• We are pleased to announce that the winner of our Feedback Prize Draw for the Winter 2024-25 session and winning £150 of gift vouchers is Zhao Liang Tay. Congratulations to Zhao Liang. If you fancy winning £150 worth of gift vouchers (from a major UK store) for the Summer 2025 exam sitting for just a few minutes of your time throughout the session, please see our website at https://www.acted.co.uk/further-info.html?pat=feedback#feedback-prize for more information on how you can make sure your name is included in the draw at the end of the session.
  • Please be advised that the SP1, SP5 and SP7 X1 deadline is the 14th July and not the 17th June as first stated. Please accept out apologies for any confusion caused.

September 2006, q8

1

12345

Member
Looking at the ASET solution for this (p34), slightly confused as to how they jump from the definition of log(St) = log(So) + etc to the conclusion that log(St) must have a normal distribution with those parameters.

Can anyone put me out of my misery?
 
Hi.

Here we're working under the set of risk-neutral probabilities, or equivalent martginale measure (EMM) Q. By definition, this is the set of probabilities that ensure that the expected rate of (continuously compounded) return/drift of the underlying risky share is equal to the risk-free force of interest, r.

So, under Q, the stochastic differential equation for S(t) must be:

dS(t) = S(t).[r.dt + sigma.dZ(t)~]

where Z(t)~ is a standard Brownian motion under the Q probabilities.

(This is what you have already stated in part (i) of the question.)

So, if we apply Ito's Lemma to the function:

G(S(t) = ln S(t)

as per the example on p22 of Chapter 7 of the Course Notes, then we can see that the corresponding formula for S(t) itself is:

S(t) = S(0). exp[(r - sigma/2)t + sigma.Z(t)~]

{Note that whenever you have a formula of this type, if you ignore the -sigma/2 term, then whatever else is in the coefficient on t (ie r here), tells you what the drift of S(t) is. The -sigma/2 term appears because of the 2nd-order term in Ito's Lemma.}

Also, if we log the equation for S(t), then we can show that lnS(t) has a Normal distribution, as shown on p34 of the ASET, and hence that S(t) itself has a logNormal distribution.

Hope this helps.

Graham
 
Thanks Graham - I get the bulk of the question, but just confused as to the last part, i.e. "we can show that lnS(t) has a Normal distribution", exactly how do we know that lnS(t) has a Normal distribution?
 
The key is the equation that Graham presented:
S(t) = S(0). exp[(r - sigma/2)t + sigma.Z(t)~]

Rewrite as
ln(S(t)/S(0)) = [(r - sigma/2)t + sigma.Z(t)~]

Now we now Z(t) is N[0,t] since it is standard BM
so ln(S(t)/S(0)) or (lnS(t) if S(0)=1)
must be N[(r - sigma/2)t,sigma^2t]
 
what about part (v) of that question?! I'm lost!

i don't have ASET, only the Revision notes, so maybe that's my problem but I can't understand beyond the basic fee of 0.1%!
 
Back
Top