Why Log Returns in Black–Scholes Include a Volatility Correction
Summary
The document explains why the mean of a Black–Scholes log return is (μ − ½σ²)Δt rather than μΔt. Starting from geometric Brownian motion for the asset price, Itô’s lemma yields a log price whose drift includes the negative half variance term. Brownian increments over the interval are normally distributed with mean zero and variance Δt, so scaling by volatility gives log returns variance σ²Δt and the stated adjusted mean.
The answers also interpret the adjustment as the distinction between arithmetic price growth and log growth, relating it to the shape of the lognormal price distribution and Jensen’s inequality. A generalized version allows drift and volatility to vary over time and shows the exponential solution to the price process. These explanations rely on the geometric Brownian motion assumptions; they do not establish that real asset returns follow this model. The martingale observation applies to the zero-drift case under the stated setup.
Key ideas
- Applying Itô’s lemma to geometric Brownian motion produces the negative half variance term in log-price drift.
- A Brownian increment over an interval has zero mean and variance equal to the interval length.
- The resulting log return has adjusted mean and variance proportional to elapsed time.
- The adjustment reflects the difference between log growth and price growth, and is consistent with a lognormal price distribution.
Tags
Full text
# Answer by math (score 7, accepted)
# In Black-Scholes, why is $\log{\frac{S_{t+\triangle t}}{S_t}} \sim \phi{((\mu - \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)\triangle t, \sigma^2 \triangle t)}$?
I don't understand why in the formula $$\log{\frac{S_{t+\triangle t}}{S_t}} \sim \phi{\left((\mu - \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)\triangle t, \sigma^2 \triangle t\right)}$$ the mean is $(\mu - \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)\triangle t$ and not just $\mu \triangle t$. I am aware that it is supposed to represent a lognormal distribution, but I guess I'm missing something, or that explanation isn't simple enough.
## Answer by math (score 7, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/7814
So we have the BS-Model
$$dS_t=S_t(\mu dt +\sigma dW_t)$$
W.l.o.g we assume $S_0=1$. Itô's lemma implies that
$$S_t=\exp{(\sigma W_t+(\mu-\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)t)}$$
We know that $W_t$ is normally distributed with mean $0$ and variance $t$. Now have a look at the r.v.
$$X_t=\sigma W_t+(\mu-\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)t$$
$\sigma W_t$ is the random part and $\gamma:=(\mu-\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)t$ is deterministic. Hence $E[X_t]=\sigma E[W_t]+\gamma=\sigma\cdot 0+\gamma=\gamma$. We also have the rule $Var(Y+a)=Var(Y)$, for constants $a$ and a r.v. $Y$. Hence the variance of $X_t$ is given by $\sigma^2t$.
By properties of the $\exp(x)$ function, we have
$$\frac{S_{t+\Delta t}}{S_t}=\exp{(\sigma(W_{t+\Delta t}-W_t)+(\mu-\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2})(t+\Delta t-t))=\exp{(\sigma(W_{t+\Delta t}-W_t)+(\mu-\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2})\Delta t)$$
You can apply the same argument as for $X_t$, using that $W_{t+\Delta t}-W_t\sim\mathcal{N}(0,\Delta t)$.
Why it should be the lognormal distribution should be clear. Let me know if something is not clear to you.
## Answer by vonjd (score 7)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/7816
Another way of seeing it is that the $-\frac12\sigma^2$ is just a correction term that comes from Jensen's inequality.
You need this when switching from supposedly symmetric returns (normal distribution) to the skewed price process (log-normal distribution).
## Answer by Matt Wolf (score 4)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/7815
The term 1/2 * sigma-squared arises through the application of Ito's Lemma. Keep in mind that the assumption is of a stock price that follows geometric BM with a constant drift and volatility. If you set up a delta-hedge portfolio and apply Ito calculus you will end up with an adjustment in the distribution by exactly above term. Another way of interpreting the term is that it represents the difference between the mean and the median of the log-normal distribution.
I do not have the book with me right now but Steven Shreve in his Stochastic Calculus II book has one of the most logical and easily understood derivations of Black Scholes through change of probability measure and it will make the shift in mean crystal clear.
I am not a huge fan of posting lengthy formulae nor am I a mathematician by heart so please take a look at the cited reference.
## Answer by wsw (score 3)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/7887
You can refer to Shreve's book, Volume II, Section 4.4.3 .
Assume that we have a generalized geometric Brownian motion $$dX_t = \sigma_t dW_t + (\alpha_t - \frac{1}{2} \sigma_t^2) dt ,$$ where the drift coefficient and the volatility are functions of $t$ also. $(dX_t)^2 = \sigma_t^2 dt + \mathcal{O}(dt^{3/2})$ .
Assume that the asset price is $$ S_t = S_0 e^{X_t} = S_0 e^{\int_0^t \sigma_s dW_s + \int_0^t \alpha_s - \frac{1}{2} \sigma_s^2 ds} .$$
Let $S_t = f(X_t)$ and apply Ito's lemma to $df(X_t)$. Note that $f(x) = S_0 e^{x}$ and $\partial_x f = S_0 e^{x} = \partial^2_x f$. $$dS_t = df(X_t) = \partial_x f(X_t) dX_t + \frac{1}{2} \partial^2_x f(X_t) dX_t^2 = \alpha_t S_0 e^{X_t} dt + \sigma_t S_t dW_t ,$$ or $$ \frac{dS_t}{S_t} = \alpha_t dt + \sigma_t dW_t .$$
In other words, for time-varying drift $\alpha_t$ and volatility $\sigma_t$, $ S_t = S_0 \exp\left(\int_0^t \sigma_s dW_s + \int_0^t \alpha_s - \frac{1}{2} \sigma_s^2 ds \right)$ is the solution to the stochastic differential equation $\frac{dS_t}{S_t} = \alpha_t dt + \sigma_t dW_t$.
Note that, if $\alpha = 0$ and $\sigma_t = \sigma$, $Z_t = \exp \left( \sigma W_t - \frac{1}{2} \sigma^2 t\right)$ is a martingale.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.