Skip to content
All library documents

How Itô’s Formula Connects to the Black–Scholes PDE

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Arshdeep

Summary

The discussion clarifies that the differential notation for Itô’s formula is shorthand for an integrated identity. Applying the formula to an option price under geometric Brownian motion gives a time integral, a stochastic integral, and a second-derivative correction involving the squared stock price and volatility. The original question asks whether this identity justifies the Black–Scholes PDE through an instantaneously riskless hedge.

The answer says the PDE derivation does not depend on treating the differential shorthand as an equality at every infinitesimal step. It also points out that the question’s formula omits the stock-price-squared factor in the second-order term. The response offers no full replacement derivation, and it notes that the rigor of the original hedging argument has been debated; readers seeking the complete link to the PDE need a more detailed derivation.

Key ideas

  • Itô’s differential notation represents an identity that holds after integration over time.
  • For a stock following geometric Brownian motion, the option’s second-order term includes the squared stock price.
  • The Black–Scholes PDE derivation does not rest on interpreting the shorthand as a pointwise equality.
  • The answer flags a missing factor in the question but does not present a full PDE derivation.

Tags

Full text
# Is the Black Scholes PDE actually immediate from Ito's lemma?


# Is the Black Scholes PDE actually immediate from Ito's lemma?












Ito's lemma replaces $dS^2$ by $vol^2*dt$, however it is repeatedly mentioned that the lemma manifests in the integral form and the differential form below is merely a short hand for the integral form:

$dC-C_{s}dS=C_{t}dt+0.5C_{ss}vol^*dt$ ---- (1)

(1) is true only if we integrate both sides. Simple counter example is Ito's lemma written as: $dW^2-2WdW=dt$ where LHS is stochastic and RHS is deterministic. If we integrate both sides here as well, it becomes accurate.

Now from (1) we create the B.S. P.D.E -

$C_{t}+0.5C_{ss}vol=r(C-C_{s}S)$

as if (1) was differentially true (i.e true at each step $dt$ - what we call "locally risk free hence grows at risk free rate"), rather than only true in it's integral form.

Now obviously if it is differentially true (i.e. true at every infinitesmal step dt) then it would obviously be true in integral form, which is all we care about. But it seems to be an unaddressed point. Any thoughts what I am missing? Is there a clear link, without assumptions that leads from (1) to the PDE?

## Answer by Kurt G. (score 1)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/79348

- The derivations of the Black & Scholes PDE being accurate or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether we write the Ito formula for the call price, in differential form, $$\tag1 dC=C_t\,dt+C_s\,dS_t+\frac12 C_{ss}S_t^2\sigma^2\,dt\,, $$ or equivalently, in integral form, $$\tag2 C(T,S_T)-C(0,S_0)=\int_0^T C_t(t,S_t)\,dt+\int_0^TC_s(t,S_t)\,dS_t+\frac12\int_0^TC_{ss}(t,S_t)\,S_t^2\,\sigma^2\,dt\,. $$ As we know: (1) is just a short notation for (2). The factor $S_t^2$ is missing in your formulas.



- The level of rigor in BS' original paper regarding the hedging portfolio being "instantaneously riskless" has been amply discussed during the decades. See this post to get started with this. In short: today we have a better way of deriving BS' PDE which remains correct as it was all the time.

- My favourite way of deriving the PDE you can find here.

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.