It's known that most of the financial assets are subject to Geometric Brownian Motion, which satisfies the following equations:

$\frac{dS}{S}=\mu dt + \sigma dX$ (1)

$S_t = S_0 e^{(\mu + \frac{1}{2} \sigma^2)t + X_t}$ (2)

Here my questions are:

In practice, when we use this SDE to simulate asset price path, i.e. the price movement of a stock index, what parameters should I use for $\mu$ and $\sigma$.

Does the $\mu$ stand for annualized mean log return of the stock index? But in equation(1), the $\mu$ doesn't appear as the exponent of e. Although, in equation(2) $\mu$ is really the exponent of e.

Does the $\sigma$ stand for the volatility of stock price, or volatility of logarithm of price, or volatility of log returns?

Here the volatility is an annualized or not?

The volatility is a rolling volatility or realized volatility?

thanks for your attention!


Equation (2) is wrong, it is is $(\mu - \sigma^2/2)t$ and $\sigma X_t$. Then estimating $\mu$ is not just taking the mean of log returns. Using $\log(S_{n+1}) - \log(S_{n}) \sim N(\mu - \sigma^2/2, \sigma^2)$, you estimate $\sigma$ with the sample standard deviation of log returns, say $\hat \sigma$, and then you get an estimate for $\mu$ with "sample mean of log returns+ ${\hat \sigma}^2/2$." And actually GBM is not a very good model for most stocks, it is too simple.


It's all in return units. Assume, for example, that from 1950 to 2017 annualized average returns on the S&P 500 are about 11.5% (.115) and standard deviation/vol is about 17% (0.17). That is you $\mu$ and $\sigma$.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for your reply. Do the terms you mentioned refer to annualized average and std of the log return? $\endgroup$ – Lopo Apr 10 '18 at 9:57
  • $\begingroup$ yes, that is the usual convention. $\endgroup$ – eSurfsnake Apr 10 '18 at 14:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm not sure I completely buy this answer. OP is asking about simulating the asset price path, i.e. a \emph{forward looking} $\mu$ and $\sigma$. If your model says that the best predictor of future returns is the past 70 years of returns, then this answer is fine, but presumably one would have a more sophisticated model for projecting $\mu$ and $\sigma$ that relies more heavily on recent data, industry factors, etc. $\endgroup$ – user217285 May 10 '18 at 5:55
  • $\begingroup$ I think he was just asking for the interpretation of the numbers, not the source or validity. $\endgroup$ – eSurfsnake May 13 '18 at 21:28

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.