Skip to content
All library documents

Normal and Lognormal Models for Future Stock Prices

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Gus Montano

Summary

The discussion compares two continuous-time models for stock prices. In the Bachelier model, price changes are normally distributed, so the model can produce negative prices. In geometric Brownian motion, log returns are normally distributed and prices are lognormal, which keeps modeled prices positive. The exchange explains the transformation using Itô’s lemma and notes that simple returns and log returns have different ranges.

For a positive price threshold, taking logarithms preserves the event because the logarithm is strictly increasing, so exceeding the threshold has the same probability in price and log-price terms. The answers also outline Brownian motion’s normal increments and use them to describe the distribution of log prices. These are model-based explanations, not empirical evidence that either process describes actual stock returns. One answer contains apparent notation and variance errors, so its formulas should be checked against a reliable reference before use.

Key ideas

  • In geometric Brownian motion, log returns are normally distributed and prices are lognormally distributed.
  • The Bachelier model assigns a normal distribution to price changes and can produce negative prices.
  • Taking logarithms preserves comparisons between positive prices and positive thresholds.
  • Brownian motion’s normally distributed increments lead to a normal distribution for log prices under the stated model.
  • The exchange is theoretical and does not establish which model best fits observed markets.

Tags

Full text
# The Distribution of Future Stock Price


# The Distribution of Future Stock Price












In Hull, we are presented that

$$\frac{\Delta S}{S_{0}}=\mu \Delta t+\sigma\sqrt{\Delta t}\cdot \varepsilon.$$

Following some algebra,

$$ \begin{align*} \frac{\Delta S}{S_{0}} &=\mu \Delta t+\sigma\sqrt{\Delta t} \cdot \varepsilon \\ \frac{S-S_{0}}{S_{0}} &= \mu \Delta t+\sigma\sqrt{\Delta t} \cdot \varepsilon \\S &= \left(S_{0} + \mu S_{0} \Delta t\right) + \sigma S_{0} \sqrt{\Delta t} \cdot \varepsilon \end{align*} $$

Therefore the distribution of future stock price is given by

$$S \sim \phi\left(S_{0} + \mu S_{0} \Delta t,\left(\sigma S_{0} \sqrt{\Delta t}\right)^{2}\right).$$

That is, the future stock price follows a normal distribution.

We are then introduced to Itô's Lemma. By letting $G = \ln(S_{0})$, we derive that

$$dG = \left(\mu - \frac{1}{2}\sigma^{2}\right)dt+\sigma dz.$$

Since $G = \ln{S_{0}}$, in a discrete sense, it can be said that

$$dG = \ln{S_{T}} - \ln{S_{0}}.$$

Therefore,

$$\ln{S_{T}} - \ln{S_{0}} = \left(\mu - \frac{1}{2}\sigma^{2}\right)dt+\sigma dz \\ \implies \ln{S_{T}} = \ln{S_{0}} + \left(\mu - \frac{1}{2}\sigma^{2}\right)dt+\sigma dz. $$

It then follows that since $\ln{S_{T}}$ follows a normal distribution, the future stock price must follow a lognormal distribution I am now confused, which process do I use to answer questions about the probabilistic nature of future stock prices? I have one other question. Why does $$\mathcal{P}(\ln{S_{T}} > \ln{X}) = \mathcal{P}(S_{T} > X)?$$ The context for my last question can be found here.

I am now confused, which process do I use to answer questions about the probabilistic nature of future stock prices?

I have one other question. Why does

$$\mathcal{P}(\ln{S_{T}} > \ln{X}) = \mathcal{P}(S_{T} > X)?$$

The context for my last question can be found here.

## Answer by Richi Wa (score 6, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/18445

You ask 2 questions and I try to answer:

1) Why do we use geometric Brownian motion ($\ln S_t-\ln S_0$ is normally distributed)? In this case you have $$ S_t = S_0 \exp( (\mu-\sigma^2/2) t + \sigma B_t), $$ which means that you model positive prices. Furthermore the log-return $$ \ln(S_t/S_0) = (\mu-\sigma^2/2) t + \sigma B_t, $$ is normally distributed. As log returns can cover the whole real line $(-\infty,\infty)$ this is a nice model. Keep in mind that simple returns $S_t/S_0-1$ can only take values from $[-1,\infty)$. The best place to model a normal distribution is the whole real line.

If you use a model (the Bachelier model) $$ S_t = S_0 + \mu t + \sigma B_t, $$ then your returns $S_t-S_0$ are normally distributed. But there is the chance that prices get negative (if $B_t$ becomes very negative). You probably don't want this in your model. Some people use this model nevertheless to price options that are close to maturity as you don't need such large $\sigma$ to match (relatively high) prices of OTM options.

For 2) Why is $P(\ln S>\ln X)=P(S > X)$? because the logarithm is a monotonous transformation. We speak of the same events. If $S>X$ then always $\ln S > \ln X$. Thus the same events have the same probability. Another example $$ P ( S > X ) = P ( S+4 > X + 4). $$ Just the same events.

## Answer by user16651 (score 1)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/18510

You know that Brownian motion {W(t)} is a stochastic process with the following properties:

- (Independence of increments) W(t) − W(s) , for t > s , is independent of the past, that is, of W(u) , 0 ≤ u ≤ s, or of $F_s$ , the σ-field generated by W(u), u ≤ s.

- (Normal increments) W(t) − W(s) has Normal distribution with mean 0 and variance t − s. This implies (taking s = 0) that W(t) − W(0) has N(0, t) distribution.

- (Continuity of paths) W(t), t ≥ 0 are continuous functions of t.

Let ${{x}_{t}}=\ln ({{S}_{t}})$ . The Itˆo formula gives us \begin{align} & d{{x}_{t}}=(\mu -\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^{2})dt+{{\sigma }}d{W}(t) \\ \end{align} Then \begin{align} & {x}_{t}={x}_{0}+(\mu -\frac{1}{2}\sigma^{2})t+{{\sigma }_{t}}{W}(t) \\ \end{align} As we said W(t) has Normal distribution with mean 0 and variance t then $x_t$ is normal process such that the expected value is given by \begin{align} & E[{x}_{t}]=E[{x}_{0}+(\mu -\frac{1}{2}\sigma^{2})t]+E[\sigma{W}(t)]={x}_{0}+(\mu -\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^{2})t\\ \end{align} and \begin{align} & Var[{x}_{t}]=Var[{{\sigma }_{t}}{W}(t)]=\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^{2}t\\ \end{align} And your other question.fix t and let

\begin{align} & A_\omega =\{\omega|S_t,\omega>K\}=\{\omega|\ln S_t,\omega>\ln K\}\,\, (Almost\,Surely) \end{align}

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.