Friday, August 16, 2019

girsanov - Radon-Nikodym derivative and risk natural measure


I need help with my understanding of changing probability measure. Im not a mathematician so I hope for answers that are not too technical.



As shown in this Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk-neutral_measure you can change the drift of a GBM with the following procedure:


dSt=μStdt+σStdWt


Introducing a new process:


d~Wt=dWtμrσdt


I understand that now the discounted value of the following process:


dSt=rStdt+σStd~Wt


is a martingale if ~Wt is a standard Brownian motion. OK, so we change to a new probability measure Q and now ~Wt is a standard Brownian motion.


My first question is, Wt can no longer be a standard Brownian motion under Q, because it now has non-zero expectation, is this true?


If the probability of an event, dWt=x under the physical measure, P, is dP(x), then the probability for that same event under Q is dQ(x)=dP(x)Φ(x), where Φ(x) is what i think is called the Radon-Nikodym derivative. For d~Wt to have zero expectation, then under Q EQ[dWt]=μrσt, am I right?


If this is true, can we then find Φ(x)=dQ(x)dP(x) by dividing the density function of a Brownian motion with expectation μrσt with the density function for a for a standard Brownian motion?



e(xμrσt)22tex22t ex22t(xμrσt)22t ex2(xμrσt)22t ex2x2+2xμrσtμ22μr+r2σ2t22t exμrσμ22μr+r22σ2t


Denoting μrσ, the market price of risk, as λ and substituting we get


Φ(x)=exλ12λ2t


The problem is that most references I have looked at states that the Radon-Nikodym derivative as something like:


Φ(t)=et0λdW(u)12t0λ2du


I cannot seem to see the link between this expressions. Is the last expression even possible to solve?



Answer



Your mistake is actually made at the beginning:


"Introducing a new process: d˜Wt=dWt+μrσdt"


This is incorrect. Rather, d˜Wt=dWtμrσdt



Otherwise, your derivation is correct. After correcting for the sign error, your final equation becomes Φ(x)=eλx12λ2t. Notice that when λ is a constant, t0λdWt=λx where x is a normally distributed random variable. Hence your derivation agrees with your references. However, the references are more general since they do not require λ to be a constant.


"Is the last expression even possible to solve?"


In general, there is no reason to "solve" the Radon-Nikodym derivative. Simply knowing it exists allows us to price contingent claims as expected values of functions of the underlying, which can be often be efficiently computed. Indeed, if the goal is to price assets λ can be safely ignored.


No comments:

Post a Comment

technique - How credible is wikipedia?

I understand that this question relates more to wikipedia than it does writing but... If I was going to use wikipedia for a source for a res...