Skip to content
All library documents

Exact Time-Step Simulation of Geometric Brownian Motion

Article Quant Q&A · Author: gu7z

Summary

The document clarifies the difference between simulating geometric Brownian motion (GBM) from its closed-form solution and using a discrete Euler-style approximation. For GBM, the exact solution gives the value at a later observation time by multiplying the current value by an exponential driven by the Brownian increment over that interval. Independent standard normal draws, scaled by the square root of each interval length, generate those increments and therefore the sampled values along a chosen time grid.

This transition is exact at the grid points for GBM, so it has no time-discretization error for those sampled values. The linear Euler update instead approximates the SDE and may approach the exact result as the time step shrinks. The exact method does not reveal every point of the continuous path between grid dates; finer grids provide more sampled points, while continuous path behavior between observations remains unsampled. The distinction is specific to a process with this closed-form transition and should not be generalized to SDEs without one.

Key ideas

  • The exact GBM solution gives a transition from one observation time to the next using a Brownian increment.
  • Brownian increments over non-overlapping intervals are independent, even though Brownian levels are not.
  • Normal draws scaled by the square root of interval length generate the exact grid-point transitions.
  • Euler’s linear update is an approximation, while the exponential GBM transition is exact at sampled dates.
  • A time grid samples a trajectory at selected points but does not enumerate every point between them.

Tags

Full text
# Simulation of GBM


# Simulation of GBM












I have a question regarding the simulation of a GBM. I have found similar questions here but nothing which takes reference to my specific problem:

Given a GBM of the form

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

it is clear that this SDE has a closed form solution in

$S(t) = S(0) exp ([\mu - \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2]t + \sigma W(t))$

for a given $S(0)$.

Now, I have found sources claiming that in order to simulate the whole trajectory of the GBM, one needs to convert it to its discrete form (e.g., a similar question here or Iacus: "Simulation and Inference for Stochastic Differential Equations", 62f.). Yet, in Glasserman: "Monte Carlo Methods in Fin. Eng.", p. 94, I find that

$S(t_{i+1}) = S(t_i) exp ([\mu - \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2](t_{i+1}-t_i) + \sigma\sqrt{t_{i+1}-t_i} Z_{i+1})$

where $i=0,1,\cdots, n-1$ and $Z_1,Z_2,\cdots,Z_n$ are independent standard normals is an exact method (i.e., has no apprximation error from discretization).

I really don't understand what the difference between the two is, or put differently, if the exact method lets me simulate the whole trajectory, why would I bother converting it to the discrete form?

Maybe I'm just not seeing the point here but I'm really confused and grateful for any help!

## Answer by SRKX (score 8, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/7128

For completeness, let's restate that the discrete case goes like this:

$$\Delta S_t = S_{t+\Delta t}- S_t = \mu S_t \Delta t + \sigma S_t \sqrt{\Delta t} Z_t $$

with $Z_t \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$

What you are doing in your case is to use the exact solution of the SDE to model the movement between two points of $S$.

Essentially, you are doing the same thing with the 2 approaches.

Actually, if you choose a $\Delta t$ small enough, you shall have almost no difference.

Your question can be reversed: if you can simply simulate the path using the discrete version, why would you care about solving the SDE to get the closed-form formula?

## Answer by Christian Fries (score 5)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/7126

Note: There is a typo in your third equations. Instead of $S(u)$ it should be $S(t_{i})$ and in place of $S(t)$ there should be $S(t_{i+1})$.

In fact, given $S(t_{i})$ we have that

$$S(t_{i+1}) = S(t_{i}) \exp\left( (\mu - \frac{1}{2} \sigma^2) (t_{i+1} - t_{i}) + \sigma (W(t_{i+1}) - W(t_{i})) \right)$$

is the exact solution of the SDE. Hence, the discretization is exact (which is a special case here).

Note that $W(t_{i+1})$ is not independent of $W(t_{i})$ but $W(t_{i+1})-W(t_{i})$ is independet from $W(t_{i})-W(t_{i-1})$. So in order to simulate the discrete points $S(t_{j})$ for different $j$ you use the representation above with i.i.d. random variable $Z_{j}$ with $W(t_{j})-W(t_{j-1}) = \sqrt{t_{j}-t_{j-1}} Z_{j}$ and not the representation

$$S(t_{i+1}) = S(0) \exp\left( (\mu - \frac{1}{2} \sigma^2) t_{i+1} + \sigma W(t_{i+1}) \right)$$.

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.