The classic treatment of GBM for asset pricing leads to a point where eventually one gets a solution that is the same as assuming an underlying arithmetic Brownian motion, $X_t$, which has (over unit time) drift equal to $\mu-\frac{\sigma^2}{2}$and a random term $\sigma B_t$, then getting $S_t=S_0e^{X_t}$, and prices are log-normally distributed.

When viewed this way, it seems any path $X_t$ is the "total return" from $t=0$ until time $T$. It is formed by taking the drift/return for one period of time, Adjusted for the "offset" that arises from the random term after taking $e^x$ (Due to Jensen's inequality) and dividing time into more and more tiny increments where each one has a deterministic size $\frac{\mu -\frac{\sigma^2}{2}}{n}$, added to infinitessimal and independent normally distributed random increments to create the path from $X_0$ to $X_t$.

I am trying to get this to reconcile with a discrete intuition about returns and compounding. If we define $r=\mu -\frac{\sigma^2}{2}$for one period, one is adding an increment each time that is distributed as $N(\frac{r}{n}, \frac{\sigma^2}{n})$. In price space, this is like multiplying the price times $(1+\frac{r}{n})$ (plus the random term, of course).

Now, as $n\to \infty$, is it true that (1) these additive micro-returns in $X$-space drive $X_t$ such that $e^{X_t}$ gives the same result as applying the multiplications in price-space; and (2) one gets log-normally distributed prices?

The sort of key question I am trying to get at is this: with varying returns, where does the log-normality come into prices, and how is that squared with compounding in the limit with returns in price space?

We know that $e^{X_t}$ is always non-negative. Yet using an arithmetic BM and then taking the exponent seems like the same actions as taking infinitessimally-sized, normally distributed returns $r_t$ and calculating, as $n\to \infty$,

$$S_t=S_0\prod (1+r_t)$$ (plus, of course, the randomness).

If that is the case, then the log-normality comes not from $\mu$ when we take $e^\mu...$, since that is just continuous compounding if $\sigma=0$ - it comes from the random term (hence why we need to subtract $\frac{\sigma^2}{2}$ to maintain alignment with discrete/deterministic compounding calculations.)

The problem I see with the equivalence is that the approach I am trying to use in price-space,chaining the multiplication of tiny amounts of $(1+r_t)$ where each of the $r_t$ is normally distributed with a tiny r and a tiny $\sigma$ in the limit, still has the chance of having a negative return large enough that it makes prices go negative. The odds of this are tiny: as $n$ grows, $(1+N(\cdot ,\cdot))$ ends up with a mean of$ (1+\epsilon _1)$ and variance of $\epsilon_2^2$, where both $\epsilon _1$ and $\epsilon_2 <<1$ - so the chance of a negative return over 100% becomes vanishingly small.

My suspicion is one could argue that $P(1+N(\frac{r}{n}, \frac{\sigma^2}{n})<0)=0$ as $n\to \infty$ rapidly enough that it is OK.


I think the difference comes in that using returns and compounding is just a good approximation for lognormality, in the sense that it's the first term of the Taylor expansion

$\exp({\log(S_0) + r}) = S_0 + S_0 r + \frac{1}{2} S_0 r^2 + \dots $

The first order approximation $\exp({\log(S_0) + r)} \simeq S_0 (1 + r) $ only holds when $r$ is close to $0$, and this is why your intuition about $S$ becoming negative fails.


Juan's answer (which I have upvoted) is the important solution here, but there are a few other interesting points.

Mathematically, when we construct geometric brownian motion (GBM), we begin by constructing a brownian motion (BM) and then exponentiating it. So we never run into a product of $1+r$ terms.

Construction of brownian motion does not exclusively use forward-stepping increments. Instead, it starts with some coarse increments and then successively refines them using the brownian bridge.

Say we have generated standard brownian motion values $X_t$ for times $t_k < t_{k+1}$. Then setting $\tau=\frac12(t_k + t_{k+1})$ we choose a random value for $X_\tau$ as

$$ X_\tau \sim N\left(\frac12(X_{t_k} + X_{t_{k+1}}), \frac12( t_{k+1} -t_k ) \right) $$

Finally, we compute $S_\tau = \exp(X_\tau)$.

This process allows us to generate a BM or GBM approximation of arbitrary refinement, and converges in the limit to a true BM or GBM.

  • $\begingroup$ Just realized this myself recently. A GBM is actually solved by $Y=e^{X}$, where $e^X$ has $X~(N(\mu, \sigma^2))$ The question is as much about the bounds or math/numerical methods applied in X-space, where we have lots of instructions about working means, variances, etc. in X-space (hint: the product of two lognormals is also lognormal, since the sum of two normals is also normal. In Y-space). however, this looks like $e^{X_1 t}e^{X_2 t}=e^{(X_1+X_2)t}$, and since the X's are normal under addition, there is 1:1 with multiplication in lognormal space. $\endgroup$ – eSurfsnake Jun 12 '18 at 5:10

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.