Skip to content
All library documents

Correlating Lognormal and Normal Processes in Simulation

Article Quant Q&A · Author: will

Summary

The document analyzes how to specify dependence between a geometric Brownian motion asset, whose level is lognormally distributed, and an arithmetic Brownian motion variable, whose level is normally distributed. It distinguishes correlation between the processes’ driving Brownian motions from correlation between the simulated asset levels.

Under the stated constant-volatility model, the answer shows that setting the instantaneous correlation of the Brownian drivers to a given value makes the terminal correlation between the log of the geometric process and the arithmetic process equal to that value. The result follows by expressing one Brownian motion as a correlated component plus an independent component, then calculating covariance and variance. This is a model-specific result: it does not imply that the correlation between the asset level itself and the normal variable equals the driver correlation, nor does it address estimation from historical data or more complex dynamics.

Key ideas

  • A geometric Brownian motion has a lognormal level, while an arithmetic Brownian motion has a normal level.
  • Dependence in a joint simulation is specified through correlation between the driving Brownian motions.
  • In the stated model, driver correlation equals the terminal correlation between the log of the geometric process and the arithmetic process.
  • The result relies on constant volatilities and Brownian assumptions, and does not establish correlation between the untransformed asset level and the normal variable.

Tags

Full text
# Correlation of a lognormal asset and a normal asset


# Correlation of a lognormal asset and a normal asset












So if i want to calcualte the correlation between a pair of assets, my intuition is that i should calculate whatever correlation i plan on using;

When we look at correlation, it's normally the correlation of the log returns - which makes sense from a MC standpoint, since it's the correlated random numbers that create the returns.

If i want to simulate a set of paths of the pair of assets, and one will be simulated using a lognormal returns process and the other a random normal walk (absolute), then i should convert each time series into just the random number sequences which, when put through the process i will use, will recreate them - and then take the correlation of these numbers (assuming i'm using only historical correlation)?

i.e. work out the correlation of the underlying random sequences.

Is this correct?

## Answer by Quantuple (score 7, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/27768

Let $(X_t)_{t\geq 0}$ denote a Geometric Brownian Motion $$ \frac{dX_t}{X_t} = \mu_X dt + \sigma_X dW^X_t,\ \ \ X(0) = X_0$$ such that $X_t$ is lognormally distributed $\forall t > 0$ $$ X_t = X_0 e^{(\mu_X - \frac{1}{2}\sigma_X ^2)t + \sigma_X W_t^X}$$

Let $(Y_t)_{t\geq 0}$ denote an Arithmetic Brownian Motion $$ dY_t = \mu_Y dt + \sigma_Y dW_t^Y,\ \ \ Y(0)=Y_0 $$ such that $Y_t$ is normally distributed $\forall t > 0$ $$Y_t = Y_0 + \mu_Y t + \sigma_Y W_t^Y $$

Consider an instantaneous correlation between the driving Brownian motions $W^X$ and $W^Y$ $$ \rho := \frac{d\langle W^X, W^Y\rangle_t}{dt} $$

[Proposition] Specifying an instantaneous correlation $\rho$ between the two driving Brownian motions means that the two normal variables $\ln X_t$ and $Y_t$ exhibit a terminal correlation $\rho$.

[Proof] To see this, notice that \begin{align} \ln X_t &= \ln X_0 + (\mu_X - \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2_X)t + \sigma_X W^X_t \\ &= \ln X_0 + (\mu_X - \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2_X)t + \sigma_X (\rho W^Y_t + \sqrt{1-\rho^2}W^{Y,\perp}_t) \end{align} hence the covariance writes \begin{align} \text{cov}(\ln X_t,Y_t) &= \text{cov}(\ln X_0 + (\mu_X - \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2_X)t + \sigma_X (\rho W^Y_t + \sqrt{1-\rho^2}W^{Y,\perp}_t), Y_0 + \mu_Y t + \sigma_Y W_t^Y) \\ &= \text{cov}(\sigma_X (\rho W^Y_t + \sqrt{1-\rho^2}W^{Y,\perp}_t), \sigma_Y W_t^Y) \\ &= \text{cov}(\sigma_X \rho W^Y_t, \sigma_Y W_t^Y) + \text{cov}(\sigma_X \sqrt{1-\rho^2}W^{Y,\perp}_t, \sigma_Y W_t^Y) \\ &= \rho \sigma_X \sigma_Y \underbrace{\text{cov}(W^Y_t, W^Y_t)}_{=t} + \sqrt{1-\rho^2}\sigma_X \sigma_Y \underbrace{\text{cov}(W^{Y,\perp}_t,W_t^Y)}_{=0} \\ &= \rho \sigma_X \sigma_Y t \end{align} by bilinearity of the covariance operator and using the fact that $W^{Y,\perp}_t \perp W^Y_t$. In parallel we have: $$ \text{var}(\ln X_t) = \sigma_X^2 t $$ $$ \text{var}(Y_t) = \sigma_Y^2 t $$ so that $$ \text{corr} = \frac{\text{cov}(\ln X_t,Y_t)}{\sqrt{\text{var}(\ln X_t)\text{var}(Y_t)}} = \frac{\rho \sigma_X \sigma_Y t}{\sigma_X \sqrt{t} \sigma_Y \sqrt{t}} = \rho $$ which concludes the demonstration

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.