Skip to content
All library documents

No-Arbitrage Bounds and Equivalent Martingale Measures in a One-Period Market

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Rebellos

Summary

The exercise considers a one-period market with a risk-free asset and a risky asset whose possible terminal prices have a minimum and maximum. It asks when an equivalent martingale measure can exist and connects that question to the no-arbitrage condition. Under such a measure, the discounted risky asset’s initial price must equal its expected discounted terminal value, with positive probability assigned to every state that has positive physical probability.

The answer explains the price bounds using trading strategies: borrowing to buy the risky asset when its return is too low relative to the risk-free rate, or shorting it and lending when the price is too high. These arguments illustrate how a price outside the range of possible discounted terminal values can create arbitrage. The response is internally inconsistent about whether the bounds should be strict or inclusive. For an equivalent martingale measure with positive weight on every state, the expected terminal value must lie strictly between distinct extrema; the non-strict condition is instead the usual no-arbitrage bound in this setup.

Key ideas

  • An equivalent martingale measure assigns positive probability to every state that has positive physical probability.
  • Under that measure, the initial risky asset price equals the expected discounted terminal price.
  • Buying with borrowed funds or shorting and lending can expose arbitrage when the price lies outside the attainable bounds.
  • With distinct minimum and maximum terminal prices, an equivalent martingale measure requires the discounted initial price to lie strictly between them.
  • The response conflates strict equivalent-measure bounds with inclusive no-arbitrage bounds.

Tags

Full text
# Equivalent martingale measure exists if and only if $a < S_0^1(1+r)< b$


# Equivalent martingale measure exists if and only if $a < S_0^1(1+r)< b$












Exercise :

> We consider a market of one period $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb P, S^0, S^1)$, where the sample space $\Omega$ has a finite number of elements and the $\sigma-$algebra $\mathcal{F} = 2^\Omega$. Furthermore, with $S^0$ we symbolize the zero risk asset with initial value $S_0^0=1$ at the time $t=0$ and interest rate $r>-1$ (which means $S_1^0 = 1+r$). With $S^1$ we symbolize an asset with risk with initial value $S_0^1 >0$ at the time $t=0$ and with value $S_1^1$ at the time $t=1$ which is a random variable. Let $\mathbb{P}[\{\omega\}]>0$ for all $\omega \in \Omega$. We define : $$a:=\min S_1^1(\omega) \quad \text{and} \quad b:=\max S_1^1(\omega)$$ and we assume that $0<a<b$. Show that the market is arbitrage-free if and only if it is : $$a<S_0^1(1+r)<b$$

Attempt :

Since we have to find a iff condition for the market to be arbitrage-free, it is the same as showing that there exists an equivalent martingale measure. This comes from the following theorem :

The Fundamental Theorem of Asset Pricing : A financial market is arbitrage-free if and only iff there exists an equivalent martingale measure.

So, let $\Omega = \{\omega_1, \dots , \omega_n\}$. Consider $\mathbb{Q}$ to be a probability measure. For $\mathbb{Q}$ to be a martingalem it must be :

$$S_1 \in L^1(\mathbb Q) \quad \text{and} \quad S_0 = \mathbb{E}_\mathbb Q\bigg[\frac{S_1}{1+r}\bigg]$$

These conditions, mean that :

$$\|S_1\|_1 < + \infty \Rightarrow |S_1^1(\omega_1) + \cdots + S_1^1(\omega_n)| < + \infty$$

Also, we have :

$$S_0^1 = \frac{S_1^1(\omega_1)}{1+r}\mathbb{Q}(\omega_1) + \cdots + \frac{S_1^1(\omega_n)}{1+r}\mathbb{Q}(\omega_n)$$ $$\Rightarrow$$ $$S_0^1(1+r) = S_1^1(\omega_1)\mathbb{Q}(\omega_1) + \cdots + S_1^1(\omega_n)\mathbb{Q}(\omega_n)$$

Now, for $\mathbb{Q}$ to be an equivalent martingale measure, it must be $\mathbb{Q} \sim \mathbb{P}$, thus since $\mathbb{P}[\{\omega\}] >0$ it must also be $\mathbb{Q}(\omega) >0$.

Finally, for $\mathbb{Q}$ to be a legit probability measure, its components must sum up to $1$.

Thus, we yield the following system of conditions :

$$\begin{cases} S_1^1(\omega_1)\mathbb{Q}(\omega_1) + \cdots + S_1^1(\omega_n)\mathbb{Q}(\omega_n) &=S_0^1(1+r) \\ |S_1^1(\omega_1) + \cdots + S_1^1(\omega_n)| &< + \infty \\ \mathbb{Q}(\omega_1) + \cdots + \mathbb{Q}(\omega_n) &= 1 \\ \mathbb{Q}(\omega_1) &> 0 \\ \quad \vdots \\ \mathbb{Q}(\omega_n) &>0 \end{cases}$$

Question : How would one proceed now to showing that if $a = \min S_1^1(\omega)$ and $b = \max S_1^1(\omega)$ then for an equivalent martingale measure to exist, it should be :

$$a<S_0^1(1+r)<b$$

## Answer by Daneel Olivaw (score 5, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/42640

Assume that:

$$ S_0^1(1+r)\leq a,b $$

Arbitrage for a portfolio $V_t$ is defined as:

$$V_0\leq0, \quad P(V_1\geq0)=1, \quad P(V_1>0)>0$$

Consider borrowing at rate $r$ to buy the risky asset such that $V_0=0$. Then, assuming $a\not= b$:

$$\begin{align} \min_{\omega}V_1(\omega)=a-S_0^1(1+r)\geq 0 \\ \max_{\omega}V_1(\omega)=b-S_0^1(1+r)> 0 \end{align}$$

Thus there is arbitrage. The same argument can be made if $S_0^1(1+r)\geq a,b$ but in this case the risky asset is shorted and the money is lent at a rate $r$. Hence to prevent arbitrage the market has to enforce the following constraint:

$$ a< S_0^1(1+r)< b$$

The inequality does not necessarily need to be strict, we can equivalently have:

$$ a\leq S_0^1(1+r)\leq b$$

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.