Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Consider a probability filtered space $(\Omega, \mathcal F, \mathbb F, \mathbb P)$, where $\mathbb F = (\mathcal F_t)_{0\leq t\leq T}$ satisfying the habitual conditions and is generated by $1 d $- Brownian Motion (with $\mathcal F_T = \mathcal F$).

Also, consider a process $X = (X_t)_{t \in [0,T]}$ given by $$X_t= X_0 + \int_0^t \mu_s ~ds +\int_0^t \sigma_s ~dW_s \quad , t \geq 0$$

where $t \in [0,T] \mapsto \mu_t$ and $t \in [0,T] \mapsto \sigma_t \geq 0$ are deterministic and continuous functions.

Suppose that there is a measure $\mathbb Q \sim \mathbb P$ and a $\mathbb Q$-brownian motion $W^{\mathbb Q}$ such that $$X_t= X_0+\int_0^t \sigma_s ~dW_s^{\mathbb Q}\quad , t \leq T$$

I want to evaluate the function $p$ defined as by

$$ p(t,x) := \mathbb E^{\mathbb Q} \left [ (X_T-\kappa X_1)^+ | X_t=x \right] \quad \text{for} \ (t,x) \in [0,1]\times(0,\infty)$$

where $\kappa >0$ and $T>1$.

For this, I was claimed to show the following relation (that I failed to demonstrate)

$$ p(t,x) = x F(1,\kappa, \int_1^T \sigma_s ^2 ds) \quad \text{if} \ t\in [0,1]$$

where, for $y, K, \gamma^2 >0$ $$F(y,K,\gamma^2) = \mathbb E \left [ (ye^Y -K)^+ \right] \quad \text{with} \ Y \sim \mathcal N(-\gamma^2/2, \gamma^2) \ \text{under} \ \mathbb P$$

I have tried to explore the fact that $ ( X_T-\kappa X_1)^+ =X_1(X_T/ X_1-\kappa )^+$. It can possibly help those that have some financial mathematical background, to know that the motivation behind this is problem is the pricing of a Forward start option.

I would appreciate any advice. Thanks in advance.

share|improve this question
I suspect some typos crept in (for example $p(t,x)$ should depend on $t$ but the formula you suggest does not). Could you check your formulas? –  Did Apr 14 '13 at 15:29
@did: There is typo, it's $F(1, \kappa, \int _1 ^T \sigma_s ^2 ds )$ and not $F(1, \kappa, \int _0 ^T\sigma_s ^2 ds)$. –  Paul Apr 14 '13 at 16:20
@Did: But I still don't understand why it doesn't depends on $t$ over $[0,1]$. I had not remarked it before you said, thank you. –  Paul Apr 14 '13 at 16:26
I suspect there are still some serious problems in this question... What is your source? –  Did Apr 14 '13 at 16:27
@Did:An old exam. It's not impossible. –  Paul Apr 14 '13 at 16:30

2 Answers 2

Assume that $\kappa=x=0$, $\sigma_t=1$ and $\mu_t=0$ for every $t\geqslant0$, then $\mathbb Q=\mathbb P$, $(X_t)_{t\geqslant0}$ is a Brownian motion, and $p(t,0)=\mathbb E[(X_T)^+\mid X_t=0]=\mathbb E[(X_{T-t})^+\mid X_0=0]=\sqrt{T-t}\cdot\mathbb E[Z^+]$ where $Z$ is standard normal.

In the same setting, $p(t,0)=\sqrt{T-1+(1-\kappa)^2(1-t)}\cdot\mathbb E[Z^+]$ for every $\kappa$.

share|improve this answer
It's a perfect simple reasoning over a particular case in spite of the fact you can not suppose $\kappa =0$ since it's strictly positive. –  Paul Apr 14 '13 at 20:32
I am sure you can adapt the example to cover this case. –  Did Apr 14 '13 at 20:34
I'm not so sure, but I'll try it. –  Paul Apr 14 '13 at 20:54
You missed the condition $x \in (0,+\infty)$ –  Paul Apr 14 '13 at 21:01
Actually I did not and, as a matter of fact, this is an aspect of the proposed formula for $p(t,x)$ which makes it rather absurd since $\lim\limits_{x\to0}xF(\cdots)=0$ although $\lim\limits_{x\to0}p(t,x)\ne0$. –  Did Apr 14 '13 at 21:48

Note that \begin{align} p(t,x) &:= \mathbb E^{\mathbb Q} \left [ X_1 (X_T/ X_1-\kappa)^+ | X_t=x \right] \\&= \mathbb E^{\mathbb Q} \left [ X_1 \mathbb E^{\mathbb Q} \left [(X_T/ X_1-\kappa)^+ | \mathcal F_1\right] | X_t=x \right] \\&= x \mathbb E^{\mathbb Q} \left [ (X_T/X_1-\kappa )^+ | X_t=x \right] \end{align}

for all $t<1$ and $x \in (0, +\infty)$, since $X$ is a $\mathbb Q$ -martingale. Now, if we include the aditional condition on $\sigma$ that $\sigma_t := \tilde\sigma(X_t) ~X_t$, we can conclude that \begin{align} p(t,x) &= x F(1,\kappa, \int_1^T \tilde\sigma(X_s)^2 ds), \end{align}

where $F$ is defined as in the question BUT under $\mathbb Q$ and not under $\mathbb P$ as it says.

share|improve this answer
Why do you replace twice $X_1$ by $X_t=x$ in the identity defining $p(t,x)$? –  Did Apr 18 '13 at 9:02
@Did: $X$ is a $\mathbb Q$ -martingale –  Paul Apr 18 '13 at 13:28
This is correct. And? –  Did Apr 18 '13 at 13:44
See adit to a detailed reasoning. The term $ X_1 \mathbb E^{\mathbb Q} \left [(X_T/ X_1-\kappa)^+ | \mathcal F_1\right]$, in 2nd line is a product of martingales, 3rd line is justified by the markov propertie of $X$. –  Paul Apr 18 '13 at 13:53
Right, $X$ is a martingale, and? Why the 4th line? Of course, $E[X_1\mid X_t=x]=x$ but here you have $E[X_1Y\mid X_t=x]$ with either $Y=(X_T/X_1-\kappa)^+$ or $Y=E[(X_T/X_1-\kappa)^+\mid X_1]$. How you manipulate this is a mystery to me. –  Did Apr 18 '13 at 14:40

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.