12

I am having difficulty in understanding the solution for a GBM given the SDE:

$$dY(t)=\mu \ Y(t) \ dt + \sigma \ Y(t) \ dZ(t)$$ or $$\frac{dY(t)}{Y(t)}=\mu \ dt + \sigma \ dZ(t)$$

The solution for the above SDE is:

$$\int_0^t\frac{dY(t)}{Y(t)} = \int_0^t\mu \ ds + \int_0^t\sigma \ dZ(s)$$ $$Y(t) = Y(0)e^{(\mu-\frac{\sigma^2}{2})t+\sigma\ Z(t)}$$

What I can't understand is, how does this,

$$\int_0^t\frac{dY(t)}{Y(t)}=\ lnY(t) - \ lnY(0)$$

become this,

$$Y(t) = Y(0)e^{(\mu-\frac{\sigma^2}{2})t+\sigma \ Z(t)}$$

This part, $-\frac{\sigma^2}{2}$ is extra in the exponent. How?

Thank you in advance!

Jay Zha
  • 7,792
Nehal
  • 125

2 Answers2

13

Your integration step is wrong. $Z$ here refers to Brownian motion, and thus you need to apply Ito Integration.

One way I like to see the extra drift is needed, is that we take derivative of the integration result, and see if they match the SDE or not, using Ito Lemma.

So if $Y_t =f(t, Z_t)$, with $f(t,z)=f(0, Z_0)e^{(\mu-\frac{\sigma^2}{2})t+\sigma z}$, where $Z_t$ is an adapted stochastic process, we have:

$$dY_t=df(t, Z_t)=\frac{\partial f(t, Z_t)}{\partial t} dt+ \frac{\partial f(t, Z_t)}{\partial z}dZ_t + \frac{1}{2} \cdot\frac{\partial^2 f(t, Z_t)}{\partial z^2}(dZ_t)^2$$

And for $Z_t$ being Brownian motion, we also have $(dZ_t)^2=dt$

Now let's plug in for the question here: $$Y_t= Y_t(0)e^{(\mu-\frac{\sigma^2}{2})t+\sigma Z_t}$$

$$dY_t=(\mu-\frac{\sigma^2}{2})Y_tdt + \sigma Y_tdZ_t + \frac{1}{2}\sigma\sigma Y_t(dZ_t)^2$$ $$=(\mu-\frac{\sigma^2}{2})Y_tdt + \sigma Y_tdZ_t + \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2 Y_tdt$$ Thus $$dY_t=\mu Y_tdt + \sigma Y_tdZ_t$$

Which means that the $Y$ we get is the solution for the SDE.

EDIT

So OP wants to solve instead of see why that extra drift exists. Basically integration and derivative are the same thing, just notations:

So the following integration is Ito, $Y$ is not smooth enough for you to apply the calculus rule you are familiar with. $$\int \frac{dY}{Y} \color{red}\ne \ln(Y)$$

Notice $$d(\ln Y)=\frac{dY}{Y} -\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{Y^2}(dY )^2$$

$$(dY)^2=(\mu Y_tdt + \sigma Y_tdZ_t)^2=\sigma^2Y^2 dt$$ We also know $\frac{dY}{Y}$ from our original SDE.

Plug them in and we get:

$$d(\ln Y)=\mu dt + \sigma dZ-\frac{\sigma^2}{2} dt$$

Now the right-hand-side do not have $Y$, you'll be able to solve it, i.e.

$$\ln Y_t - \ln Y_0 = \int_0^t d(\ln Y) = \int_0^t (\mu -\frac{\sigma^2}{2})dt + \int_0^t \sigma dZ_t=(\mu -\frac{\sigma^2}{2})t + \sigma Z_t$$

Jay Zha
  • 7,792
  • I understand the Ito integration but I have to work it backwards. If I have only this part, which is the SDE $$dY_t=\mu Y_tdt + \sigma Y_tdZ_t$$ then how can I come to this, $$Y(t) = Y(0)e^{(\mu-\frac{\sigma^2}{2})t+\sigma\ Z(t)}$$ What are the steps involved here? – Nehal May 20 '17 at 00:19
  • @Nehal I thought you wanted to understand. I'll update my answer. – Jay Zha May 20 '17 at 00:33
  • @Nehal no problem, I've updated. So difficult to layout the formula over the phone.. – Jay Zha May 20 '17 at 00:51
  • So what you mean is that

    $$\int_0^t\frac{dY(t)}{Y(t)} = d[lnY(t)]

    – Nehal May 20 '17 at 01:15
  • @Nehal no, what I mean is that you cannot directly integrate dY/Y, but you could integrate over my last equation, as there is no Y on the right hand side. I explicitly have a $\ne$ sign for the direct integration, see that? – Jay Zha May 20 '17 at 01:17
  • @Nehal plus, how much do you know about BM, why Ito integration is like that, why we need the integrant to be right-continuous? etc. you might need to know about stochastic process a bit more. – Jay Zha May 20 '17 at 01:21
  • So what you mean is that

    $$\int_0^t\frac{dY(t)}{Y(t)} = d[lnY(t)]$$

    And that $d[lnY(t)] \neq lnY(t)-lnY(0)$ <--- I'm referring to the limits of the integral. Therefore, $$\int_0^t\frac{dY(t)}{Y(t)} = d[lnY(t)]=\mu \ dt + \sigma dZ(t) -\frac{sigma^2}{2} \ dt$$ Then we again integrate this part, $$d[lnY(t)]=\mu \ dt + \sigma dZ(t) -\frac{sigma^2}{2} \ dt$$ which is equal to $$Y(t)=Y(0) \ e^(\mu - \frac{sigma^2}{2})t +\sigma Z(t)$$

    Is this correct? And I'm sorry, I am bothering you a lot but how is $[dY(t)]^2 = \sigma^2 \ Y(t)^2 \ dt$

    – Nehal May 20 '17 at 01:26
  • Im appearing for SOA Exam MFE and all I have is a shitty Actex book that doesn't give any logic behind the equation and no derivation from the equation what so ever. So yes, I don't understand the Random Walk, BM and now the stochastic differential equations. And I only study from a book no one is here to teach me and no one in my country teaches the syllabus for Actuarial Sciences. Im in deep shit here. :P – Nehal May 20 '17 at 01:30
  • @Nehal No, your first equation in the comment is wrong already. That integration does not hold, it does NOT equal to $\ln Y$, the point is that you cannot apply ordinary calculus rule here. The reason is that $Y$ is not smooth enough for you to ignore its quadratic variation, so the calculus rule you are familiar with cannot be used here. Second question, I've updated my answer, and if you expand the$ (\cdot)^2$, you'll get it, Notice $(dt)^2=dZdt=dtdZ=0, (dZ)^2=dt $ – Jay Zha May 20 '17 at 01:33
  • @Nehal No worries, it's never too late to start. And we are here to help. I'm also graduate of MFE, so maybe we'll be alumni :) - best luck! – Jay Zha May 20 '17 at 01:35
  • Did you study from the ASM study manual? Can you suggest a good book for MFE? And I hope, God willingly, I'll be an alumni too. – Nehal May 20 '17 at 01:38
  • @Nehal I recommend the book of Stochastic Calculus For Finance (I and II) – Jay Zha May 20 '17 at 01:39
  • 1
    Another recommendation is P. Forsyth "An Introduction to Computational Finance. Without Agonizing Pain". The chapters discussing numerical approximations to the geometric BM should greatly help your understanding. – Lutz Lehmann May 20 '17 at 08:08
7

I believe the answer by @Yujie Zha can be simplified substantially. Thanks to @Dr. Lutz Lehmann for providing a link to this, my solution is the same as the solution on page 15, but with more intermediate steps. I decided to write this as this helped me to figure out why the solution to the Geometric Brownian Motion SDE is the way it is. If I am wrong, please correct me.

Solution

Let $$dY(t) = \mu Y(t)dt + \sigma Y(t)dZ(t) ~~~~\text{(1)}$$ be our geometric brownian motion (GBM). Now rewrite the above equation as $$dY(t) = a(Y(t), t)dt + b(Y(t), t)dZ(t)~~~~\text{(2)}$$ where $a = \mu Y(t)$, $b = \sigma Y(t)$. Both are functions of $Y(t)$ and $t$ (albeit simple ones). Now also let $f = \ln(Y(t))$. We can now apply Ito's lemma to equation $(2)$ under the function $f = \ln(Y(t))$. This leads to $$ df = d(\ln(Y(t)) = \left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial f}{\partial Y}a + \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2f}{\partial Y^2}b^2\right)dt + b\frac{\partial f}{\partial Y}dZ(t)~~~~\text{(3)}$$ Now we substitute all the derivatives in $(3)$ and the functions $a$ and $b$. Note that $\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} = \frac{\partial \ln(Y(t))}{\partial t} = 0 $ (partial derivative w.r.t. $t$ of a function of $Y$ is $0$), $\frac{\partial f}{\partial Y} = \frac{\partial \ln(Y)}{\partial Y} = \frac{1}{Y}$, $\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial Y^2} = -\frac{1}{Y^2}$ (standard calculus). We finally have that $$ (3) = \left( 0 + \frac{1}{Y}Y\mu + \frac{1}{2}\left(-\frac{1}{Y^2}\right)\sigma^2 Y^2\right)dt + \sigma Y \frac{1}{Y}dZ(t) = \left(\mu - \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right)dt + \sigma dZ(t)$$ i.e. $$d(\ln(Y(t)) = \left(\mu - \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right)dt + \sigma dZ(t)$$ Integrating this from $0$ to $t$ gives $$\ln(Y(t)) - \ln(Y(0)) = \left(\mu - \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right)t + \sigma (Z(t) - Z(0))$$ The integral $\int_0^{t}dZ(t)$ is, by the definition of the Ito integral, equal to $Z(t) - Z(0)$ as we are integrating the simple constant process $1$ w.r.t. Brownian motion.

If we rearrange and note that $Z(t) \sim N(0, t), Z(0) \sim N(0,0) = 0$ and are independent, we finnally get $$Y(t) = Y(0)\exp\left((\mu - \frac{\sigma^2}{2})t + \sigma Z(t)\right)$$

baibo
  • 619
  • 2
    I provided two solutions, and each solution is not significantly more complicated than the solution you posted here. Plus, why would you downvote my answer - I think by all means there is no reason to do so. – Jay Zha Nov 28 '19 at 05:08
  • Why is

    (partial derivative w.r.t. t

    of a function of Y is 0 ), true?

    – Mossa Feb 06 '24 at 11:44