Risk-Neutral Pricing and the Heston Model’s Martingale Condition
Summary
The main answer explains why Monte Carlo pricing under Heston does not require the asset price to have a lognormal distribution. For pricing under a risk-neutral measure, it frames the key condition as the discounted price process being a martingale, corresponding to a risk-free drift for the traded asset under that measure. The diffusion term can be stochastic, so stochastic volatility does not by itself invalidate risk-neutral valuation. A second answer outlines a simulation approach using conditional variance distributions, integrated variance, and the correlated Brownian components to construct terminal prices.
The exchange gives conceptual reasoning and equations, but no derivation of Heston’s measure change, simulation implementation, or numerical pricing evidence. The drift condition alone should not be read as a complete proof that a discounted process is a true martingale: admissibility and integrability conditions matter. The specialized simulation outline is not fully developed and needs a supporting derivation before implementation.
Key ideas
- Risk-neutral valuation expresses a derivative price as the discounted expected payoff under an appropriate measure.
- The primary answer emphasizes the discounted traded asset’s martingale condition rather than a particular price distribution.
- Stochastic volatility changes the diffusion dynamics but is compatible with risk-neutral pricing.
- A secondary answer sketches conditional simulation using variance and integrated variance quantities.
- The exchange does not establish the integrability conditions or provide a complete simulation procedure.
Tags
Full text
# FTAP wih Heston Model
# FTAP wih Heston Model
The Fundamental Theorem of Asset Pricing (FTAP) is invoked when we say the time $0$ price of a European option with payoff $g$ is $e^{-rT}E_Q(g(S_T))$, with the hypothesis that $e^{-rt}S_t$ is a $Q$-martingale. This martingale condition is satisfied if we assume $S_t$ follows a geometric Brownian motion with drift $r$, so we can use Monte Carlo to estimate the price as $$ e^{-rT}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N g(S_T^i) $$ where $\{S_T^i\}$ are lognormal.
Fair enough, but what permits one to do this same Monte Carlo estimation assuming $S_t$ follows the dynamics of the Heston model? In particular, under what conditions is $e^{-rt}S_t$ a martingale for some measure? We don't know the distribution of $S_t$ under this model, so it's not as straightforward as Black-Scholes. Certainly we can simulate the paths of this model and compute the sum above, which is what it seems people do, but what justifies this theoretically?
## Answer by Gabriele Pompa (score 3)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/28211
You don't need any assumption about the distributional properties of $S_t$. What matters for the FTAP is the drift only.
By definition, the risk neutral measure $Q$ is the measure, equivalent to the natural measure $P$ (*), under which the local rate of return (i.e. the instanteneous drift of the SDE of $S_t$ per unit of $S_t$) of "any" traded asset $S_t$ (but also the price of the derivative $g_t$) is $r$, the market risk-free rate.
Equivalently, this consists in requiring that the price of any traded asset measured in unit of the fundamental reference unit of the value of the bank account (aka numeraire) $B_t=e^{rt }$ ($B_0=1$) is a martingale: $$ E^Q_0 \left[\frac{g_T}{B_T}\right] = \frac{g_0}{B_0} $$ that is the price is, as you mentioned $$ g_0=e^{-rT} E^Q_0 \left[g_T\right] $$ and this holds for any traded asset, disregarding its nature (stock, commodity, index, derivative...).
This truly is an equivalence. Indeed, being $\mu$ the local rate of return of $g_t$ under $Q$: $$ dg_t= \mu g_t dt + (\cdots) dW $$ you have for $m_t=g_t/B_t$, by Ito's lemma: $$ d m_t = [-r m_t + (\mu g_t) (1/B_t)] dt + (\cdots) dW $$ which is a martingale (no drift condition) provided that $$\mu = r$$.
As you can see, the diffusion term plays no role in this context. Being the asset dynamics normal, lognormal or with stochastic volatility doesn't matter (**)
(*) the one in which you "live", that is the one under which you require a risk premium, on the top of the risk free return $r$, for taking the risk of holding the risky asset $S_t$.
(**) for your future reference: the volatility doesn't change under change of measure (take a look at Chap 2 of Brigo-Mercurio on Interest rates derivatives). It's an advanced concept, maybe better start from the basis: Bjork "Arbitrage theory in continuous time" Chap 10.
## Answer by user16651 (score 0)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/28198
You can use this article
- Probability distribution of returns in the Heston model with stochastic volatility
Let $$\begin{align} & d{{S}_{t}}=r{{S}_{t}}dt+\sqrt{{{\nu }_{t}}}\left( \rho dW_{1}^{Q}(t)+\sqrt{1-{{\rho }^{2}}}dW_{2}^{Q}(t) \right) \\ & d{{v}_{t}}=\kappa (\theta -{{v}_{t}}){{d}{t}}+{{\sigma }_{v}}\sqrt{{{\nu }_{t}}}dW_{1}^{Q}(t) \\ \end{align}\ $$
we can show
$${{S}_{T}}={{S}_{t}}\exp(X_t)\tag 1$$ where $$X_t= \left( r\tau-\frac{1}{2}\int_{t}^{T}{{{v}_{s}}}ds+\rho \int_{t}^{T}{\sqrt{{{v}_{s}}}}dW_{1}^{Q}(s)+\sqrt{1-{{\rho }^{2}}}\int_{t}^{T}{\sqrt{{{v}_{s}}}}dW_{2}^{Q}(s) \right)\tag 2$$ and $$v_t=v_s+\kappa\theta(t-s)-\kappa\int_{s}^{t}{{{v}_{u}}}du+\sigma_v\int_{s}^{t}\sqrt{v_u}dW_1^{Q}(u)$$ As you know, the conditional on a realized value of $v_s$, the random variable $2c_t v_t$ follows a non-central chi-square distribution, where $$c_t=\frac{2\kappa}{\sigma_v^2(1-e^{-\kappa(t-s)})}\tag 3$$ therefore you can do this procedure :
- Generate a sample from the distribution of $v_t$ given $v_s$.
- Generate a sample from the distribution of $\int_{s}^{t}{{{v}_{u}}}du$ given $v_t$ and $v_s$.
- Recover $\int_{t}^{T}{\sqrt{{{v}_{s}}}}dW_{1}^{Q}(s)$ from $(1),(2)$ given $v_t$, $v_s$ and $\int_{t}^{T}{{{v}_{s}}}ds$.
- Generate a sample from the distribution of $S_t$ given $\int_{t}^{T}{\sqrt{{{v}_{s}}}}dW_{1}^{Q}(s)$ and $\int_{t}^{T}{{{v}_{s}}}ds$.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.