SDE for option value

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Given an SDE for an underlying:



$$dS(t) = mu(S,t)dt+sigma(S,t)dW(t)$$



the SDE for the value of the option $V=V(S,t)$ is given via Ito's lemma as:



$$dV = V_tdt+V_Smu(S,t)dt+frac12V_SSsigma^2(S,t)dt+V_Ssigma(S,t)dW(t)$$



It seems that this would results in an SDE containing $S(t)$.



How does one then obtain an SDE for the option value so that it can be simulated directly without simulating the underlyings, i.e. something like



$$dV(t) = m(V,t)dt+s(V,t)dW(t)?$$










share|improve this question



























    up vote
    2
    down vote

    favorite












    Given an SDE for an underlying:



    $$dS(t) = mu(S,t)dt+sigma(S,t)dW(t)$$



    the SDE for the value of the option $V=V(S,t)$ is given via Ito's lemma as:



    $$dV = V_tdt+V_Smu(S,t)dt+frac12V_SSsigma^2(S,t)dt+V_Ssigma(S,t)dW(t)$$



    It seems that this would results in an SDE containing $S(t)$.



    How does one then obtain an SDE for the option value so that it can be simulated directly without simulating the underlyings, i.e. something like



    $$dV(t) = m(V,t)dt+s(V,t)dW(t)?$$










    share|improve this question

























      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite











      Given an SDE for an underlying:



      $$dS(t) = mu(S,t)dt+sigma(S,t)dW(t)$$



      the SDE for the value of the option $V=V(S,t)$ is given via Ito's lemma as:



      $$dV = V_tdt+V_Smu(S,t)dt+frac12V_SSsigma^2(S,t)dt+V_Ssigma(S,t)dW(t)$$



      It seems that this would results in an SDE containing $S(t)$.



      How does one then obtain an SDE for the option value so that it can be simulated directly without simulating the underlyings, i.e. something like



      $$dV(t) = m(V,t)dt+s(V,t)dW(t)?$$










      share|improve this question















      Given an SDE for an underlying:



      $$dS(t) = mu(S,t)dt+sigma(S,t)dW(t)$$



      the SDE for the value of the option $V=V(S,t)$ is given via Ito's lemma as:



      $$dV = V_tdt+V_Smu(S,t)dt+frac12V_SSsigma^2(S,t)dt+V_Ssigma(S,t)dW(t)$$



      It seems that this would results in an SDE containing $S(t)$.



      How does one then obtain an SDE for the option value so that it can be simulated directly without simulating the underlyings, i.e. something like



      $$dV(t) = m(V,t)dt+s(V,t)dW(t)?$$







      option-pricing monte-carlo sde






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 4 hours ago









      Daneel Olivaw

      2,5431528




      2,5431528










      asked 5 hours ago









      Confounded

      836




      836




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote













          That's impossible. The value of your option is a function of time and the value of the underlying:
          $$ V(t) triangleq V(t,S_t) $$
          How can you possibly know the value of the option at time $t$ without knowing the value of its underlying? Equivalently, you need to know how your underlying has evolved in order to know how the value of your option has evolved. You will always have a dependency between the value of an option and its evolution on the one hand, and the value of the underlying on the other hand.






          share|improve this answer




















          • Thank you for your post. Couldn't we, assuming that the option value function is a bijection (i.e. invertible), write $S(t) = V^-1(V,t)$ and substitute this into the SDE, so that where we had functions of $S(t)$, like in $mu(S,t)$, we now have functions of the inverse expressed in terms of $V(t)$?
            – Confounded
            4 hours ago











          • Theoretically speaking, that might be a possibility, but I don't think any of the standard option pricing models yield an evaluation formula which is easily invertible in the stock price (e.g. Black-Scholes formula is not invertible in volatility). Technically, you might be able to do that but at the price of 1) tractability and 2) precision.
            – Daneel Olivaw
            4 hours ago

















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          This has been indirectly discussed in this question. We assume that $mathcalF_t, , tge 0$ is the natural filtration generated by the Brownian motion $W_t,, t ge 0$. Moreover, let
          $B_t= e^int_0^t r_sds$ be the money market account value at time $tge0$. Let $V_T$ be the option payoff at maturity $T$. Then
          beginalign*
          V_t = B_tE_Qleft(fracV_TB_Tmid mathcalF_t right),
          endalign*

          where $E_Q$ is the expectation operator under the risk-neutral probability measure $Q$. Note that, $V_t/B_t, t ge 0$ is a martingale. Therefore, by the martingale representation theorem, there exists an adapted process $kappa_t, 0le t le T$ such that
          beginalign*
          fracV_tB_t &= V_0 + int_0^t kappa_u dW_u.
          endalign*

          Then
          beginalign*
          dV_t &= dleft(B_t fracV_tB_t right)\
          &=r_tV_t dt + B_t kappa_t dW_t\
          &=V_tBig(r_t dt + s(V,t) dW_tBig).
          endalign*

          where $s(V,t)=fracB_t kappa_tV_t$.






          share|improve this answer




















          • Thank you. So, the question now is how to find an expression for the adaptive process. But the martingale representation theorem is about the existence, and it doesn't provide a way for us to do that, correct?
            – Confounded
            3 hours ago










          • That is indeed for the existence. For the specific computation, I think the underlying dynamics will still be used.
            – Gordon
            2 hours ago










          Your Answer




          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "204"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fquant.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f42340%2fsde-for-option-value%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          2
          down vote













          That's impossible. The value of your option is a function of time and the value of the underlying:
          $$ V(t) triangleq V(t,S_t) $$
          How can you possibly know the value of the option at time $t$ without knowing the value of its underlying? Equivalently, you need to know how your underlying has evolved in order to know how the value of your option has evolved. You will always have a dependency between the value of an option and its evolution on the one hand, and the value of the underlying on the other hand.






          share|improve this answer




















          • Thank you for your post. Couldn't we, assuming that the option value function is a bijection (i.e. invertible), write $S(t) = V^-1(V,t)$ and substitute this into the SDE, so that where we had functions of $S(t)$, like in $mu(S,t)$, we now have functions of the inverse expressed in terms of $V(t)$?
            – Confounded
            4 hours ago











          • Theoretically speaking, that might be a possibility, but I don't think any of the standard option pricing models yield an evaluation formula which is easily invertible in the stock price (e.g. Black-Scholes formula is not invertible in volatility). Technically, you might be able to do that but at the price of 1) tractability and 2) precision.
            – Daneel Olivaw
            4 hours ago














          up vote
          2
          down vote













          That's impossible. The value of your option is a function of time and the value of the underlying:
          $$ V(t) triangleq V(t,S_t) $$
          How can you possibly know the value of the option at time $t$ without knowing the value of its underlying? Equivalently, you need to know how your underlying has evolved in order to know how the value of your option has evolved. You will always have a dependency between the value of an option and its evolution on the one hand, and the value of the underlying on the other hand.






          share|improve this answer




















          • Thank you for your post. Couldn't we, assuming that the option value function is a bijection (i.e. invertible), write $S(t) = V^-1(V,t)$ and substitute this into the SDE, so that where we had functions of $S(t)$, like in $mu(S,t)$, we now have functions of the inverse expressed in terms of $V(t)$?
            – Confounded
            4 hours ago











          • Theoretically speaking, that might be a possibility, but I don't think any of the standard option pricing models yield an evaluation formula which is easily invertible in the stock price (e.g. Black-Scholes formula is not invertible in volatility). Technically, you might be able to do that but at the price of 1) tractability and 2) precision.
            – Daneel Olivaw
            4 hours ago












          up vote
          2
          down vote










          up vote
          2
          down vote









          That's impossible. The value of your option is a function of time and the value of the underlying:
          $$ V(t) triangleq V(t,S_t) $$
          How can you possibly know the value of the option at time $t$ without knowing the value of its underlying? Equivalently, you need to know how your underlying has evolved in order to know how the value of your option has evolved. You will always have a dependency between the value of an option and its evolution on the one hand, and the value of the underlying on the other hand.






          share|improve this answer












          That's impossible. The value of your option is a function of time and the value of the underlying:
          $$ V(t) triangleq V(t,S_t) $$
          How can you possibly know the value of the option at time $t$ without knowing the value of its underlying? Equivalently, you need to know how your underlying has evolved in order to know how the value of your option has evolved. You will always have a dependency between the value of an option and its evolution on the one hand, and the value of the underlying on the other hand.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 4 hours ago









          Daneel Olivaw

          2,5431528




          2,5431528











          • Thank you for your post. Couldn't we, assuming that the option value function is a bijection (i.e. invertible), write $S(t) = V^-1(V,t)$ and substitute this into the SDE, so that where we had functions of $S(t)$, like in $mu(S,t)$, we now have functions of the inverse expressed in terms of $V(t)$?
            – Confounded
            4 hours ago











          • Theoretically speaking, that might be a possibility, but I don't think any of the standard option pricing models yield an evaluation formula which is easily invertible in the stock price (e.g. Black-Scholes formula is not invertible in volatility). Technically, you might be able to do that but at the price of 1) tractability and 2) precision.
            – Daneel Olivaw
            4 hours ago
















          • Thank you for your post. Couldn't we, assuming that the option value function is a bijection (i.e. invertible), write $S(t) = V^-1(V,t)$ and substitute this into the SDE, so that where we had functions of $S(t)$, like in $mu(S,t)$, we now have functions of the inverse expressed in terms of $V(t)$?
            – Confounded
            4 hours ago











          • Theoretically speaking, that might be a possibility, but I don't think any of the standard option pricing models yield an evaluation formula which is easily invertible in the stock price (e.g. Black-Scholes formula is not invertible in volatility). Technically, you might be able to do that but at the price of 1) tractability and 2) precision.
            – Daneel Olivaw
            4 hours ago















          Thank you for your post. Couldn't we, assuming that the option value function is a bijection (i.e. invertible), write $S(t) = V^-1(V,t)$ and substitute this into the SDE, so that where we had functions of $S(t)$, like in $mu(S,t)$, we now have functions of the inverse expressed in terms of $V(t)$?
          – Confounded
          4 hours ago





          Thank you for your post. Couldn't we, assuming that the option value function is a bijection (i.e. invertible), write $S(t) = V^-1(V,t)$ and substitute this into the SDE, so that where we had functions of $S(t)$, like in $mu(S,t)$, we now have functions of the inverse expressed in terms of $V(t)$?
          – Confounded
          4 hours ago













          Theoretically speaking, that might be a possibility, but I don't think any of the standard option pricing models yield an evaluation formula which is easily invertible in the stock price (e.g. Black-Scholes formula is not invertible in volatility). Technically, you might be able to do that but at the price of 1) tractability and 2) precision.
          – Daneel Olivaw
          4 hours ago




          Theoretically speaking, that might be a possibility, but I don't think any of the standard option pricing models yield an evaluation formula which is easily invertible in the stock price (e.g. Black-Scholes formula is not invertible in volatility). Technically, you might be able to do that but at the price of 1) tractability and 2) precision.
          – Daneel Olivaw
          4 hours ago










          up vote
          1
          down vote













          This has been indirectly discussed in this question. We assume that $mathcalF_t, , tge 0$ is the natural filtration generated by the Brownian motion $W_t,, t ge 0$. Moreover, let
          $B_t= e^int_0^t r_sds$ be the money market account value at time $tge0$. Let $V_T$ be the option payoff at maturity $T$. Then
          beginalign*
          V_t = B_tE_Qleft(fracV_TB_Tmid mathcalF_t right),
          endalign*

          where $E_Q$ is the expectation operator under the risk-neutral probability measure $Q$. Note that, $V_t/B_t, t ge 0$ is a martingale. Therefore, by the martingale representation theorem, there exists an adapted process $kappa_t, 0le t le T$ such that
          beginalign*
          fracV_tB_t &= V_0 + int_0^t kappa_u dW_u.
          endalign*

          Then
          beginalign*
          dV_t &= dleft(B_t fracV_tB_t right)\
          &=r_tV_t dt + B_t kappa_t dW_t\
          &=V_tBig(r_t dt + s(V,t) dW_tBig).
          endalign*

          where $s(V,t)=fracB_t kappa_tV_t$.






          share|improve this answer




















          • Thank you. So, the question now is how to find an expression for the adaptive process. But the martingale representation theorem is about the existence, and it doesn't provide a way for us to do that, correct?
            – Confounded
            3 hours ago










          • That is indeed for the existence. For the specific computation, I think the underlying dynamics will still be used.
            – Gordon
            2 hours ago














          up vote
          1
          down vote













          This has been indirectly discussed in this question. We assume that $mathcalF_t, , tge 0$ is the natural filtration generated by the Brownian motion $W_t,, t ge 0$. Moreover, let
          $B_t= e^int_0^t r_sds$ be the money market account value at time $tge0$. Let $V_T$ be the option payoff at maturity $T$. Then
          beginalign*
          V_t = B_tE_Qleft(fracV_TB_Tmid mathcalF_t right),
          endalign*

          where $E_Q$ is the expectation operator under the risk-neutral probability measure $Q$. Note that, $V_t/B_t, t ge 0$ is a martingale. Therefore, by the martingale representation theorem, there exists an adapted process $kappa_t, 0le t le T$ such that
          beginalign*
          fracV_tB_t &= V_0 + int_0^t kappa_u dW_u.
          endalign*

          Then
          beginalign*
          dV_t &= dleft(B_t fracV_tB_t right)\
          &=r_tV_t dt + B_t kappa_t dW_t\
          &=V_tBig(r_t dt + s(V,t) dW_tBig).
          endalign*

          where $s(V,t)=fracB_t kappa_tV_t$.






          share|improve this answer




















          • Thank you. So, the question now is how to find an expression for the adaptive process. But the martingale representation theorem is about the existence, and it doesn't provide a way for us to do that, correct?
            – Confounded
            3 hours ago










          • That is indeed for the existence. For the specific computation, I think the underlying dynamics will still be used.
            – Gordon
            2 hours ago












          up vote
          1
          down vote










          up vote
          1
          down vote









          This has been indirectly discussed in this question. We assume that $mathcalF_t, , tge 0$ is the natural filtration generated by the Brownian motion $W_t,, t ge 0$. Moreover, let
          $B_t= e^int_0^t r_sds$ be the money market account value at time $tge0$. Let $V_T$ be the option payoff at maturity $T$. Then
          beginalign*
          V_t = B_tE_Qleft(fracV_TB_Tmid mathcalF_t right),
          endalign*

          where $E_Q$ is the expectation operator under the risk-neutral probability measure $Q$. Note that, $V_t/B_t, t ge 0$ is a martingale. Therefore, by the martingale representation theorem, there exists an adapted process $kappa_t, 0le t le T$ such that
          beginalign*
          fracV_tB_t &= V_0 + int_0^t kappa_u dW_u.
          endalign*

          Then
          beginalign*
          dV_t &= dleft(B_t fracV_tB_t right)\
          &=r_tV_t dt + B_t kappa_t dW_t\
          &=V_tBig(r_t dt + s(V,t) dW_tBig).
          endalign*

          where $s(V,t)=fracB_t kappa_tV_t$.






          share|improve this answer












          This has been indirectly discussed in this question. We assume that $mathcalF_t, , tge 0$ is the natural filtration generated by the Brownian motion $W_t,, t ge 0$. Moreover, let
          $B_t= e^int_0^t r_sds$ be the money market account value at time $tge0$. Let $V_T$ be the option payoff at maturity $T$. Then
          beginalign*
          V_t = B_tE_Qleft(fracV_TB_Tmid mathcalF_t right),
          endalign*

          where $E_Q$ is the expectation operator under the risk-neutral probability measure $Q$. Note that, $V_t/B_t, t ge 0$ is a martingale. Therefore, by the martingale representation theorem, there exists an adapted process $kappa_t, 0le t le T$ such that
          beginalign*
          fracV_tB_t &= V_0 + int_0^t kappa_u dW_u.
          endalign*

          Then
          beginalign*
          dV_t &= dleft(B_t fracV_tB_t right)\
          &=r_tV_t dt + B_t kappa_t dW_t\
          &=V_tBig(r_t dt + s(V,t) dW_tBig).
          endalign*

          where $s(V,t)=fracB_t kappa_tV_t$.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 3 hours ago









          Gordon

          14k11455




          14k11455











          • Thank you. So, the question now is how to find an expression for the adaptive process. But the martingale representation theorem is about the existence, and it doesn't provide a way for us to do that, correct?
            – Confounded
            3 hours ago










          • That is indeed for the existence. For the specific computation, I think the underlying dynamics will still be used.
            – Gordon
            2 hours ago
















          • Thank you. So, the question now is how to find an expression for the adaptive process. But the martingale representation theorem is about the existence, and it doesn't provide a way for us to do that, correct?
            – Confounded
            3 hours ago










          • That is indeed for the existence. For the specific computation, I think the underlying dynamics will still be used.
            – Gordon
            2 hours ago















          Thank you. So, the question now is how to find an expression for the adaptive process. But the martingale representation theorem is about the existence, and it doesn't provide a way for us to do that, correct?
          – Confounded
          3 hours ago




          Thank you. So, the question now is how to find an expression for the adaptive process. But the martingale representation theorem is about the existence, and it doesn't provide a way for us to do that, correct?
          – Confounded
          3 hours ago












          That is indeed for the existence. For the specific computation, I think the underlying dynamics will still be used.
          – Gordon
          2 hours ago




          That is indeed for the existence. For the specific computation, I think the underlying dynamics will still be used.
          – Gordon
          2 hours ago

















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fquant.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f42340%2fsde-for-option-value%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          Popular posts from this blog

          How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

          Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

          How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?