1
$\begingroup$

Assume that the underlying $S$ is some index, hence the risk-return $\mu=0$, where $S$ meets $$d S = \sigma S d W_t.$$

Let $V$ denote the price of the corresponding call option. To construct the related BS formula, I construct a portfolio $\Pi=V-\Delta S$, after setting a correct value of $\Delta$, I want the portfolio to be risk-free. That is $$d \Pi = r\Pi d t= r(V-\Delta S) d t,$$ where $r$ is risk-free rate.

hence by the Ito formula, I can get the BS-equation.

However, someone told me that the identity $d \Pi = r(V-\Delta S) d t$ should be $$d \Pi = (r*V-\mu*\Delta S) d t,$$ and then get another equation.

Since in my opinion, in the risk-neutral world, $\mu$ turns to be $r$ after applying the Girsonov transformation, and making the portfolio to be risk-free is under risk-neutral world. I agree with the first identity.

So my question is which one is correct? If is the latter one, what's meaning of risk-neutral pricing?

Thank you very much!


Added 2016/10/26 10:39AM(+8)

Thanks for @MJ73550. I am sure the first one is right now.

However, if we distinguish the funding and lending rate for unsecurities (denote as $r_F$) and stock collateral(denote as $r_R$). Then maybe the identity $d \Pi = r(V-\Delta S) d t$ should be $$d \Pi = (r_F*V-r_R*\Delta S) d t,$$

Is this equation right?

Thanks again.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

I'm not sure I really understand your question.

Am I right in thinking that it amounts to asking whether the BS formula should write: $$\frac{\partial V}{\partial t} + \alpha S \frac{\partial V}{\partial S} + \frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S^2} \sigma^2 S^2 - r V = 0$$ with $\alpha=r$ or $\alpha=\mu$?

If this is the case, it is self-financing portfolios whose $t$-value should emerge as $\Bbb{Q}$ martingales. Thus, if the stock pays dividend $\alpha = r-q \ne r$. If your model includes a more complex cost of carry/repo cost, it should transpire through $\alpha$.

When you introduce real world effects (collateral, lending/borrowing asymmetry etc.) it can of course become more complicated; see http://www.math.columbia.edu/~fts/What%20Rate%20to%20use%20v1.pdf (I did not check the validity of the equations but at least it will give you an idea of what effects can be included).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @kayneo I'll let you accept this answer if you're satisfied! $\endgroup$ – SRKX Nov 25 '16 at 17:00
0
$\begingroup$

First equation is the right one.

But it won't help you to understand what happens behind risk-neutral pricing.

Indeed you just write that you invest in cash and stocks but you did not write self-financing conditions.

(1) Let $V_t$ be the value of the call,

(2) Let $\Delta_t$ be your delta of your delta hedge,

(3) Let $\Pi_t$ your cash remunerated at $r$.


(3) $\Leftrightarrow d \Pi_t = r\Pi_t dt$

(1)+(2)+(3) $\Leftrightarrow V_t = \Pi_t + \Delta_t S_t$


If your portfolio is split between cash and collateral.

You have

$V_t = \Pi^{cash}_t + \Pi^{collat}_t + \Delta_t S_t$

now you have $d\Pi^{cash}_t = r^{cash}_t\Pi^{cash}_t dt$ and $d\Pi^{collat}_t = r^{collat}_t\Pi^{collat}_t dt$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much. I agree with U. However, if we seperate the funding and lending rate for unsecurities $r_F$ and stock collateral $r_R$, the identity should change to $d\Pi = (r_FV-\Delta r_RS)d t$, right? $\endgroup$ – kayneo Oct 26 '16 at 2:38
  • $\begingroup$ hum... I modify my answer $\endgroup$ – MJ73550 Oct 26 '16 at 12:09

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.