Skip to content
All library documents

Deriving the Black–Scholes Put Price Under the Risk-Neutral Measure

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Max Imilian

Summary

The document attempts to derive the European put price by discounting its terminal payoff under a risk neutral measure. It models the underlying as a geometric Brownian motion with constant interest rate and volatility, then separates the payoff into a strike payment when the asset finishes below the strike and a stock payment under the same event. A standard normal expectation identity is used to evaluate the truncated expectation and connect it to the normal distribution terms in the Black–Scholes formula.

The derivation is useful as a study prompt, but it contains notation and algebra issues. The payoff indicator must refer to the terminal price, not the current price; the transformed event and signs in the truncated normal calculation also need careful checking. The document provides no verified solution, so its final formula should not be taken as evidence that each preceding step is correct. Its assumptions are the usual constant rate, constant volatility, and risk neutral dynamics.

Key ideas

  • Risk neutral valuation prices a European put by discounting its expected terminal payoff.
  • The put payoff can be split into strike and underlying price terms conditional on finishing below the strike.
  • A truncated normal expectation evaluates the conditional stock term in the derivation.
  • The indicator and sign manipulations shown require correction or verification before accepting the result.

Tags

Full text
# B-S Put Option Formula: Derivation using expected value under Q


# B-S Put Option Formula: Derivation using expected value under Q












I have been working on an old problem in one of my finance classes and, since no solution has been provided and I won't be able to contact my teacher anytime soon, I was hoping I could ask you guys to give me some feedback on my solution.

Here's the problem:

Consider a measure Q under which the dynamics of St are:

$\frac{dS_{t}}{S_{t}}=rdt+\sigma dW_{t}^{Q}$

where $W_{t}^{Q}$ is a Brownian motion under Q.Solve the boundary value problem you found above via an equivalent martingale method under the measure Q, i.e.

$P(t,S_{t})=e^{-r(T-t)}E{_{t}}^{Q}[P(T,S_{t})]$

Here is my attempt at a solution:

$E{_{t}}^{Q}[P(T,S_{t})]=E{_{t}}^{Q}[K\times 1_{S_{t}\leq K}]-E{_{t}}^{Q}[S_{T}\times 1_{S_{t}\leq K}]$ where 1 is an indicator function

$E{_{t}}^{Q}[P(T,S_{t})]=K\times Prob^{Q}(S_{T}\leq K)-E{_{t}}^{Q}[S_{t}e^{(r-\frac{\sigma ^{2}}{2})(T-t)+\sigma (W_{T}^{Q}-W_{t}^{Q}))}\times 1_{S_{t}\leq K}]$

$E{_{t}}^{Q}[P(T,S_{t})]=K\times Prob^{Q}(S_{T}\leq K)-S_{t}e^{r(T-t))}E{_{t}}^{Q}[e^{(-\frac{\sigma ^{2}}{2})(T-t)+\sigma (W_{T}^{Q}-W_{t}^{Q}))}\times 1_{S_{t}\leq K}] $

Now, here comes the part where I am not sure whether how I proceeded is correct.

Fact: $E[e^{yZ-0.5y^2}\times 1_{Z\geq -a}]=\Phi (y+a)$, for $Z\sim N(0,1)$

Proof (provided to us):

$E[e^{yZ-0.5y^2}\times 1_{Z\geq -a}]=\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }e^{yZ-0.5y^2}\times 1_{Z\geq -a}[\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{-0.5Z^2}]dZ$ $=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\int_{-a}^{\infty }e^{-0.5(Z-y)^2}dZ=\Phi (y+a)$

From this I went on to rewrite $1_{S_{t}\leq K}$ :

$S_{t}\leq K$

$S_{t}e^{(r-\frac{\sigma ^{2}}{2})(T-t)+\sigma (W_{T}^{Q}-W_{t}^{Q}))}\leq K$

$lnS_{t}+(r-\frac{\sigma ^2}{2})(T-t)+\sigma (W_{T}^{Q}-W_{t}^{Q})\leq lnK$

$\sigma (W_{T}^{Q}-W_{t}^{Q})\leq lnK -lnS_{t}-(r-\frac{\sigma ^2}{2})(T-t)$

$\sigma \sqrt{T-t}Z\leq ln\frac{K}{S_{t}}-(r-\frac{\sigma ^2}{2})(T-t)$

$Z \geq\frac{ln\frac{S_{t}}{K}+(r-\frac{\sigma ^2}{2})(T-t)}{\sigma \sqrt{T-t}}$

${ \frac{ln\frac{S_{t}}{K}+(r-\frac{\sigma ^2}{2})(T-t)}{\sigma \sqrt{T-t}}}\equiv a$

and so

$1_{Z\geq a}$

Therefore,

$E[e^{-\frac{\sigma ^{2}}{2}(T-t)+\sigma\sqrt{T-t}Z}\times 1_{Z\geq a}]=\Phi (y-a)$

is it correct here to subtract a, instead of adding it as given in the proof?

Further:

$\Phi (y-a)=\sigma \sqrt{T-t}-\frac{ln\frac{S_{t}}{K}+(r-\frac{\sigma ^2}{2})(T-t)}{\sigma \sqrt{T-t}}$

$\Phi (y-a)=\frac{\sigma^2 (T-t)}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}\ - \frac{ln\frac{S_{t}}{K}+(r-\frac{\sigma ^2}{2})(T-t)}{\sigma \sqrt{T-t}}$

giving:

$\Phi (y-a)= -\frac{ln\frac{S_{t}}{K}+(r+\frac{\sigma ^2}{2})(T-t)}{\sigma \sqrt{T-t}}=\Phi (-d_{1})$

Finally:

$P(t,S_{t})=e^{-r(T-t)}[K \times Prob^{Q}(S_{T}\leq K)-S_{t}e^{r(T-t)}\Phi (-d_{1})]$

$=e^{-r(T-t)}K\Phi (-d2)-S_{t}\Phi (-d_{1})$$

Which is the B-S put option formula, if I'm not mistaken. Again, as mentioned above, I am not sure if everything I did was correct, especially the application of the fact I've given above. I'd be grateful, if someone more knowledgable than could quickly go over my solution and let me know if I went wrong anywhere :)

Thanks for any help!

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.