} S_1^0\\ S_1^1\\ S_1^2 \end{bmatrix}, D = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 2 & 3\\ 2 & 2 & 4\\ 0.8 & 1.2 & 1.6 \end{bmatrix}$$

where the columns of $D$ represent the states for each asset and the rows of D represent the assets for each state

What I tried:

We compute that:

$$X = \begin{bmatrix} 0\\ 0.2\\ 0.6 \end{bmatrix}$$

If we solve $D'\phi = X$, we get:

$$\phi = \begin{bmatrix} 0.6\\ 0.1\\ -1 \end{bmatrix}$$

It would seem that the price of the European call option $\Pi(0;X)$ is given by the value of the replicating portfolio

$$S_0'\phi = 0.5$$

On one hand, if we were to try to see if there is arbitrage in this market by seeing if a state price vector $\psi$ exists by solving $S_0 = D \psi$, we get

$$\psi = \begin{bmatrix} 0\\ -0.5\\ 1 \end{bmatrix}$$

Hence there is no strictly positive state price vector $\psi$ s.t. $S_0 = D \psi$. By 'the fundamental theorem of asset pricing' (or 'the fundamental theorem of finance' or '1.3.1' here), there exists arbitrage in this market.

On the other hand the price of $0.5$ seems to be confirmed by:

$$\Pi(0;X) = \beta E^{\mathbb Q}[X]$$

where $\beta = \sum_{i=1}^{3} \psi_i = 0.5$ (sum of elements of $\psi$) and $\mathbb Q$ is supposed to be the equivalent martingale measure given by $q_i = \frac{\psi_i}{\beta}$.

Thus we have

$$E^{\mathbb Q}[X] = q_1X(\omega_1) + q_2X(\omega_2) + q_3X(\omega_3)$$

$$ = 0 + \color{red}{-1} \times 0.2 + 2 \times 0.6 = 1$$

$$\to \Pi(0;X) = 0.5$$

I guess $\therefore$ that we cannot determine the price of the European call using $\Pi(0;X) = \beta E^{Q}[X]$ because there is no equivalent martingale measure $\mathbb Q$

So what's the verdict? Can we say the price is 0.5? How can we price even if there is arbitrage? What's the interpretation of 0.5?


3 Answers 3


I believe there is not a unique price if you can't short. Say, instead of buying the option you spent 0.5 on a half a unit of the asset $S^2_1$ This asset pays out $[0.4, 0.6, 0.8]$ which first order stochastically dominates the option. So, no matter your probability beliefs about the states, in that setting you'd never pay $0.5$ for the option which pays less in every state. This suggests the right price is less than $0.5$. Similarly, buying $0.25$ units of the $S^0_1$ asset or $0.167$ units of the $S^1_1$ asset would likewise stochastically dominate the option. In fact, because for $0.375$ units of asset $S^1_2$, which costs on $0.375$, you can still have an asset that pays out $[0.3, 0.45, 0.6]$, it seems unlikely that the price could even be as high as $0.375$. Asset 0 implies a price below $0.4$ and asset 1 below $0.45$

Some python code to solve:

import numpy as np
S0 = np.array([[2],[3],[1]])
D = np.array([[1,2,3], [2,2,4], [0.8, 1.2, 1.6]])
X = np.array([[0.0],[0.2],[0.6]])
phi = np.dot(np.linalg.inv(D.transpose()), X)
print('The weights of the portfolio that replicates payoff X are: \n', phi)
P_X = np.dot(S0.transpose(), phi)
print('With a price: ', P_X)
print('Normalizing to pay a fixed price P_X for each of the three assets, what payoffs can you get?')
D_norm = D/(2*S0)
print('Notice that all three first order stochastically dominate the option for a price of: ', P_X)
print(D_norm - X.transpose())
print('Using each of the base assets, what\'s the minimum quantity that dominates?')
D_relative = X.transpose() / D
Min_dominating_fraction = np.max(D_relative,axis=1)
print('Minimum fraction of each of the assets that dominates X\n', Min_dominating_fraction)
P_Min_dominating_fraction = S0.transpose() * Min_dominating_fraction 
print('At prices of: ', P_Min_dominating_fraction)
print('Therefore the option price should be less than: ', np.min(P_Min_dominating_fraction))

This code doesn't spell out the price of the option, it just show my calculations for the paragraph above. I believe the real price of this option would actually be zero if shorting is permitted. If you buy three units of asset $S^2_0$ and short one unit of $S^1_0$ you get an asset with payouts $[ 0.4, 1.6, 0.8]$. This position costs nothing to take, has positive payouts for all states, and first order stochastically dominates the option itself. Since it is possible to make a better than replicating portfolio at zero cost the price should be zero. Oh the insanity at work when arbitrages are present!

  • $\begingroup$ BKay, in your opinion what's the interpretation of 0.5? $\endgroup$
    – BCLC
    Oct 4, 2017 at 10:26
  1. You cannot use negative probabilities in this context. When there is no unique probability measure, there can be no unique price. You only know that it is in [0, 0.6] range, if you want to tighten this interval you need to make further assumptions/tweak inputs
  2. I agree with your conclusion that there no suitable probability measure. But I am not sure about your computation. In 3 state world, you only have 2 variables (probabilities of 2 states of your choice), the probability of the third state can be determined from the fact that the sum of probabilities is $1$ - you do not seem to be using this fact! In your case, you have 3 assets, thus no arbitrage 3 equations. Solving 3 equations with 2 variables almost always fail! It would make sense to introduce the third variable, the interest rate. Let the probability of state $1$ be $p$, the probability of state $3$ be q and the interest rate be $r$. Thus for assets $1$ and $3$ we have

$p + 2(1 - p - q) + 3q = 2(1+ r)$ and $0.8 p + 1.2(1-p-q) + 1.6 q = 1+r$

which is equavalent to $q-p=2r$ and $0.8(q-p) +0.4 = 2r$; this implies that $q-p=2$, which is not solvable if $p,q \in [0;1]$!

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Yulia V. 1 How do you know negative probabilities cannot be used? Of course there does not exist a equivalent martingale probability measure but how do we know there might not be a equivalent martingale quasiprobability measure? Where did you get $[0,0.6]$? 2 What do you mean? Solving $S_0 = D \psi$ indeed gives such vector as a solution $\endgroup$
    – BCLC
    Dec 16, 2015 at 19:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $[0, 0.6]$ comes from the fact that, in the given 3 states, $0$ is the smallest price of the option (state $0$) and $0.6$ is the highest possible price of the option (state $2$). Trading outside these bounds would be unreasonable. $\endgroup$
    – Yulia V
    Dec 16, 2015 at 19:10
  • $\begingroup$ Equation $S_0 = D \psi$ seems to be wrong because 1. It does not take into account the fact that the sum of probabilities to end up in state 0, 1 and 2 must be $1$; 2. It does not take into account the interest rate (actually, the upper bound of the interval should be a discounted value of $0.6$, but, since we cannot work out the interest rate, I have left it as $0.6$ $\endgroup$
    – Yulia V
    Dec 16, 2015 at 19:14
  • $\begingroup$ I would not consider something as esoteric as negative probabilities for this very simple problem. In the real world, I would look into data error/noise or bid/ask. $\endgroup$
    – Yulia V
    Dec 16, 2015 at 19:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ no, it is $1/4$ :) Not sure why you divide by 2. In any case, if yo do not impose "=1"constraint when solving the equation, your solution will not, in all likelihood, satisfy it. $\endgroup$
    – Yulia V
    Dec 16, 2015 at 19:46

I think the cost of the option is zero if shorting is are allowed because if we buy 3 units of asset 2 and short 1 unit of asset 1, we get a payoff of:

\begin{bmatrix} 0.4\\ 1.6\\ 1.8 \end{bmatrix}

which statewise dominates the option.


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.