Risk-neutral measure

Last updated

In mathematical finance, a risk-neutral measure (also called an equilibrium measure, or equivalent martingale measure ) is a probability measure such that each share price is exactly equal to the discounted expectation of the share price under this measure. This is heavily used in the pricing of financial derivatives due to the fundamental theorem of asset pricing, which implies that in a complete market, a derivative's price is the discounted expected value of the future payoff under the unique risk-neutral measure. [1] Such a measure exists if and only if the market is arbitrage-free.

Contents

A risk-neutral measure is a probability measure

The easiest way to remember what the risk-neutral measure is, or to explain it to a probability generalist who might not know much about finance, is to realize that it is:

  1. The probability measure of a transformed random variable. Typically this transformation is the utility function of the payoff. The risk-neutral measure would be the measure corresponding to an expectation of the payoff with a linear utility.
  2. An implied probability measure, that is one implied from the current observable/posted/traded prices of the relevant instruments. Relevant means those instruments that are causally linked to the events in the probability space under consideration (i.e. underlying prices plus derivatives), and
  3. It is the implied probability measure (solves a kind of inverse problem) that is defined using a linear (risk-neutral) utility in the payoff, assuming some known model for the payoff. This means that you try to find the risk-neutral measure by solving the equation where current prices are the expected present value of the future pay-offs under the risk-neutral measure. The concept of a unique risk-neutral measure is most useful when one imagines making prices across a number of derivatives that would make a unique risk-neutral measure, since it implies a kind of consistency in one's hypothetical untraded prices, and theoretically points to arbitrage opportunities in markets where bid/ask prices are visible.

It is also worth noting that in most introductory applications in finance, the pay-offs under consideration are deterministic given knowledge of prices at some terminal or future point in time. This is not strictly necessary to make use of these techniques.

Motivating the use of risk-neutral measures

Prices of assets depend crucially on their risk as investors typically demand more profit for bearing more risk. Therefore, today's price of a claim on a risky amount realised tomorrow will generally differ from its expected value. Most commonly, investors are risk-averse and today's price is below the expectation, remunerating those who bear the risk.

It turns out that in a complete market with no arbitrage opportunities there is an alternative way to do this calculation: Instead of first taking the expectation and then adjusting for an investor's risk preference, one can adjust, once and for all, the probabilities of future outcomes such that they incorporate all investors' risk premia, and then take the expectation under this new probability distribution, the risk-neutral measure. The main benefit stems from the fact that once the risk-neutral probabilities are found, every asset can be priced by simply taking the present value of its expected payoff. Note that if we used the actual real-world probabilities, every security would require a different adjustment (as they differ in riskiness).

The absence of arbitrage is crucial for the existence of a risk-neutral measure. In fact, by the fundamental theorem of asset pricing, the condition of no-arbitrage is equivalent to the existence of a risk-neutral measure. Completeness of the market is also important because in an incomplete market there are a multitude of possible prices for an asset corresponding to different risk-neutral measures. It is usual to argue that market efficiency implies that there is only one price (the "law of one price"); the correct risk-neutral measure to price which must be selected using economic, rather than purely mathematical, arguments.

A common mistake is to confuse the constructed probability distribution with the real-world probability. They will be different because in the real-world, investors demand risk premia, whereas it can be shown that under the risk-neutral probabilities all assets have the same expected rate of return, the risk-free rate (or short rate) and thus do not incorporate any such premia. The method of risk-neutral pricing should be considered as many other useful computational tools—convenient and powerful, even if seemingly artificial.

Definition

Equivalent martingale measure

Let be a d-dimensional market representing the price processes of the risky assets, the risk-free bond and the underlying probability space. Then a measure is called an equivalent (local) martingale measure if

  1. , i.e., is equivalent to ,
  2. the processes are (local) martingales w.r.t. . [2]

Risk-neutral measure

Risk-neutral measures make it easy to express the value of a derivative in a formula. Suppose at a future time a derivative (e.g., a call option on a stock) pays units, where is a random variable on the probability space describing the market. Further suppose that the discount factor from now (time zero) until time is . Then today's fair value of the derivative is

where any martingale measure that solves the equation is a risk-neutral measure.

Change of measure

This can be re-stated in terms of an alternative measure P as

where is the Radon–Nikodym derivative of with respect to , and therefore is still a martingale. [3]

If in a financial market there is just one risk-neutral measure, then there is a unique arbitrage-free price for each asset in the market. This is the fundamental theorem of arbitrage-free pricing . If there are more such measures, then in an interval of prices no arbitrage is possible. If no equivalent martingale measure exists, arbitrage opportunities do.

In markets with transaction costs, with no numéraire, the consistent pricing process takes the place of the equivalent martingale measure. There is in fact a 1-to-1 relation between a consistent pricing process and an equivalent martingale measure.

Example 1 – Binomial model of stock prices

Given a probability space , consider a single-period binomial model, denote the initial stock price as and the stock price at time 1 as which can randomly take on possible values: if the stock moves up, or if the stock moves down. Finally, let denote the risk-free rate. These quantities need to satisfy else there is arbitrage in the market and an agent can generate wealth from nothing. [4]

A probability measure on is called risk-neutral if which can be written as . Solving for we find that the risk-neutral probability of an upward stock movement is given by the number

[5]

Given a derivative with payoff when the stock price moves up and when it goes down, we can price the derivative via

Example 2 – Brownian motion model of stock prices

Suppose our economy consists of 2 assets, a stock and a risk-free bond, and that we use the Black–Scholes model. In the model the evolution of the stock price can be described by Geometric Brownian Motion:

where is a standard Brownian motion with respect to the physical measure. If we define

Girsanov's theorem states that there exists a measure under which is a Brownian motion. is known as the market price of risk. Utilizing rules within Itô calculus, one may informally differentiate with respect to and rearrange the above expression to derive the SDE

Put this back in the original equation:

Let be the discounted stock price given by , then by Ito's lemma we get the SDE:

is the unique risk-neutral measure for the model. The discounted payoff process of a derivative on the stock is a martingale under . Notice the drift of the SDE is , the risk-free interest rate, implying risk neutrality. Since and are -martingales we can invoke the martingale representation theorem to find a replicating strategy – a portfolio of stocks and bonds that pays off at all times .

Origin of the risk-neutral measure

It is natural to ask how a risk-neutral measure arises in a market free of arbitrage. Somehow the prices of all assets will determine a probability measure. One explanation is given by utilizing the Arrow security. For simplicity, consider a discrete (even finite) world with only one future time horizon. In other words, there is the present (time 0) and the future (time 1), and at time 1 the state of the world can be one of finitely many states. An Arrow security corresponding to state n, An, is one which pays $1 at time 1 in state n and $0 in any of the other states of the world.

What is the price of An now? It must be positive as there is a chance you will gain $1; it should be less than $1 as that is the maximum possible payoff. Thus the price of each An, which we denote by An(0), is strictly between 0 and 1.

Actually, the sum of all the security prices must be equal to the present value of $1, because holding a portfolio consisting of each Arrow security will result in certain payoff of $1. Consider a raffle where a single ticket wins a prize of all entry fees: if the prize is $1, the entry fee will be 1/number of tickets. For simplicity, we will consider the interest rate to be 0, so that the present value of $1 is $1.

Thus the An(0)'s satisfy the axioms for a probability distribution. Each is non-negative and their sum is 1. This is the risk-neutral measure! Now it remains to show that it works as advertised, i.e. taking expected values with respect to this probability measure will give the right price at time 0.

Suppose you have a security C whose price at time 0 is C(0). In the future, in a state i, its payoff will be Ci. Consider a portfolio P consisting of Ci amount of each Arrow security Ai. In the future, whatever state i occurs, then Ai pays $1 while the other Arrow securities pay $0, so P will pay Ci. In other words, the portfolio P replicates the payoff of C regardless of what happens in the future. The lack of arbitrage opportunities implies that the price of P and C must be the same now, as any difference in price means we can, without any risk, (short) sell the more expensive, buy the cheaper, and pocket the difference. In the future we will need to return the short-sold asset but we can fund that exactly by selling our bought asset, leaving us with our initial profit.

By regarding each Arrow security price as a probability, we see that the portfolio price P(0) is the expected value of C under the risk-neutral probabilities. If the interest rate R were not zero, we would need to discount the expected value appropriately to get the price. In particular, the portfolio consisting of each Arrow security now has a present value of , so the risk-neutral probability of state i becomes times the price of each Arrow security Ai, or its forward price.

Note that Arrow securities do not actually need to be traded in the market. This is where market completeness comes in. In a complete market, every Arrow security can be replicated using a portfolio of real, traded assets. The argument above still works considering each Arrow security as a portfolio.

In a more realistic model, such as the Black–Scholes model and its generalizations, our Arrow security would be something like a double digital option, which pays off $1 when the underlying asset lies between a lower and an upper bound, and $0 otherwise. The price of such an option then reflects the market's view of the likelihood of the spot price ending up in that price interval, adjusted by risk premia, entirely analogous to how we obtained the probabilities above for the one-step discrete world.

See also


Notes

  1. Glyn A. Holton (2005). "Fundamental Theorem of Asset Pricing". riskglossary.com. Retrieved October 20, 2011.
  2. Björk, Tomas (2004). Arbitrage theory in Continuous Time. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 136f. ISBN   978-0-19-927126-9.
  3. Hans Föllmer; Alexander Schied (2004). Stochastic Finance: An Introduction in Discrete Time (2 ed.). Walter de Gruyter. p.  6. ISBN   978-3-11-018346-7.
  4. Shreve, Steven E. Stochastic Calculus for Finance I The Binomial Asset Pricing Model. pp. 2–3. ISBN   978-0-387-22527-2. OCLC   1184505221.
  5. Elliott, Robert James; Kopp, P. E. (2005). Mathematics of financial markets (2 ed.). Springer. pp.  48–50. ISBN   978-0-387-21292-0.

Related Research Articles

Financial economics is the branch of economics characterized by a "concentration on monetary activities", in which "money of one type or another is likely to appear on both sides of a trade". Its concern is thus the interrelation of financial variables, such as share prices, interest rates and exchange rates, as opposed to those concerning the real economy. It has two main areas of focus: asset pricing and corporate finance; the first being the perspective of providers of capital, i.e. investors, and the second of users of capital. It thus provides the theoretical underpinning for much of finance.

The Black–Scholes or Black–Scholes–Merton model is a mathematical model for the dynamics of a financial market containing derivative investment instruments. From the parabolic partial differential equation in the model, known as the Black–Scholes equation, one can deduce the Black–Scholes formula, which gives a theoretical estimate of the price of European-style options and shows that the option has a unique price given the risk of the security and its expected return. The equation and model are named after economists Fischer Black and Myron Scholes. Robert C. Merton, who first wrote an academic paper on the subject, is sometimes also credited.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Girsanov theorem</span> Theorem on changes in stochastic processes

In probability theory, the Girsanov theorem tells how stochastic processes change under changes in measure. The theorem is especially important in the theory of financial mathematics as it tells how to convert from the physical measure, which describes the probability that an underlying instrument will take a particular value or values, to the risk-neutral measure which is a very useful tool for evaluating the value of derivatives on the underlying.

The fundamental theorems of asset pricing, in both financial economics and mathematical finance, provide necessary and sufficient conditions for a market to be arbitrage-free, and for a market to be complete. An arbitrage opportunity is a way of making money with no initial investment without any possibility of loss. Though arbitrage opportunities do exist briefly in real life, it has been said that any sensible market model must avoid this type of profit. The first theorem is important in that it ensures a fundamental property of market models. Completeness is a common property of market models. A complete market is one in which every contingent claim can be replicated. Though this property is common in models, it is not always considered desirable or realistic.

A risk-free bond is a theoretical bond that repays interest and principal with absolute certainty. The rate of return would be the risk-free interest rate. It is primary security, which pays off 1 unit no matter state of economy is realized at time . So its payoff is the same regardless of what state occurs. Thus, an investor experiences no risk by investing in such an asset.

Rational pricing is the assumption in financial economics that asset prices – and hence asset pricing models – will reflect the arbitrage-free price of the asset as any deviation from this price will be "arbitraged away". This assumption is useful in pricing fixed income securities, particularly bonds, and is fundamental to the pricing of derivative instruments.

Monte Carlo methods are used in corporate finance and mathematical finance to value and analyze (complex) instruments, portfolios and investments by simulating the various sources of uncertainty affecting their value, and then determining the distribution of their value over the range of resultant outcomes. This is usually done by help of stochastic asset models. The advantage of Monte Carlo methods over other techniques increases as the dimensions of the problem increase.

The numéraire is a basic standard by which value is computed. In mathematical economics it is a tradable economic entity in terms of whose price the relative prices of all other tradables are expressed. In a monetary economy, one of the functions of money is to act as the numéraire, i.e. to serve as a unit of account and therefore provide a common benchmark relative to which the value of various goods and services can be measured against.

A variance swap is an over-the-counter financial derivative that allows one to speculate on or hedge risks associated with the magnitude of movement, i.e. volatility, of some underlying product, like an exchange rate, interest rate, or stock index.

In financial economics, asset pricing refers to a formal treatment and development of two interrelated pricing principles, outlined below, together with the resultant models. There have been many models developed for different situations, but correspondingly, these stem from either general equilibrium asset pricing or rational asset pricing, the latter corresponding to risk neutral pricing.

Martingale pricing is a pricing approach based on the notions of martingale and risk neutrality. The martingale pricing approach is a cornerstone of modern quantitative finance and can be applied to a variety of derivatives contracts, e.g. options, futures, interest rate derivatives, credit derivatives, etc.

In finance, a T-forward measure is a pricing measure absolutely continuous with respect to a risk-neutral measure, but rather than using the money market as numeraire, it uses a bond with maturity T. The use of the forward measure was pioneered by Farshid Jamshidian (1987), and later used as a means of calculating the price of options on bonds.

In finance, a volatility swap is a forward contract on the future realised volatility of a given underlying asset. Volatility swaps allow investors to trade the volatility of an asset directly, much as they would trade a price index. Its payoff at expiration is equal to

In finance, the Heston model, named after Steven L. Heston, is a mathematical model that describes the evolution of the volatility of an underlying asset. It is a stochastic volatility model: such a model assumes that the volatility of the asset is not constant, nor even deterministic, but follows a random process.

A local volatility model, in mathematical finance and financial engineering, is an option pricing model that treats volatility as a function of both the current asset level and of time . As such, it is a generalisation of the Black–Scholes model, where the volatility is a constant. Local volatility models are often compared with stochastic volatility models, where the instantaneous volatility is not just a function of the asset level but depends also on a new "global" randomness coming from an additional random component.

No free lunch with vanishing risk (NFLVR) is a concept used in mathematical finance as a strengthening of the no-arbitrage condition. In continuous time finance the existence of an equivalent martingale measure (EMM) is no more equivalent to the no-arbitrage-condition, but is instead equivalent to the NFLVR-condition. This is known as the first fundamental theorem of asset pricing.

Mathematical finance, also known as quantitative finance and financial mathematics, is a field of applied mathematics, concerned with mathematical modeling in the financial field.

In probability theory, the minimal-entropy martingale measure (MEMM) is the risk-neutral probability measure that minimises the entropy difference between the objective probability measure, , and the risk-neutral measure, . In incomplete markets, this is one way of choosing a risk-neutral measure so as to still maintain the no-arbitrage conditions.

In finance, an option on realized variance is a type of variance derivatives which is the derivative securities on which the payoff depends on the annualized realized variance of the return of a specified underlying asset, such as stock index, bond, exchange rate, etc. Another liquidated security of the same type is variance swap, which is, in other words, the futures contract on realized variance.

In finance, option on realized volatility is a subclass of derivatives securities that the payoff function embedded with the notion of annualized realized volatility of a specified underlying asset, which could be stock index, bond, foreign exchange rate, etc. Another product of volatility derivative that is widely traded refers to the volatility swap, which is in another word the forward contract on future realized volatility.