2
$\begingroup$

Question: The Black-Scholes equation without dividend is given by $$\frac{\partial V}{\partial t} + \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2S^2\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S^2} + rS \frac{\partial V}{\partial S} -rV = 0.$$ (I attempted to derive the equation in my previous post.)

If we assume that 'with dividend rate $D$', then the Black-Scholes equation becomes $$\frac{\partial V}{\partial t} + \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2S^2\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S^2} + (r-D)S \frac{\partial V}{\partial S} -rV = 0.$$ How to derive this?

By working backwards and assuming derivation of my previous post, we should have $$d\Pi = \frac{\partial V}{\partial t} dt + \frac{\partial V}{\partial S} dS + \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2S^2\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S^2}dt - \Delta S - D\Delta Sdt.$$ But I do not understand why can we add the term in $d\Pi.$

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

We assume that the stock price process $\{S_t,\,t>0\}$ satisfies, under the real-world probability measure $P$, an SDE of the form \begin{align*} dS_t=S_t\big((\mu-q)dt+\sigma dW_t\big), \end{align*} where $\{W_t, \, t >0\}$ is a standard Brownian motion. Here, we need to consider the total return asset $e^{qt}S_t$, that is, the asset with the dividend payments invested in the same underlying stock. We consider a locally risk-free self-financing portfolio of the form \begin{align*} \pi_t =\Delta_t^1 \big(e^{qt}S_t\big) + \Delta_t^2 V_t, \end{align*} where $V_t$ is the option price. Then, \begin{align*} d\pi_t &= \Delta_t^1 d\big(e^{qt}S_t\big) + \Delta_t^2 dV_t\\ &= \Delta_t^1 e^{qt}\big(q S_t dt + dS_t \big) + \Delta_t^2\left(\frac{\partial V}{\partial t}dt + \frac{\partial V}{\partial S}dS_t + \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S^2} \sigma^2S_t^2 dt\right)\\ &=\left[\mu\Delta_t^1 e^{qt} S_t + \Delta_t^2\left(\frac{\partial V}{\partial t} + (\mu-q) S_t \frac{\partial V}{\partial S} + \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S^2} \sigma^2S_t^2 \right)\right]dt \\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad + \left(\sigma\Delta_t^1 e^{qt}S_t + \sigma \Delta_t^2 S_t \frac{\partial V}{\partial S}\right)dW_t. \end{align*} Since $\pi_t$ is locally risk-free, we assume that $\pi_t$ earns the risk-free interest rate $r$, that is, \begin{align*} d\pi_t = r \pi_t dt, \end{align*} Then, \begin{align*} &\left[\mu \Delta_t^1 e^{qt} S_t + \Delta_t^2\left(\frac{\partial V}{\partial t} + (\mu-q) S_t \frac{\partial V}{\partial S} + \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S^2} \sigma^2S_t^2 \right)\right]dt \\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad + \left(\sigma\Delta_t^1 e^{qt} S_t + \sigma \Delta_t^2 S_t \frac{\partial V}{\partial S}\right)dW_t= r \pi_t dt. \end{align*} Consequently, \begin{align*} \sigma\Delta_t^1 e^{qt}S_t + \sigma \Delta_t^2 S_t \frac{\partial V}{\partial S}=0, \tag{1} \end{align*} and \begin{align*} \mu e^{qt} \Delta_t^1 S_t + \Delta_t^2\left(\frac{\partial V}{\partial t} + (\mu-q) S_t \frac{\partial V}{\partial S} + \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S^2} \sigma^2S_t^2 \right) = r(\Delta_t^1 e^{qt}S_t + \Delta_t^2 V_t). \end{align*} From $(1)$, \begin{align*} \Delta_t^1 = -e^{-qt} \Delta_t^2 \frac{\partial V}{\partial S}. \end{align*} Then, \begin{align*} -\mu \Delta_t^2 S_t \frac{\partial V}{\partial S}+ \Delta_t^2\left(\frac{\partial V}{\partial t} + (\mu-q) S_t \frac{\partial V}{\partial S} + \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S^2} \sigma^2S_t^2 \right) = r\Big(-\Delta_t^2 S_t\frac{\partial V}{\partial S} + \Delta_t^2 V_t\Big), \end{align*} or \begin{align*} \Delta_t^2\left(\frac{\partial V}{\partial t} -q S_t \frac{\partial V}{\partial S} + \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S^2} \sigma^2S_t^2\right) &= r\Delta_t^2\Big(-\frac{\partial V}{\partial S} S_t + V_t\Big). \tag{2} \end{align*} Canceling the term $\Delta_t^2$ from both sides of $(2)$, we obtain the Black–Scholes equation of the form \begin{align*} \frac{\partial V}{\partial t} + (r-q) S_t \frac{\partial V}{\partial S} + \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S^2} \sigma^2S_t^2 -rV = 0. \end{align*}

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

The only difference in the derivation when you have a dividend-yield paying stock lies in the value of the Riskless Portfolio $\Pi_t$.

The financial meaning here is the key: to delta-hedge your option you buy a quantity $\Delta$ of the stock $S$, and only the stock is paying you the dividend, so you have to add this contribution in time to your hedge. The change in value of the stock is therefore: $$ dS=(\mu-q)Sdt+\sigma S dW. $$ We short a quantity $\Delta$ of the stock \begin{equation} \Pi=V-\Delta S. \end{equation} In the interval $dt$ the portfolio variation is therefore given by: \begin{equation} d\Pi= dV - \Delta dS - q \Delta S dt. \end{equation} The last term $ qS\Delta dt$ denotes the value added to the portfolio due to the dividend yield.

Now, for the Ito's Lemma the value of $dV$ is: $$ dV= \left( \frac{\partial V}{\partial t} + \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2S^2\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S^2} \right) dt + \frac{\partial V}{\partial S} dS. $$ Finally you use the no arbitrage condition which states that a riskless portfolio has the same value as a riskless zero-coupon bond, i.e. $d\Pi=r\Pi dt$. Substituting you finally obtain: $$ \frac{\partial V}{\partial t} + \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2S^2\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S^2} + (r-q)S \frac{\partial V}{\partial S} -rV = 0 $$ where you can see directly the additional $q$ term to the hedging due to the dividend yield.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I do not understand why we minus dividend in $dS.$ $\endgroup$ – Idonknow Sep 23 '19 at 10:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ When a company pays dividends its value decrease, then the same appens to its stock value. $\endgroup$ – ab94 Sep 23 '19 at 10:34
  • $\begingroup$ first: $$ r \Pi dt = r \left( V - \Delta S \right) dt = (\Theta + \frac{1}{2} \left( \sigma S \right)^2 \Gamma ) dt + \frac{\partial V}{\partial S} dS - \Delta dS - q \Delta S dt. $$ and then, delta hedging ( i.e. $\Delta = \frac{\partial V}{\partial S} $) and substituting, you find the correct answer. Financially you can think exactly as @gk94 suggested. If S is the price of my stock and it pays a dividend (think of it as a discrete dividend) then this value drops of the dividend amount. $\endgroup$ – Gabriele Mineo Sep 23 '19 at 11:19
  • $\begingroup$ See this question. The portfolio $\Pi = V-\frac{\partial V}{\partial S} S$ may not be self-financing. $\endgroup$ – Gordon Sep 23 '19 at 19:49

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.