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=dWt−μ−rσdt
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]=μ−rσt, 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 μ−rσt with the density function for a for a standard Brownian motion?
e−(x−μ−rσt)22te−x22t ex22t−(x−μ−rσt)22t ex2−(x−μ−rσt)22t ex2−x2+2xμ−rσt−μ2−2μr+r2σ2t22t exμ−rσ−μ2−2μr+r22σ2t
Denoting μ−rσ, the market price of risk, as λ and substituting we get
Φ(x)=exλ−12λ2t
The problem is that most references I have looked at states that the Radon-Nikodym derivative as something like:
Φ(t)=e−∫t0λdW(u)−12∫t0λ2du
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+μ−rσdt"
This is incorrect. Rather, d˜Wt=dWt−μ−rσdt
Otherwise, your derivation is correct. After correcting for the sign error, your final equation becomes Φ(x)=e−λx−12λ2t. 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