Expected Option Value Under Risk-Neutral and Real-World Measures
Summary
The discussion distinguishes the risk-neutral expected future payoff of an option from its expected value under the real-world probability measure. Under risk-neutral valuation, the option price is the discounted expected payoff, so the conditional expected future option price grows at the risk-free rate when measured under the risk-neutral measure. This does not establish the option’s actual expected return for an investor.
A separate answer expresses the real-world expected call payoff using a Black–Scholes price evaluated with the real-world drift, and notes that expected continuously compounded returns are complicated by the option’s nonlinear payoff. Another response uses theta to approximate a short-term price change while holding the underlying price fixed. That approximation omits changes in spot and other market inputs, so it is not a general forecast of option value at maturity.
Key ideas
- Risk-neutral pricing discounts the expected payoff under the risk-neutral measure at the risk-free rate.
- The risk-neutral expected future option price grows at the risk-free rate over the interval considered.
- Real-world expected option payoffs depend on the underlying asset’s real-world distribution and differ from risk-neutral expectations.
- Theta gives a local time-decay approximation only when changes in the underlying and other inputs are ignored.
Tags
Full text
# What is the theoretical expected growth in an option's value over a given period of time?
# What is the theoretical expected growth in an option's value over a given period of time?
Say an option with five years left before maturity has a value of $x$ today. Theoretically, under the B/S framework, what is its expected value in five years (upon maturity)? Do we assume it will simply grow in line with the five-year risk free rate? Can you please also provide any reference I can cite for this?
$E(v)_{t=5}=x(1+R_f)^5$
or $E(v)_{t=5}=xe^{5R_f}$ using a continuously compounded $R_f$
Is this right? If so, is it only correct under a risk-neutral framework? And can we say $R_f$ is the drift in this case (is it proper semantics)?
Thank you for your help!
Edit: on second thought, this seems somewhat flawed if you're deep out-of-the-money... Really not sure how to proceed. Basically my question is what is the expected value of the option at maturity when you're at time t?
## Answer by Neeraj (score 2, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/23162
OP is absolutely right in his approach and this is the underlying idea behind risk neutral valuation or even BS model. If Black-Scholes model assumptions hold, then a derivative payoff can always be replicated in such a way it would never provide return more than risk free interest rate, otherwise it will lead to arbitrage opportunities. But assumption never holds in reality and we find deviation in actual price from BS price.
But theoretically, you are right.
EDIT : The OP has asked about the expected change in option price not the actual change. Under the risk neutral measure$(\mathbb{Q})$, the price of option $v_t$ at time $t$ is given by $$v_t= e^{-r(T-t)}\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\big[(S_T-K)^+\big]$$ where, $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\big[(S_T-K)^+\big]$ is expected payoff at maturity and can be written as $$\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\big[(S_T-K)^+\big]=v_te^{r(T-t)}$$ which show that option price is expected to increase at risk free rate as pointed out in OP.
Formal Derivation $$v_t= e^{-r(T-t)}\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\big[(S_T-K)^+|\mathscr{F_t}\big]\quad \tag{1}$$
Let's suppose $t_1 \in (t,T]$, so option price at $t_1$ $$v_{t_1}= e^{-r(T-t_1)}\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\big[(S_T-K)^+|\mathscr{F_{t_1}}\big]\quad \tag{2}$$
But we don't have history of an process upto time $t_1$ and we are still at time $t$, so $v_{t_1}$ at time $t$ is $$v_{t_1}|\mathscr{F}_t= e^{-r(T-t_1)}\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\big[(S_T-K)^+|\mathscr{F_t}\big] \quad \tag{3}$$
Dividing equation 3 from equation 1, we get $$\frac{v_{t_1}}{v_t}=\frac{e^{-r(T-t_1)}}{e^{-r(T-t)}}$$ $$v_{t_1}=v_te^{r(t_1-t)}$$ where $v_{t_1}$ is expected option price at time $t_1$ given at time $t$.
## Answer by user9403 (score 1)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/23166
The expected value of the option at maturity is simply $$\mathbb{E}[(S_T-K)^+]$$ Note that this is under the real world measure. In a B-S framework this value is given by $$e^{rT}C(\alpha;S_0, K, \sigma, T)$$ Where $C(r; S_0, K, \sigma, T)$ is the B-S call option price. Hence the expected growth rate (using a simple return) is $$\frac{e^{rT}C(\alpha;S_0, K, \sigma, T)-C(r; S_0, K, \sigma, T)}{C(r; S_0, K, \sigma, T)T}$$ However the expected continuously compounded return cannot be so easily solved since the option price is non-linear in the growth rate and Jensen's inequality comes into play.
## Answer by Olaf (score 0)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/23165
The "best" approximation comes from the one of the greeks: $\Theta$. This is the derivative of the option value with respect to time-to-maturity. For a call option it is given by:
$$\Theta(\tau) = -\frac{\sigma}{2\sqrt{\tau}}S\phi(d_+) - r K e^{-r\tau} \Phi(d_+)$$
where $\tau = T - t$ is the time to maturity, $t$ is the current time, $T$ is the maturity and you are probably familiar with the other symbols (if not check the wiki).
The approximate change in value of the call option is then
$$ C(t+\delta t) \approx C(t) + \delta t \frac{\partial C}{\partial t} = C(t) - \delta t \Theta(\tau)$$
This is the first order approximation and it neglects the change of the underlying spot price. So if we assume that the stock price does not change, then this is a good approximation to the change in option value.
In reality we cannot actually ignore the underlying. The stock price will fluctuate up and down, and this will be reflected by time dependency of the option value.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.