Risk-Neutral Drift of Replicable Assets and Claims
Summary
The document asks whether non-dividend-paying assets beyond the underlying stock, such as a call option, have risk-free instantaneous expected growth under a risk-neutral measure. Its explanation uses the martingale property of discounted prices: when a claim is replicable in a complete market, its price discounted by the risk-free account is a martingale under the risk-neutral measure. Reversing the discounting gives the claim price a drift equal to the risk-free rate, with its remaining movement represented by a stochastic component.
The discussion connects this argument to the usual derivation of the Black–Scholes equation. Its key qualification is market completeness and replicability; it does not establish the same conclusion for arbitrary assets or claims outside those assumptions. The risk-free drift statement concerns prices under the risk-neutral measure and should not be confused with expected returns under the real-world probability measure.
Key ideas
- Discounted prices of replicable claims are martingales under the risk-neutral measure in a complete market.
- Undoing the discounting implies a risk-free drift for the claim price under that measure.
- The argument applies to claims that can be replicated under the stated market assumptions.
- Risk-neutral expected returns differ conceptually from real-world expected returns.
Tags
Full text
# Do *all* non-dividend paying assets have the risk-free instantaneous return rate under the risk-neutral measure?
# Do *all* non-dividend paying assets have the risk-free instantaneous return rate under the risk-neutral measure?
For simplicity let's consider a 1D BS world. The only source of randomness comes from the Brownian motion dynamics $dB_t$. The risk-free rate is $r$ (one may assume it as constant for the time being). I know that, by virtue of Girsanov's theorem, the Brownian motion under the risk-neutral measure is defined by $$dB_t^{\Bbb Q} = \lambda dt + dB_t$$ where $\lambda$ is the unique market price of risk, or the so-called Sharpe ratio.
Under the risk-neutral measure, any non-dividend paying stock price process $S_t$ thus follows $$\frac{dS_t}{S_t} = rdt + \sigma_SdB_t^{\Bbb Q}.$$
However, in Kerry Back's A Course in Derivative Securities page 220, the author claimed without a proof that the instantaneous rate of return for a call option on the stock price $C_t$ is also $r$, i.e. $$\frac{dC_t}{C_t} = rdt + \sigma_C d B_t^{\Bbb Q}$$ where $\sigma_C$ is some stochastic process that we're not interested in. The author make crucial use of the above formula (i.e. the drift of $C_t$ is $rC_tdt$) to derive the BS PDE.
Question: is it true that under the risk neutral measure, any non-dividend paying asset price $X_t$ must have its instantaneous rate of return equal to $r$? If so, what would be a rigorous explanation for this?
Edit: Antoine is spot on. Under the risk neutral measure, any discounted asset price $Y_t=e^{-rt}X_t$ must be a martingale or equivalently an Ito integral without drift. Hence $$\frac{dY_t}{Y_t}=\sigma_Y dB_t^{\Bbb Q}.$$ where $\sigma_Y$ can be a quite general stochastic process. On the other hand, by the compounding rule of Ito processes, $$\frac{dY_t}{Y_t}=-rdt+\frac{dX_t}{X_t}$$ Therefore it follows $$\frac{dX_t}{X_t}=rdt+\sigma_Y dB_t^{\Bbb Q}.$$
## Answer by Antoine Conze (score 6, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/43944
Under the assumption that the market is complete, any discounted contingent claim can be replicated as a stochastic integral against the discounted stock price, therefore the discounted contingent claim price is a martingale under the risk neutral measure, or said otherwise the contingent claim price instantaneous rate of return under the risk neutral measure is the risk free rate.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.