Skip to content
All library documents

GBM Monte Carlo: Time Steps and Simulation Accuracy

Article Quant Q&A · Author: user18851

Summary

The document compares simulating a stock’s price at a one-year horizon in a single step with simulating a daily price path under geometric Brownian motion (GBM). For constant drift and volatility, the exact GBM transition over each interval has a lognormal form. Multiplying those daily transitions gives a terminal price with the same distribution as a direct one-year transition, so smaller time steps do not by themselves improve the one-year terminal-price distribution. Fine steps are needed when the path between now and the horizon matters.

The answers distinguish time discretization from Monte Carlo sampling error: more independent paths improve estimates, while confidence intervals can help quantify uncertainty. One response notes that four times as many simulations reduces standard error by a factor of two, and suggests variance reduction as an alternative to simply increasing the path count. The equivalence relies on the stated constant-parameter GBM setup and exact transitions; numerical Euler or Milstein schemes can have discretization error, and changing volatility or drift assumptions would alter the analysis.

Key ideas

  • Under constant-parameter GBM, an exact one-year transition gives the correct terminal-price distribution directly.
  • Chaining exact daily GBM transitions preserves that same terminal distribution because Gaussian increments aggregate.
  • Daily time steps are useful when the simulated price path matters, rather than only its endpoint.
  • Monte Carlo sampling error depends on the number of paths and can be assessed with confidence intervals.
  • Euler or Milstein discretizations may introduce time-step error that exact GBM transitions avoid.

Tags

Full text
# Geometric Brownian Motion - increasing simulations or smaller step size


# Geometric Brownian Motion - increasing simulations or smaller step size












I am running Monte Carlo simulations to estimate future share prices of some stocks.

For stock A, I need 1 share price exactly one year from now.

For stock B, I need daily prices for each trading day for the coming year.

Both models are simulated, lets say, 1000 times.

As dt is smaller for B, this increases the accurateness on the share price on the date one year from now. But how to prove this? And, what is the relation between the number of simulations and the time step size?

Edit: I am using 3 year lognormal daily returns to estimate volatility; drift is based on a zero-coupon bond with the term equal to the term of the option/share (in this case 1 year). Both remain constant during the simulation year. Random numbers are generated using Mersenne Twister algorithm.

Stock price at time t is being calculated by:

For A, dt = 1 $$ S_{t}= S_0 \cdot exp((r-\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)dt+\sigma\sqrt{dt}Z) $$

For B, I am using Euler's discretization, dt = 1/255 $$ S_{t+dt}= S_t \cdot exp((r-\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)dt+\sigma\sqrt{dt}Z) $$

## Answer by Brian B (score 2)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/22589

Since you are using geometric brownian motion (GBM) as your model, there is a strong (and therefore weak) solution to the SDE. That is to say, your simulation that presumably looks like

$$ S^A_T \sim S^A_0 \exp\left( \left(r-q-\frac12 \sigma^2\right) T + z \sigma \sqrt{T} \right) $$

for standard gaussian $z$ has precisely the correct distribution.

Because sums of gaussian variables are themselves gaussian, your chained simulation for stock B follows the formula

$$ S^B_{t_i} \sim S^B_{t_{i-1}} \exp\left( \left(r-q-\frac12 \sigma^2\right) (t_{i}-t_{i-1}) + z \sigma \sqrt{t_{i}-t_{i-1}} \right) $$

which telescopes into

$$ S^B_{t_N} \sim S^B_0 \prod_{i=1}^N \exp\left( \left(r-q-\frac12 \sigma^2\right) (t_{i}-t_{i-1}) + z \sigma \sqrt{t_{i}-t_{i-1}} \right) $$

or

$$ S^B_{t_N} \sim S^B_0 \exp\left( \sum_{i=1}^N \left(r-q-\frac12 \sigma^2\right) (t_{i}-t_{i-1}) + z \sigma \sqrt{t_{i}-t_{i-1}} \right) $$

and also is precisely correct in distributional terms.

Therefore the simulation for stock A with a 1 year time interval is no less "accurate" than the simulation for stock B.

Now, if you were using an Euler or Milstein discretization of the GBM of the stock B SDE, then you would have cause to worry about the relative accuracy.

## Answer by mxzzzzz (score 1)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/22588

a) there is no point to make any simulations between NOW and 1 YEAR. simulate 1 year stock price directly.

b) here you concern about PATH of stoch process, so simulate each day, but do not simulate "between" or "inside" days.

effectively procedure b uses algo from procedure a with appropriate adjustments for drift and vol

to measure "accuracy" calculate confidence intervals. your estimates have normal distribution, sample variance is proportional to SQRT (N), where N - number of simulations. so if you make 4 times more simulation you get twice more accurate estimate SQRT(4)=2. increase of N is very costly, better use Variance reduction techniques (see wiki).

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.