Skip to content
All library documents

Choosing the Brownian Drift Shift for a Risk-Neutral Measure

Article Quant Q&A · Author: iamconfused

Summary

The document asks why the Black–Scholes change of measure shifts Brownian motion by a particular amount when removing the excess drift from the discounted asset price. The answer starts from the desired risk-neutral dynamics: the discounted price should have no drift. Rearranging the original stochastic differential equation identifies a drift shift for Brownian motion, proportional to the asset’s excess return divided by its volatility.

Girsanov’s theorem then relates this shifted process to a new probability measure through a Radon–Nikodym density process. This gives a practical route: specify the dynamics wanted under the new measure, solve for the Brownian shift, and use the theorem to construct the density. The response is an intuitive sketch rather than a full derivation. Its density-process convention and sign depend on how the shifted Brownian motion and likelihood ratio are defined, so readers should check those conventions before applying the formula in another model.

Key ideas

  • The risk-neutral measure is chosen so discounted asset prices have zero drift.
  • Rearranging the target dynamics identifies the required Brownian drift shift.
  • In the Black–Scholes example, the shift is tied to excess return divided by volatility.
  • Girsanov’s theorem connects the shifted Brownian motion to a new measure through a density process.
  • Sign conventions for the shift and density depend on their definitions.

Tags

Full text
# How to find correct change of measure


# How to find correct change of measure












I'm trying to figure out how to find the correct equivalent martingale measure to change into. First of, since I am on mobile and find it hard to write LaTeX here, I will refer to Wikipedia's version of Girsanov's theorem.

Referring to the standard example of call options in the Black-Scholes model, for which I use standard notation for the discounted underlying $dS_t = (\mu -r)S_{t} dt + \sigma S_{t} dW_t$, the process chosen to be $X_t$ is $dX_t = \frac{\mu - r}{\sigma} dW_t $. However, this is just taking the deterministic part of the discounted GBM after putting $S_t$ of the right side in evidence and changing it to be a scaled Brownian motion instead of a predictable process. I do not understand the reasoning that leads to this, and I would like to, so that I could be able to apply similar reasoning to other models by myself. The way it is explained in the books I've read is just the usual "now, if we consider..." followed by the usual "it works!". I would like to see the logic behind this choice, since my gut would tell me to use the deterministic part in some way, but not to apply it as a Brownian motion. I suspect that this is done just to make it so that you get a non zero quadratic variation when you need to compute it, but I still don't know why they chose that particular predictable process.

If this turns out to be an ill-posed question I will try to reformat it when I am able to get back to my laptop.

## Answer by Lipton (score 3)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/37735

The way I see it is follows.

- We want something that we can compute distribution easily and for most of people it needs to be as simple as $W_t$ or simple functions of it...So we want something like this: $$dS_t = \sigma S_t d\tilde{W}_t$$ instead of the original $dS_t=(\mu-r)S_tdt+\sigma S_tdW_t$

- Now we can solve for $d\tilde{W}_t$: $$\sigma S_t d\tilde{W}_t = (\mu-r)S_tdt+\sigma S_tdW_t\Rightarrow d\tilde{W}_t=\frac{(\mu-r)}{\sigma}dt +dW_t$$

- This is where we use Girsonov to find the Radon-Nikodym derivative of the new probability measure (in which $\tilde{W}_t$ is a Brownian motion) with respect to the old probability measure (in which $W_t$ is a Brownian motion). The theorem basically says that given any $d\tilde{W}_t=\theta_tdt +dW_t$, the Radon-Nikodym derivative process $Z_t$ is $dZ_t=-\theta_tZ_tdW_t$. In the example you gave, it is $-\frac{(\mu-r)}{\sigma}Z_tdW_t$ (and of course you can forget about the negative sign by definition of $W_t$).

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.