Skip to content
All library documents

Simulating Geometric Brownian Motion Under the Risk-Neutral Measure

Article Quant Q&A · Author: MS07

Summary

The document explains how to simulate a geometric Brownian motion after changing from the physical measure, where the drift is the expected return, to the risk-neutral measure, where the drift is the risk-free rate. It derives the change in Brownian motion using Girsanov’s theorem and shows how substituting that shifted process changes the stock-price dynamics.

For a discretized path, the answer says to reuse the same standard-normal draw when mapping a particular physical-measure realization to its risk-neutral counterpart. When only distributions or statistical properties matter, independently generated standard-normal draws are acceptable as long as they are identically distributed and independent. The discussion addresses path correspondence rather than the broader assumptions required for a valid risk-neutral model, and it does not provide numerical examples or validation results.

Key ideas

  • Under the risk-neutral measure, the GBM drift is the risk-free rate.
  • Girsanov’s theorem shifts the Brownian motion to account for the difference between the physical drift and the risk-free rate.
  • Use the same normal draw when translating the same underlying path between measures.
  • Independent standard-normal draws are suitable when simulating statistical properties rather than matching a particular path.

Tags

Full text
# Simulation of the geometric Brownian motion under risk-neutral measure


# Simulation of the geometric Brownian motion under risk-neutral measure












I hope you can help me again. It is clear how to simulate the GBM: $S_{t_{k}}=S_{t_{k}}exp[(\mu-\frac{\sigma^2}{2})\Delta t_{k+1}+\sigma\sqrt{\Delta t_{k+1}}Z]$, where Z is a stand. norm. dis. RV.

By Girsanov define the BM: $\tilde{W}_t=W_t+\frac{\mu-r}{\sigma}t.$ The dynamic under Q is then given by $dS_t=S_trdt+S_t\sigma d\tilde{W}_t$.

But how do I simulate S under the risk-neutral measure Q? My idea is $S_{t_{k}}=S_{t_{k}}exp[(r-\frac{\sigma^2}{2})\Delta t_{k+1}+\sigma\sqrt{\Delta t_{k+1}}Z_1]$. But should I take a new RV $Z_1$?

Thanks for your help!

## Answer by Quantuple (score 4)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/33380

I suspect your expression of Gisanov has the wrong sign and should rather read: $$ \tilde{W}_t = W_t + \frac{\mu-r}{\sigma} t $$

Equivalently, in differential form $$ d\tilde{W}_t = dW_t + \frac{\mu-r}{\sigma} dt \tag{1} $$

Such that the dynamics under the physical measure $$ \frac{dS_t}{S_t} = \mu dt + \sigma dW_t $$ becomes, under the risk-neutral measure \begin{align} \frac{dS_t}{S_t} &= \mu dt + \sigma (d\tilde{W}_t - \frac{\mu-r}{\sigma} dt) \tag{see (1)} \\ &= (\mu - \mu + r) dt + \sigma d\tilde{W}_t \\ &= r dt + \sigma d\tilde{W}_t \end{align}

The discretised version of $(1)$ is \begin{align} \Delta \tilde{W}_t &= \Delta W_t + \frac{\mu-r}{\sigma} \Delta \\ &= Z \sqrt{\Delta} t + \frac{\mu-r}{\sigma} \Delta \end{align} with $Z \sim N(0,1)$. So yes if you're looking at the same realisation $\omega \in \Omega$ you should use the same draw from the standard normal $Z$. If you're only looking at statistical properties then it does not matter as long as your draws $Z_i$ are i.i.d.

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.