Black–Scholes Expectations for Ratios of Future Stock Prices
Summary
The question derives the conditional expectation of a later stock price divided by an earlier one under geometric Brownian motion with constant volatility and interest rate. For ordered dates after the conditioning time, the ratio cancels the initial stock level and depends on the Brownian increment between the two dates. The question then considers a positive-part payoff on that ratio, proposes applying a lognormal call formula, and asks how to discount its expected payoff to the earlier valuation time.
The supplied answer instead argues that a ratio of equity prices has a Cauchy-type distribution and no finite expectation, based on a separate normal-price model with parameter estimation uncertainty. That claim conflicts with the stated Black–Scholes setup: under its assumptions, the price ratio over the interval is lognormal and has a finite conditional expectation. The response mixes model assumptions and does not resolve the proposed option payoff calculation. Its claims about estimation limits are not demonstrated here, so the answer should not be treated as a correction to the specified model calculation.
Key ideas
- Under geometric Brownian motion, the ratio of prices at two dates depends on the intervening Brownian increment.
- For dates after the conditioning time, the increment has variance proportional to the interval length.
- The question proposes pricing a positive-part payoff on the ratio with a lognormal option formula.
- The supplied answer switches to a normal-price ratio argument, which does not match the stated Black–Scholes assumptions.
- Claims about nonexistence of expectations under parameter estimation uncertainty are not established by the document.
Tags
Full text
# Expectation of $\frac {S_{T_2}} {S_{T_1}}$ at $T_0$
# Expectation of $\frac {S_{T_2}} {S_{T_1}}$ at $T_0$
Is my below computation correct (assuming flat volatlity Black Scholes model, flat interest rate curve):
$\mathbb{E}(\frac {S_{T_2}} {S_{T_1}}| \mathcal{F}_{T_0})$
$ = \mathbb{E}{\frac{S_{T_0}e^{(r-\frac{\sigma^2}{2})T_2+\sigma W_{T_2}}}{S_{T_0}e^{(r-\frac{\sigma^2}{2})T_1+\sigma W_{T_1}}}}$
$=\mathbb{E}(e^{r(T_2-T_1)-\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2(T_2-T_1)+\sigma(W_{T_2}-W_{T_1})})$
$=e^{r(T_2-T_1)-\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2(T_2-T_1)+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2(T_2-T_1)}$
$ = e^{r(T_2-T_1)}$
> EDIT: Can anyone please re-confirm one of the steps above? $\mathbb{E}(e^{r(T_2-T_1)-\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2(T_2-T_1)+\sigma(W_{T_2}-W_{T_1})})$ $=e^{Mean(.) + \frac{1}{2}Variance(.)}$ $Mean(.) = r(T_2-T_1)-\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2(T_2-T_1)$ $Variance(.) = \mathbb{E}[\{\sigma(W_{T_2}-W_{T_1})\}^2]=\mathbb{E}[\sigma^2\{(W_{T_2})^2 +(W_{T_1})^2 -2W_{T_1}W_{T_2}\}]=\sigma^2(T_2+T_1-2T_1) = \sigma^2(T_2-T_1)$
I think I got it all correct, now! :-)
Related Question - Do we have an analytical formula (under standard Black Scholes) for -
$\mathbb{E}((\frac {S_{T_2}} {S_{T_1}}-K)^+| \mathcal{F}_{T_0})$ paid at $T_2$
My attempt .. basically using the Black Scholes pricing formula for call option -
$\mathbb{E}((\frac {S_{T_2}} {S_{T_1}}-K)^+| \mathcal{F}_{T_0}) = e^{r(T_2-T_1)}N(d_1)-KN(d2)$
where $d_1= \frac{\ln(\frac{e^{r(T_2-T_1})}{K})+\frac {\sigma^2(T_2-T_1)}{2})}{\sigma \sqrt(T_2-T_1)}$
$d_2= \frac{\ln(\frac{e^{r(T_2-T_1})}{K})-\frac {\sigma^2(T_2-T_1)}{2})}{\sigma \sqrt(T_2-T_1)}$
I would multiple with the discounting factor $e^{-r (T_2-T_0)}$ to the above formula to get the price at $T_0$.
## Answer by Dave Harris (score 1)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/45822
An expectation cannot exist for equity securities. The distribution of $$\frac{S_{T_2}}{S_{T_1}}$$ is the Cauchy distribution for equity securities, assuming no liquidity costs as with Black-Scholes, no mergers and no possibility of bankruptcy.
From auction theory, we know that there is no winner's curse in a double auction. Rational behavior for actors is to bid their expectations. If, as is assumed in models such as the CAPM or Black-Scholes, that there are many buyers and sellers, then it follows that the distribution of prices $S_{T_t}$ is the normal distribution by extending the central limit theorem.
If we then also assume equilibrium prices exist and that the security is in equilibrium except for random shocks, then we could treat the prices as normally distributed around the equilibrium price $S_{T_t}^*.$
Because the distribution is the distribution of the ratio of two random prices, the solution of which is well known in the statistical literature. It is complicated, slightly, by the fact that the integration should be around $(S_{T_1}^*,S_{T_2}^*)$ and that prices are truncated at -100%. In fact, the ratio of any two elliptical distributions will produce the same result.
When you factor in truncation, the distribution is $$\left[\frac{\pi}{2}+\tan^{-1}\left(\frac{\mu}{\gamma}\right)\right]^{-1}\frac{\gamma}{\gamma^2+(r-\mu)^2},\gamma=\frac{\sigma_2}{\sigma_1},r=\frac{S_2}{S_1}.$$ The expectation of that ratio does not exist as the integral diverges.
See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NormalRatioDistribution.html
The reason that the Black-Scholes equations work is that the parameters are assumed to be known with perfect certainty and the distributions are assumed into existence.
If you have to do any form of parameter estimation, then nothing in Black-Scholes can hold as true.
Black-Scholes comes apart for several reasons in this case. This case is well known in the statistical literature. There are a wide range of issues. The distribution lacks a sufficient statistic for the parameter estimates, leaving you, in most cases to Bayesian statistics unless you are will to take the information loss. The estimate of the mean and therefore the variance is of zero power. A sample size of one million has the estimation power as a sample size of one.Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.