Stochastic Processes and Financial Mathematics
(part two)
15.2 Completeness
We’ll begin our analysis of the Black-Scholes model by showing that, in the Black-Scholes market, we can replicate any contingent claim that has a well-defined expectation. This is, essentially, what is meant by
completeness in the Black-Scholes model.
-
The Black-Scholes model uses Ito integration. Up to now, whenever we wrote an
Ito integral we were careful to check that . From now on, we won’t go to the trouble of checking this condition (although it does always hold). We’ll say slightly more
about this issue in Section 17.3
In the binomial model we discovered the importance of the so-called risk-neutral world, . We will see that the corresponding concept is equally important in continuous time.
-
The risk-netural world is the probability measure under
which evolves according to the SDE
Here, has the same distribution (i.e. Brownian motion) under as in the ‘real’ world .
The key point here is that, compared to the ‘real’ dynamics of , given in (15.1), we have replaced with .
The next lemma, at first glance, appears rather odd. It gives an awkward looking condition under which we can replicate a contingent claim. The point, as we will see immediately after, is that it turns out we can
always satisfy this condition.
For reasons that will become clear in Section 17.2, in this section we’ll tend to write (instead of our usual ) for contingent claims.
-
Let be a contingent claim in
the Black-Scholes market with exercise time . Suppose that the stochastic process
exists and has the stochastic differential
where , for some (continuous, adapated) stochastic process . Then there exists a replicating portfolio strategy for .
Proof: We are looking for a portfolio strategy such that both
Here, the first equation is ‘replication’ and the second is ‘self-financing’. We don’t use the risk neutral world yet (although we will in the proof of Theorem 15.2.5
below), so for now we have . The portfolio strategy we will use is
It is immediate that and are continuous and adapted, so is a portfolio strategy and we must check (15.6) and (15.7) hold. Recalling that , we note that
Hence , because . This checks (15.6)
i.e. replicates .
Now, for (15.7). We need to apply Ito’s formula to obtain , and we’ll do it using (15.8). This means that we need to calculate , which we can do using (15.5), meaning that we’ll need to start by finding an expression for .
Using Ito’s formula on we obtain that
This represents as an Ito process. Hence, using (15.5),
and we are now ready to apply Ito’s formula to . We obtain
The second and third lines are collecting terms, so that in the final line we can use the definitions of and from (15.2) and (15.1). Recalling the
definitions of and we now have
and, as required, we have checked (15.7) i.e. is self-financing. ∎
Proof: We define and look to apply Lemma 15.2.4. Note that since this conditional expectation is well defined. From Example 3.3.9
(which is easily adapted to continuous time) we have that is a martingale. Hence, since is just a constant, we know that is a martingale.
The key step is the next one: use the martingale representation theorem (Theorem 13.4.3), in the risk neutral world
, to say that under there exists a process such that
Let , as in Lemma 15.2.4. Under , the dynamics of are that , so in world
when we apply Ito’s formula to we obtain
Combining with (15.9) we obtain
This shows that (15.5) holds, with . Finally, we apply Lemma 15.2.4 and deduce that there exists a replicating portfolio strategy for . ∎
In some ways, Theorem 15.2.5 is very unsatisfactory. It asserts that (essentially, all) contingent claims can be replicated, but it doesn’t tell us how to find a
replicating portfolio. The root cause of this issue is that we used the martingale representation theorem – which told us the process existed, but couldn’t give us an explicit formula for . Without
calculating , we can’t calculate either.
Of course, to trade in a real market, we would need a replicating portfolio , or at the very least a way to numerically estimate one. With this in mind, in the next section, we will show how to find
a replicating portfolio explicitly. The argument we will use to do so relies on already knowing that a replicating portfolio exists; for this reason, we needed to prove Theorem 15.2.5 first.
Another issue is that we have not addressed is to ask if our replicating portfolio is unique. Potentially, two different replicating portfolios could exist. We will show in the next section that the replicating portfolio is,
in fact, unique.