4: SINGLE-PERIOD MARKET MODELS [.03in]
Transcript of 4: SINGLE-PERIOD MARKET MODELS [.03in]
4: SINGLE-PERIOD MARKET MODELS
Marek RutkowskiSchool of Mathematics and Statistics
University of Sydney
Semester 2, 2016
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 1 / 87
General Single-Period Market Models
The main differences between the elementary and general singleperiod market models are:
The investor is allowed to invest in several risky securities instead ofonly one.The sample set is bigger, that is, there are more possible states ofthe world at time t = 1.
The sample space is Ω = ω1, ω2, . . . , ωk with F = 2Ω.
An investor’s personal beliefs about the future behaviour of stockprices are represented by the probability measure P(ωi) = pi > 0 fori = 1, 2, . . . , k.
The savings account B equals B0 = 1 and B1 = 1 + r for someconstant r > −1.
The price of the jth stock at t = 1 is a random variable on Ω.It is denoted by Sj
t for t = 0, 1 and j = 1, . . . , n.
A contingent claim X = (X(ω1), . . . , X(ωk)) is a random variableon the probability space (Ω,F ,P).
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 2 / 87
Questions
1 Under which conditions a general single-period market modelM = (B,S1, . . . , Sn) is arbitrage-free?
2 How to define a risk-neutral probability measure for a model?3 How to use a risk-neutral probability measure to analyse general
single-period market models?4 Under which conditions a general single-period market model is
complete?5 Is completeness of a market model related to the uniqueness of a
risk-neutral probability measure?6 How to define and compute the arbitrage price of an attainable claim?7 Can we still apply the risk-neutral valuation formula to compute the
arbitrage price of an attainable claim?8 How to deal with contingent claims that are not attainable?9 How to use the class of risk-neutral probability measures to value
non-attainable claims?
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 3 / 87
Outline
We will examine the following issues:
1 Trading Strategies and Arbitrage-Free Models
2 Fundamental Theorem of Asset Pricing
3 Examples of Market Models
4 Risk-Neutral Valuation of Contingent Claims
5 Completeness of Market Models
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 4 / 87
PART 1
TRADING STRATEGIES AND ARBITRAGE-FREE MODELS
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 5 / 87
Trading Strategy
Definition (Trading Strategy)
A trading strategy (or a portfolio) in a general single-period marketmodel is defined as the vector
(x, φ1, . . . , φn) ∈ Rn+1
where x is the initial wealth of an investor and φj stands for the numberof shares of the jth stock purchased at time t = 0.
If an investor adopts the trading strategy (x, φ1, . . . , φn) at timet = 0 then the cash value of his portfolio at time t = 1 equals
V1(x, φ1, . . . , φn) :=
(x−
n∑j=1
φjSj0
)(1 + r) +
n∑j=1
φjSj1.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 6 / 87
Wealth Process of a Trading Strategy
Definition (Wealth Process)
The wealth process (or the value process) of a trading strategy(x, φ1, . . . , φn) is the pair
(V0(x, φ1, . . . , φn), V1(x, φ1, . . . , φn)).
The real number V0(x, φ1, . . . , φn) is the initial endowment
V0(x, φ1, . . . , φn) := x
and the real-valued random variable V1(x, φ1, . . . , φn) represents the cashvalue of the portfolio at time t = 1
V1(x, φ1, . . . , φn) :=
(x−
n∑j=1
φjSj0
)(1 + r) +
n∑j=1
φjSj1.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 7 / 87
Gains (Profits and Losses) Process
The profits or losses an investor obtains from the investment canbe calculated by subtracting V0(·) from V1(·). This is called the(undiscounted) gains process.
The ‘gain’ can be negative; hence it may also represent a loss.
Definition (Gains Process)
The gains process is defined as G0(x, φ1, . . . , φn) = 0 and
G1(x, φ1, . . . , φn) := V1(x, φ1, . . . , φn)− V0(x, φ1, . . . , φn)
=
(x−
n∑j=1
φjSj0
)r +
n∑j=1
φj∆Sj1
where the random variable ∆Sj1 = Sj
1 − Sj0 represents the nominal change
in the price of the jth stock.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 8 / 87
Discounted Stock Price and Value Process
To understand whether the jth stock appreciates in real terms, weconsider the discounted stock prices of the jth stock
Sj0 := Sj
0 =Sj
0
B0, Sj
1 :=Sj
1
1 + r=Sj
1
B1.
Similarly, we define the discounted wealth process as
V0(x, φ1, . . . , φn) := x, V1(x, φ1, . . . , φn) :=V1(x, φ1, . . . , φn)
B1.
It is easy to see that
V1(x, φ1, . . . , φn) =
(x−
∑nj=1 φ
jSj0
)+∑n
j=1 φjSj
1
= x+∑n
j=1 φj(Sj
1 − Sj0).
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 9 / 87
Discounted Gains Process
Definition (Discounted Gains Process)
The discounted gains process for the investor is defined as
G0(x, φ1, . . . , φn) = 0
and
G1(x, φ1, . . . , φn) := V1(x, φ1, . . . , φn)− V0(x, φ1, . . . , φn)
=
n∑j=1
φj∆Sj1
where ∆Sj1 = Sj
1 − Sj0 is the change in the discounted price of the jth
stock.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 10 / 87
Arbitrage: Definition
The concept of an arbitrage in a general single-period market modelis essentially the same as in the elementary market model. It is worthnoting that the real-world probability P can be replaced here by anyequivalent probability measure Q.
Definition (Arbitrage)
A trading strategy (x, φ1, . . . , φn) in a general single-period market modelis called an arbitrage opportunity if
A.1. V0(x, φ1, . . . , φn) = 0,
A.2. V1(x, φ1, . . . , φn)(ωi) ≥ 0 for i = 1, 2, . . . , k,
A.3. EPV1(x, φ1, . . . , φn)
> 0, that is,
k∑i=1
V1(x, φ1, . . . , φn)(ωi)P(ωi) > 0.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 11 / 87
Arbitrage: Equivalent Conditions
The following condition is equivalent to A.3.
A.3′. There exists ω ∈ Ω such that V1(x, φ1, . . . , φn)(ω) > 0.
The definition of arbitrage can be formulated using the discounted valueand gains processes. This is sometimes very helpful.
Proposition (4.1)
A trading strategy (x, φ1, . . . , φn) in a general single-period market modelis an arbitrage opportunity if and only if one of the following conditionsholds:
1 Assumptions A.1-A.3 in the definition of arbitrage hold withV (x, φ1, . . . , φn) instead of V (x, φ1, . . . , φn).
2 x = 0 and A.2-A.3 in the definition of arbitrage are satisfied withG1(x, φ1, . . . , φn) instead of V1(x, φ1, . . . , φn).
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 12 / 87
Proof of Proposition 4.1
Proof of Proposition 4.1: First step.
We will show that the following two statements are true:
The definition of arbitrage and condition 1 in Proposition 4.1 areequivalent.
In Proposition 4.1, condition 1 is equivalent to condition 2.
To prove the first statement, we use the relationships betweenV (x, φ1, . . . , φn) and V (x, φ1, . . . , φn), that is,
V0(x, φ1, . . . , φn) = V0(x, φ1, . . . , φn) = x,
V1(x, φ1, . . . , φn) =1
1 + rV1(x, φ1, . . . , φn),
EPV1(x, φ1, . . . , φn)
=
1
1 + rEPV1(x, φ1, . . . , φn)
.
This shows that the first statement holds.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 13 / 87
Proof of Proposition 4.1
Proof of Proposition 4.1: Second step.
To prove the second statement, we recall the relation betweenV (x, φ1, . . . , φn) and G1(x, φ1, . . . , φn)
G1(x, φ1, . . . , φn) = V1(x, φ1, . . . , φn)− V0(x, φ1, . . . , φn)
= V1(x, φ1, . . . , φn)− x.
It is now clear that for x = 0 we have
G1(x, φ1, . . . , φn) = V1(x, φ1, . . . , φn).
Hence the second statement is true as well.
In fact, one can also observe that G1(x, φ1, . . . , φn) does not dependon x at all, since G1(x, φ1, . . . , φn) =
∑nj=1 φ
j∆Sj1.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 14 / 87
Verification of the Arbitrage-Free Property
It can be sometimes hard to check directly whether arbitrageopportunities exist in a given market model, especially when dealingwith several risky assets or in the multi-period setup.
We have introduced the risk-neutral probability measure in theelementary market model and we noticed that it can be used tocompute the arbitrage price of any contingent claim.
We will show that the concept of a risk-neutral probability measure isalso a convenient tool for checking whether a general single-periodmarket model is arbitrage-free or not.
In addition, we will argue that a risk-neutral probability measure canalso be used for the purpose of valuation of a contingent claim (eitherattainable or not).
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 15 / 87
Risk-Neutral Probability Measure
Definition (Risk-Neutral Probability Measure)
A probability measure Q on Ω is called a risk-neutral probabilitymeasure for a general single-period market model M if:
R.1. Q (ωi) > 0 for all ωi ∈ Ω,
R.2. EQ(∆Sj
1
)= 0 for j = 1, 2, . . . , n.
We denote by M the class of all risk-neutral probability measures forthe market model M.
Condition R.1 means that Q and P are equivalent probabilitymeasures. A risk-neutral probability measure is also known as anequivalent martingale measure.
Note that condition R.2 is equivalent to EQ(Sj
1
)= Sj
0 or, moreexplicitly,
EQ(Sj
1
)= (1 + r)Sj
0.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 16 / 87
Example: Stock Prices
Example (4.1)
We consider the following model featuring two stocks S1 and S2
on the sample space Ω = ω1, ω2, ω3.The interest rate r = 1
10 so that B0 = 1 and B1 = 1 + 110 .
We deal here with the market model M = (B,S1, S2).
The stock prices at t = 0 are given by S10 = 2 and S2
0 = 3.
The stock prices at t = 1 are represented in the table:
ω1 ω2 ω3
S11 1 5 3S2
1 3 1 6
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 17 / 87
Example: Value Process
Example (4.1 Continued)
For any trading strategy (x, φ1, φ2) ∈ R3, we have
V1(x, φ1, φ2) =(x− 2φ1 − 3φ2
)(1 +
1
10
)+ φ1S1
1 + φ2S21 .
We set φ0 := x− 2φ1 − 3φ2. Then V1(x, φ1, φ2) equals
V1(x, φ1, φ2)(ω1) = φ0
(1 +
1
10
)+ φ1 + 3φ2,
V1(x, φ1, φ2)(ω2) = φ0
(1 +
1
10
)+ 5φ1 + φ2,
V1(x, φ1, φ2)(ω3) = φ0
(1 +
1
10
)+ 3φ1 + 6φ2.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 18 / 87
Example: Gains Process
Example (4.1 Continued)
The increments ∆Sj1 are represented by the following table
ω1 ω2 ω3
∆S11 -1 3 1
∆S21 0 -2 3
The gains G1(x, φ1, φ2) are thus given by
G1(x, φ1, φ2)(ω1) =1
10φ0 − φ1 + 0φ2,
G1(x, φ1, φ2)(ω2) =1
10φ0 + 3φ1 − 2φ2,
G1(x, φ1, φ2)(ω3) =1
10φ0 + φ1 + 3φ2.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 19 / 87
Example: Discounted Stock Prices
Example (4.1 Continued)
Out next goal is to compute the discounted wealth processV (x, φ1, φ2) and the discounted gains process G1(x, φ1, φ2).
To this end, we first compute the discounted stock prices.
Of course, Sj0 = Sj
0 for j = 1, 2.
The following table represents the discounted stock prices Sj1 for
j = 1, 2 at time t = 1
ω1 ω2 ω3
S11
1011
5011
3011
S21
3011
1011
6011
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 20 / 87
Example: Discounted Value Process
Example (4.1 Continued)
The discounted value process V (x, φ1, φ2) is thus given by
V0(x, φ1, φ2) = V0(x, φ1, φ2) = x
and
V1(x, φ1, φ2)(ω1) = φ0 +10
11φ1 +
30
11φ2,
V1(x, φ1, φ2)(ω2) = φ0 +50
11φ1 +
10
11φ2,
V1(x, φ1, φ2)(ω3) = φ0 +30
11φ1 +
60
11φ2,
where φ0 = x− 2φ1 − 3φ2 is the amount of cash invested in B attime 0 (as opposed to the initial wealth given by x).
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 21 / 87
Example: Discounted Gains Process
Example (4.1 Continued)
The increments of the discounted stock prices equal
ω1 ω2 ω3
∆S11 −12
112811
811
∆S21 − 3
11 −2311
2711
Hence the discounted gains G1(x, φ1, φ2) are given by
G1(x, φ1, φ2)(ω1) = −12
11φ1 − 3
11φ2,
G1(x, φ1, φ2)(ω2) =28
11φ1 − 23
11φ2,
G1(x, φ1, φ2)(ω3) =8
11φ1 +
27
11φ2.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 22 / 87
Example: Arbitrage-Free Property
Example (4.1 Continued)
The condition G1(x, φ1, φ2) ≥ 0 is equivalent to
−12φ1 − 3φ2 ≥ 0
28φ1 − 23φ2 ≥ 0
8φ1 + 27φ2 ≥ 0
Can we find (φ1, φ2) ∈ R2 such that all inequalities are valid andat least one of them is strict?
It appears that the answer is negative, since the unique vectorsatisfying all inequalities above is (φ1, φ2) = (0, 0).
Therefore, the single-period market model M = (B,S1, S2) isarbitrage-free.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 23 / 87
Example: Risk-Neutral Probability Measure
Example (4.1 Continued)
We will now show that this market model admits a unique risk-neutralprobability measure on Ω = ω1, ω2, ω3.Let us denote qi = Q(ωi) for i = 1, 2, 3. From the definition of arisk-neutral probability measure, we obtain the following linear system
−12
11q1 +
28
11q2 +
8
11q3 = 0
− 3
11q1 −
23
11q2 +
27
11q3 = 0
q1 + q2 + q3 = 1
The unique solution equals Q = (q1, q2, q3) =(
4780 ,
1580 ,
1880
).
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 24 / 87
PART 2
FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF ASSET PRICING
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 25 / 87
Fundamental Theorem of Asset Pricing (FTAP)
In Example 4.1, we have checked directly that the market modelM = (B,S1, S2) is arbitrage-free.
In addition, we have shown that the unique risk-neutral probabilitymeasure exists in this model.
Is there any relation between no arbitrage property of a market modeland the existence of a risk-neutral probability measure?
The following important result, known as the FTAP, gives a completeanswer to this question within the present setup.
The FTAP was first established by Harrison and Pliska (1981) and itwas later extended to continuous-time market models.
Theorem (FTAP)
A general single-period model M = (B,S1, . . . , Sn) is arbitrage-free ifand only if there exists a risk-neutral probability measure for M, that is,M 6= ∅.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 26 / 87
Proof of (⇐ ) in FTAP
Proof of (⇐ ) in FTAP.
(⇐) We first prove the ‘if’ part.
We assume that M 6= ∅, so that a risk-neutral probability measure Qexists.
Let (0, φ) = (0, φ1, . . . , φn) be any trading strategy with null initialendowment. Then for any Q ∈M
EQ(V1(0, φ)
)= EQ
( n∑j=1
φj∆Sj1
)=
n∑j=1
φj EQ(∆Sj
1
)︸ ︷︷ ︸=0
= 0.
If we assume that V1(0, φ) ≥ 0 then the last equation implies that theequality V1(0, φ)(ω) = 0 must hold for all ω ∈ Ω.
Hence no trading strategy satisfying all conditions of an arbitrageopportunity may exist.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 27 / 87
Geometric Interpretation of X and Q
The proof of the implication (⇒) in the FTAP needs somepreparation, since it is based on geometric arguments.
Any random variable on Ω can be identified with a vector in Rk,specifically,
X = (X(ω1), . . . , X(ωk))T = (x1, . . . , xk)T ∈ Rk.
An arbitrary probability measure Q on Ω can also be interpreted as avector in Rk
Q = (Q(ω1), . . . ,Q(ωk)) = (q1, . . . , qk) ∈ Rk.
We note that
EQ (X) =
k∑i=1
X(ωi)Q(ωi) =
k∑i=1
xiqi = 〈X,Q〉
where 〈·, ·〉 denotes the inner product of two vectors in Rk.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 28 / 87
Auxiliary Subsets of Rk
We define the following classes:
W =X ∈ Rk
∣∣∣X = V1(0, φ1, . . . , φn) for some φ1, . . . , φn
W⊥ =Z ∈ Rk | 〈X,Z〉 = 0 for all X ∈W
The set W is the image of the map V1(0, ·, . . . , ·) : Rn → Rk.
We note that W represents all discounted values at t = 1 of tradingstrategies with null initial endowment.
The set W⊥ is the set of all vectors in Rk orthogonal to W.
We introduce the following sets of k-dimensional vectors:
A =X ∈ Rk
∣∣X 6= 0, xi ≥ 0 for i = 1, . . . , k
P+ =
Q ∈ Rk
∣∣∣ k∑i=1
qi = 1, qi > 0
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 29 / 87
W and W⊥ as Vector Spaces
Corollary
The sets W and W⊥ are vector (linear) subspaces of Rk.
Proof.
It suffices to observe that the map V1(0, ·, . . . , ·) : Rn → Rk is linear.
In other words, for any trading strategies (0, η1, . . . , ηn) and(0, κ1, . . . , κn) and arbitrary real numbers α, β
(0, φ1, . . . , φn) = α(0, η1, . . . , ηn) + β(0, κ1, . . . , κn)
is also a trading strategy. Hence W is a vector subspace of Rk. Inparticular, the zero vector (0, 0, . . . , 0) belongs to W.
It us easy to check that W⊥, that is, the orthogonal complement ofW is a vector subspace as well.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 30 / 87
Risk-Neutral Probability Measures
Lemma (4.1)
A single-period market model M = (B,S1, . . . , Sn) is arbitrage free ifand only if W ∩ A = ∅.
Proof.
The proof hinges on an application of Proposition 4.1.
Lemma (4.2)
A probability measure Q is a risk-neutral probability measure for asingle-period market model M = (B,S1, . . . , Sn) if and only ifQ ∈W⊥ ∩ P+.
Hence the set M of all risk-neutral probability measures for the modelM satisfies M = W⊥ ∩ P+ and thus
M 6= ∅ ⇔ W⊥ ∩ P+ 6= ∅.M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 31 / 87
Proof of Lemma 4.2
Proof of (⇒) in Lemma 4.2.
(⇒) We assume that Q is a risk-neutral probability measure.
By the property R.1, it is obvious that Q belongs to P+.
Using the property R.2, we obtain for any vector X = V1(0, φ) ∈W
〈X,Q〉 = EQ(V1(0, φ)
)= EQ
( n∑j=1
φj∆Sj1
)=
n∑j=1
φj EQ(∆Sj
1
)︸ ︷︷ ︸=0
= 0.
We conclude that Q belongs to W⊥ as well.
Consequently, Q ∈W⊥ ∩ P+ as was required to show.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 32 / 87
Proof of Lemma 4.2
Proof of (⇐) in Lemma 4.2.
(⇐) We now assume that Q is an arbitrary vector in W⊥ ∩ P+.
Since Q ∈ P+, we see that Q defines a probability measure satisfyingcondition R.1.
It remains to show that Q satisfies condition R.2 as well. To this end,for a fixed (but arbitrary) j = 1, 2, . . . , n, we consider the tradingstrategy (0, φ1, . . . , φn) with
(φ1, . . . , φn) = (0, . . . , 0, 1, 0, . . . , 0) = ej .
This trading strategy only invests in the savings account and the jthasset.
The discounted wealth of this strategy is V1(0, ej) = ∆Sj1.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 33 / 87
Proof of Lemma 4.2
Proof of (⇐) in Lemma 4.2 (Continued).
SinceV1(0, ej) ∈W and Q ∈W⊥
we obtain
0 = 〈V1(0, ej),Q〉 = 〈∆Sj1,Q〉 = EQ
(∆Sj
1
).
Since j was arbitrary, we see that Q satisfies condition R.2.
Hence Q is a risk-neutral probability measure.
From Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2, we get the following purely geometricreformulation of the FTAP:
W ∩ A = ∅ ⇔ W⊥ ∩ P+ 6= ∅.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 34 / 87
Separating Hyperplane Theorem: Statement
Theorem (Separating Hyperplane Theorem)
Let B,C ⊂ Rk be nonempty, closed, convex sets such that B ∩ C = ∅.Assume, in addition, that at least one of these sets is compact (that is,bounded and closed). Then there exist vectors a, y ∈ Rk such that
〈b− a, y〉 < 0 for all b ∈ B
and〈c− a, y〉 > 0 for all c ∈ C.
Proof of the Separating Hyperplane Theorem.
The proof can be found in any textbook of convex analysis or functionalanalysis. It is sketched in the course notes.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 35 / 87
Separating Hyperplane Theorem: Interpretation
Let the vectors a, y ∈ Rk be as in the statement of the SeparatingHyperplane Theorem
It is clear that y ∈ Rk is never a zero vector.
We define the (k − 1)-dimensional hyperplane H ⊂ Rk by setting
H = a+x ∈ Rk | 〈x, y〉 = 0
= a+ y⊥.
Then we say that the hyperplane H strictly separates the convexsets B and C.
Intuitively, the sets B and C lie on different sides of the hyperplaneH and thus they can be seen as geometrically separated by H.
Note that the compactness of at least one of the sets is a necessarycondition for the strict separation of B and C.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 36 / 87
Separating Hyperplane Theorem: Corollary
The following corollary is a consequence of the separating hyperplanetheorem.
It is more suitable for our purposes: it will be later applied to B = Wand C = A+ := X ∈ A | 〈X,P〉 = 1 ⊂ A.
Corollary (4.1)
Assume that B ⊂ Rk is a vector subspace and set C is a compact convexset such that B ∩ C = ∅. Then there exists a vector y ∈ Rk such that
〈b, y〉 = 0 for all b ∈ B
that is, y ∈ B⊥, and
〈c, y〉 > 0 for all c ∈ C.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 37 / 87
Proof of Corollary 4.1
Proof of Corollary 4.1: First step.
We note that any vector subspace of Rk is a closed and convex set.
From the separating hyperplane theorem, there exist a, y ∈ Rk suchthat the inequality
〈b, y〉 < 〈a, y〉
is satisfied for all vectors b ∈ B.
Since B is a vector subspace, the vector λb belongs to B for anyλ ∈ R. Hence for any b ∈ B and λ ∈ R we have
〈λb, y〉 = λ〈b, y〉 < 〈a, y〉.
This in turn implies that 〈b, y〉 = 0 for any vector b ∈ B, meaningthat y ∈ B⊥. Also, we have that 〈a, y〉 > 0.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 38 / 87
Proof of Corollary 4.1
Proof of Corollary 4.1: Second step.
To establish the second inequality, we observe that from the separatinghyperplane theorem, we obtain
〈c, y〉 > 〈a, y〉 for all c ∈ C.
Consequently, for any c ∈ C
〈c, y〉 > 〈a, y〉 > 0.
We conclude that 〈c, y〉 > 0 for all c ∈ C.
We now are ready to establish the implication (⇒ ) in the FTAP:
W ∩ A = ∅ ⇒ W⊥ ∩ P+ 6= ∅.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 39 / 87
Proof of (⇒ ) in FTAP: 1
Proof of (⇒ ) in FTAP: First step.
We assume that the model is arbitrage-free. From Lemma 4.1, this isequivalent to the condition W ∩ A = ∅.Our goal is to show that the class M is non-empty.
In view of Lemma 4.2, it thus suffices to show that
W ∩ A = ∅ ⇒ W⊥ ∩ P+ 6= ∅.
We define an auxiliary set A+ = X ∈ A | 〈X,P〉 = 1.Observe that A+ is a closed, bounded (hence compact) and convexsubset of Rk. Since A+ ⊂ A, it is clear that
W ∩ A = ∅ ⇒ W ∩ A+ = ∅.
Hence in the next step we may assume that W ∩ A+ = ∅.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 40 / 87
Proof of (⇒ ) in FTAP: 2
Proof of (⇒ ) in FTAP: Second step.
By applying Corollary 4.1 to B = W and C = A+, we see that thereexists a vector Y ∈W⊥ such that
〈X,Y 〉 > 0 for all X ∈ A+. (1)
Our goal is to show that Y can be used to define a risk-neutralprobability Q. We need first to show that yi > 0 for every i.
For this purpose, for any fixed i = 1, 2, . . . , k, we define
Xi = (P(ωi))−1 (0, . . . , 0, 1, 0 . . . , 0) = (P(ωi))
−1 ei
so that Xi ∈ A+ since
EP(Xi) = 〈Xi,P〉 = 1.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 41 / 87
Proof of (⇒ ) in FTAP: 3
Proof of (⇒ ) in FTAP: Third step.
Let yi be the ith component of Y . It follows from (1) that
0 < 〈Xi, Y 〉 = (P(ωi))−1 yi
and thus yi > 0 for all i = 1, 2, . . . , k. We set Q(ωi) = qi where
qi :=yi
y1 + · · ·+ yk= cyi > 0
It is clear that Q is a probability measure and Q ∈ P+.
Since Y ∈W⊥, Q = cY for some scalar c and W⊥ is a vector space,we have that Q ∈W⊥. We conclude that Q ∈W⊥ ∩ P+ so thatW⊥ ∩ P+ 6= ∅.From Lemma 4.2, Q is a risk-neutral probability and thus M 6= ∅.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 42 / 87
PART 3
EXAMPLES OF MARKET MODELS
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 43 / 87
Example: Arbitrage-Free Market Model
Example (4.1 Continued)
We consider the market model M = (B,S1, S2) introduced inExample 4.1.
The interest rate r = 110 so that B0 = 1 and B1 = 1 + 1
10 .
The stock prices at t = 0 are given by S10 = 2 and S2
0 = 3.
We have shown that the increments of the discounted stock prices S1
and S2 equal
ω1 ω2 ω3
∆S11 −12
112811
811
∆S21 − 3
11 −2311
2711
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 44 / 87
Example: Arbitrage-Free Market Model
Example (4.1 Continued)
The vector spaces W and W⊥ are given by
W =
α −12
288
+ β
−3−23
27
∣∣∣∣α, β ∈ R
and
W⊥ =
γ 47
1518
∣∣∣∣ γ ∈ R
.
We first show the model is arbitrage-free using Lemma 4.1.
It thus suffices to check that W ∩ A = ∅
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 45 / 87
Example: Arbitrage-Free Market Model
Example (4.1 Continued)
If there exists a vector X ∈W ∩ A then the following threeinequalities are satisfied by a vector X = (x1, x2, x3) ∈ R3
x1 = x1(α, β) = −12α− 3β ≥ 0
x2 = x2(α, β) = 28α− 23β ≥ 0
x3 = x3(α, β) = 8α+ 27β ≥ 0
with at least one strict inequality, where α, β ∈ R are arbitrary.
It can be shown that such a vector X ∈ R3 does not exist and thusW ∩ A = ∅. This is left as an easy exercise.
In view of Lemma 4.1, we conclude that the market model isarbitrage-free.
In the next step, our goal is to show that M is non-empty.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 46 / 87
Example: Arbitrage-Free Market Model
Example (4.1 Continued)
Lemma 4.2 tells us that M = W⊥ ∩ P+. If Q ∈W⊥ then
Q = γ
471518
for some γ ∈ R.
If Q ∈ P+ then 47γ + 15γ + 18γ = 1 so that γ = 180 > 0.
We conclude that the unique risk-neutral probability measure Q isgiven by
Q =1
80
471518
.
The FTAP confirms that the market model is arbitrage-free.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 47 / 87
Example: Market Model with Arbitrage
Example (4.2)
We consider the following model featuring two stocks S1 and S2 onthe sample space Ω = ω1, ω2, ω3.The interest rate r = 1
10 so that B0 = 1 and B1 = 1 + 110 .
The stock prices at t = 0 are given by S10 = 1 and S2
0 = 2 and thestock prices at t = 1 are represented in the table:
ω1 ω2 ω3
S11 1 1
2 3S2
152 4 1
10
Does this market model admit an arbitrage opportunity?
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 48 / 87
Example: Market Model with Arbitrage
Example (4.2 Continued)
Once again, we will analyse this problem using Lemma 4.1, Lemma4.2 and the FTAP.
To tell whether a model is arbitrage-free it suffices to know theincrements of discounted stock prices.
The increments of discounted stock prices are represented in thefollowing table
ω1 ω2 ω3
∆S11 − 1
11 − 611
2011
∆S21
311
1811 −21
11
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 49 / 87
Example: Market Model with Arbitrage
Example (4.2 Continued)
Recall thatG1(x, φ1, φ2) = φ1∆S1
1 + φ2∆S21
Hence, by the definition of W, we have
W =
α −1−620
+ β
318−21
∣∣∣∣α, β ∈ R
.
Let us take α = 3 and β = 1. Then we obtain the vector (0, 0, 39)T ,which manifestly belongs to A.
We conclude that W ∩ A 6= ∅ and thus, by Lemma 4.1, the marketmodel is not arbitrage-free.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 50 / 87
Example: Market Model with Arbitrage
Example (4.2 Continued)
We note that
W⊥ =
γ −6
10
∣∣∣ γ ∈ R
.
If there exists a risk-neutral probability measure Q thenQ ∈W⊥ ∩ P+.
Since Q ∈W⊥, we obtain Q(ω1) = −6Q(ω2).
However, Q ∈ P+ implies that Q(ω) > 0 for all ω ∈ Ω.
We conclude that W⊥ ∩ P+ = ∅ and thus, by Lemma 4.2, norisk-neutral probability measure exists, that is, M = ∅.Hence the FTAP confirms that the model is not arbitrage-free.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 51 / 87
PART 4
RISK-NEUTRAL VALUATION OF CONTINGENT CLAIMS
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 52 / 87
Contingent Claims
We now know how to check whether a given model is arbitrage-free.Hence the following question arises:
What should be the ‘fair’ price of a European call or put option ina general single-period market model?
In a general single-period market model, the idea of pricing Europeanoptions can be extended to any contingent claim.
Definition (Contingent Claim)
A contingent claim is a random variable X defined on Ω andrepresenting the payoff at the maturity date.
Derivatives nowadays are usually quite complicated and thus it makessense to analyse valuation and hedging of a general contingent claim,and not only European call and put options.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 53 / 87
No-Arbitrage Principle
Definition (Replication and Arbitrage Price)
A trading strategy (x, φ1, . . . , φn) is called a replicating strategy (ahedging strategy) for a claim X when V1(x, φ1, . . . , φn) = X. Then theinitial wealth is denoted as π0(X) and it is called the arbitrage price of X.
Proposition (No-Arbitrage Principle)
Assume that a contingent claim X can be replicated by means of a tradingstrategy (x, φ1, . . . , φn). Then the unique price of X at 0 consistent withno-arbitrage principle equals V0(x, φ1, . . . , φn) = x.
Proof.
If the price of X is higher (lower) than x, one can short sell (buy) Xand buy (short sell) the replicating portfolio. This will yield an arbitrageopportunity in the extended market in which X is traded at time t = 0.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 54 / 87
Example: Stochastic Volatility Model
In the elementary market model, a replicating strategy for anycontingent claim always exists. However, in a general single-periodmarket model, a replicating strategy may fail to exist for some claims.
For instance, when there are more sources of randomness than thereare stocks available for investment then replicating strategies do notexist for some claims.
Example (4.3)
Consider a market model consisting of bond B, stock S, and arandom variable v called the volatility.
The volatility determines whether the stock price can make eithera big or a small jump.
This is a simple example of a stochastic volatility model.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 55 / 87
Example: Stochastic Volatility Model
Example (4.3 Continued)
The sample space is given by
Ω = ω1, ω2, ω3, ω4
and the volatility is defined as
v(ωi) =
h for i = 1, 4,l for i = 2, 3.
We furthermore assume that 0 < l < h < 1. The stock price S1 isgiven by
S1(ωi) =
(1 + v(ωi))S0 for i = 1, 2,(1− v(ωi))S0 for i = 3, 4.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 56 / 87
Example: Stochastic Volatility Model
Example (4.3 Continued)
Unlike in examples we considered earlier, the amount by which thestock price in this market model jumps is random.
It is easy to check that the model is arbitrage-free whenever
1− h < 1 + r < 1 + h.
We claim that for some contingent claims a replicating strategy doesnot exist. In that case, we say that a claim is not attainable.
To justify this claim, we consider the digital call option X with thepayoff
X =
1 if S1 > K,0 otherwise,
where K > 0 is the strike price.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 57 / 87
Example: Stochastic Volatility Model
Example (4.3 Continued)
We assume that (1 + l)S0 < K < (1 + h)S0, so that
(1− h)S0 < (1− l)S0 < (1 + l)S0 < K < (1 + h)S0
and thus
X(ωi) =
1 for i = 1,0 otherwise.
Suppose that (x, φ) is a replicating strategy for X. EqualityV1(x, φ) = X becomes
(x− φS0)
1 + r1 + r1 + r1 + r
+ φ
(1 + h)S0
(1 + l)S0
(1− l)S0
(1− h)S0
=
1000
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 58 / 87
Example: Stochastic Volatility Model
Example (4.3 Continued)
Upon setting β = φS0 and α = (1 + r)x− φS0r, we see that theexistence of a solution (x, φ) to this system is equivalent to theexistence of a solution (α, β) to the system
α
1111
+ β
hl−l−h
=
1000
It is easy to see that the above system of equations has no solutionand thus a digital call is not an attainable contingent claim withinthe framework of the stochastic volatility model.
Intuitively, the randomness generated by the volatility cannot behedged, since the volatility is not a traded asset.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 59 / 87
Valuation of Attainable Contingent Claims
We first recall the definition of attainability of a contingent claim.
Definition (Attainable Contingent Claim)
A contingent claim X is called to be attainable if there exists areplicating strategy for X.
Let us summarise the known properties of attainable claims:
It is clear how to price attainable contingent claims by the replicatingprinciple.
There might be more than one replicating strategy, but no arbitrageprinciple leads the initial wealth x to be unique.
In the two-state single-period market model, one can use therisk-neutral probability measure to price contingent claims.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 60 / 87
Risk-Neutral Valuation Formula
Our next objective is to extend the risk-neutral valuation formulato any attainable contingent claim within the framework of a generalsingle-period market model.
Proposition (4.2)
Let X be an attainable contingent claim and let Q ∈M be any risk-neutralprobability measure. Then the arbitrage price of X at t = 0 equals
π0(X) = EQ
(X
1 + r
).
Proof of Proposition 4.2.
Recall that a trading strategy (x, φ1, . . . , φn) is a replicating strategy forX whenever V1(x, φ1, . . . , φn) = X
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 61 / 87
Proof of the Risk-Neutral Valuation Formula
Proof of Proposition 4.2.
We divide both sides by 1 + r, to obtain
X
1 + r=V1(x, φ1, . . . , φn)
1 + r= V1(x, φ1, . . . , φn).
Hence
1
1 + rEQ (X) = EQ
V1(x, φ1, . . . , φn)
= EQ
x+ G1(x, φ1, . . . , φn)
= x+ EQ
n∑j=1
φj∆Sj1
= x+n∑
j=1
φj EQ(∆Sj
1
)= x. (from R.2.)
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 62 / 87
Example: Stochastic Volatility Model
Example (4.3 Continued)
Proposition 4.2 shows that risk-neutral probability measures can beused to price attainable contingent claims.
Consider the market model introduced in Example 4.3 with theinterest rate r = 0.
Recall that in this case the model is arbitrage-free since1− h < 1 + r = 1 < 1 + h.
The increments of the discounted stock price S are represented inthe following table
ω1 ω2 ω3 ω4
∆S1 hS0 lS0 −lS0 −hS0
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 63 / 87
Example: Stochastic Volatility Model
Example (4.3 Continued)
By the definition of the linear subspace W ⊂ R4, we have
W =
γ
hl−l−h
∣∣∣∣∣ γ ∈ R
.
The orthogonal complement of W is thus the three-dimensionalsubspace of R4 given by
W⊥ =
z1z2z3z4
∈ R4
∣∣∣∣∣ 〈
z1z2z3z4
,
hl−l−h
〉 = 0
.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 64 / 87
Example: Stochastic Volatility Model
Example (4.3 Continued)
Recall that a vector (q1, q2, q3, q4)> belongs to P+ if and only ifthe equality
∑4i=1 qi = 1 holds and qi > 0 for i = 1, 2, 3, 4.
Since the set of risk-neutral probability measures is given byM = W⊥ ∩ P+, we find that
q1q2q3q4
∈M ⇔
(q1, q2, q3, q4)>∣∣ qi > 0,
4∑i=1
qi = 1
and h(q1 − q4) + l(q2 − q3) = 0.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 65 / 87
Example: Stochastic Volatility Model
Example (4.3 Continued)
The class M of all risk-neutral probability measures in our stochasticvolatility model is therefore given by
M =
q1q2q3
1− q1 − q2 − q3
∣∣∣∣∣ q1 > 0, q2 > 0, q3 > 0,
q1 + q2 + q3 < 1,l(q2 − q3) = h(1− 2q1 − q2 − q3)
.
This set appears to be non-empty and thus we conclude that ourstochastic volatility model is arbitrage-free.
Recall that we have already shown that the digital call option is notattainable if
(1 + l)S0 < K < (1 + h)S0.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 66 / 87
Example: Stochastic Volatility Model
Example (4.3 Continued)
It is not difficult to check that for every 0 < q1 <12 there exists a
probability measure Q ∈M such that Q(ω1) = q1.
Indeed, it suffices to take q1 ∈ (0, 12) and to set
q4 = q1, q2 = q3 =1
2− q1.
We apply the risk-neutral valuation formula to the digital callX = (1, 0, 0, 0)>. For Q = (q1, q2, q3, q4)> ∈M, we obtain
EQ(X) = q1 · 1 + q2 · 0 + q3 · 0 + q4 · 0 = q1.
Since q1 is any number from (0, 12), we see that every value from the
open interval (0, 12) can be achieved.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 67 / 87
Extended Market Model and No-Arbitrage Principle
We no longer assume that a contingent claim X is attainable.
Definition
A price π0(X) of a contingent claim X is said to be consistent with theno-arbitrage principle if the extended model, which consists of B, theoriginal stocks S1, . . . , Sn, as well as an additional asset Sn+1 satisfyingSn+1
0 = π0(X) and Sn+11 = X, is arbitrage-free.
The interpretation of Definition 4.1 is as follows:
We assume that the model M = (B,S1, . . . , Sn) is arbitrage-free.
We regard the additional asset as a tradable risky asset in theextended market model M = (B,S1, . . . , Sn+1).
We postulate its price at time 0 should be selected in such a way thatthe extended market model M is still arbitrage-free.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 68 / 87
Valuation of Non-Attainable Claims
We already know that the risk-neutral valuation formula returns thearbitrage price for any attainable claim.
The next result shows that it also yields a price consistent with theno-arbitrage principle when it is applied to any non-attainable claim.
The price obtained in this way is not unique, however.
Proposition (4.3)
Let X be a possibly non-attainable contingent claim and Q is an arbitraryrisk-neutral probability measure. Then π0(X) given by
π0(X) := EQ
(X
1 + r
)(2)
defines a price at t = 0 for the claim X that is consistent with theno-arbitrage principle.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 69 / 87
Proof of Proposition 4.3
Proof of Proposition 4.3.
Let Q ∈M be an arbitrary risk-neutral probability for M.
We will show that Q is also a risk-neutral probability measure for theextended model M = (B,S1, . . . , Sn+1) in which Sn+1
0 = π0(X) andSn+1
1 = X.
For this purpose, we check that
EQ
(∆Sn+1
1
)= EQ
(X
1 + r− π0(X)
)= 0
and thus Q ∈ M is indeed a risk-neutral probability in the extendedmarket model.
By the FTAP, the extended model M is arbitrage-free. Hence theprice π0(X) given by (2) complies with the no-arbitrage principle.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 70 / 87
PART 5
COMPLETENESS OF MARKET MODELS
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 71 / 87
Complete and Incomplete Models
The non-uniqueness of arbitrage prices is a serious theoreticalproblem, which is still not completely resolved.
We categorise market models into two classes: complete andincomplete models.
Definition (Completeness)
A financial market model is called complete if for any contingent claim Xthere exists a replicating strategy (x, φ) ∈ Rn+1. A model is incompletewhen there exists a claim X for which a replicating strategy does not exist.
Given an arbitrage-free and complete model, the issue of pricing allcontingent claims is completely solved.
How can we tell whether a given model is complete?
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 72 / 87
Algebraic Criterion for Market Completeness
Proposition (4.4)
Assume that a single-period market model M = (B,S1, . . . , Sn) definedon the sample space Ω = ω1, . . . , ωk is arbitrage-free. Then M iscomplete if and only if the k × (n+ 1) matrix A
A =
1 + r S1
1(ω1) · · · Sn1 (ω1)
1 + r S11(ω2) · · · Sn
1 (ω2)· · · ·· · · ·· · · ·
1 + r S11(ωk) · · · Sn
1 (ωk)
= (A0, A1, . . . , An)
has a full row rank, that is, rank (A) = k. Equivalently, M is completewhenever the linear subspace spanned by the vectors A0, A1, . . . , An
coincides with the full space Rk.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 73 / 87
Proof of Proposition 4.4
Proof of Proposition 4.4.
By the linear algebra, A has a full row rank if and only if for everyX ∈ Rk the equation AZ = X has a solution Z ∈ Rn+1.
If we set φ0 = x−∑n
j=1 φjSj
0 then we have1 + r S1
1(ω1) · · · Sn1 (ω1)
1 + r S11(ω2) · · · Sn
1 (ω2)· · · ·· · · ·· · · ·
1 + r S11(ωk) · · · Sn
1 (ωk)
φ0
φ1
···φn
=
V1(ω1)V1(ω2)···
V1(ωk)
where V1(ωi) = V1(x, φ)(ωi).
This shows that computing a replicating strategy for X is equivalentto solving the equation AZ = X.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 74 / 87
Example: Incomplete Model
Example (4.3 Continued)
Consider the stochastic volatility model from Example 4.3.
We already know that this model is incomplete, since the digital callis not an attainable claim.
The matrix A is given by
A =
1 + r S1
1(ω1)1 + r S1
1(ω2)1 + r S1
1(ω3)1 + r S1
1(ω4)
The rank of A is 2, and thus it is not equal to k = 4.
In view of Proposition 4.4, this confirms that this market model isincomplete.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 75 / 87
Probabilistic Criterion for Attainability
Proposition 4.4 yields a method for determining whether a marketmodel is complete.
Given an incomplete model, how to recognize an attainable claim?
Recall that if a model M is arbitrage-free then the class M isnon-empty.
Proposition (4.5)
Assume that a single-period model M = (B,S1, . . . , Sn) is arbitrage-free.Then a contingent claim X is attainable if and only if the expected value
EQ
(X
1 + r
)has the same value for all risk-neutral probability measures Q ∈M.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 76 / 87
Proof of (⇒) in Proposition 4.5: 1
Proof of Proposition 4.5.
(⇒) It is easy to deduce from Proposition 4.2 that if a contingent claimX is attainable then the expected value
EQ((1 + r)−1X
)has the same value for all Q ∈M. To this end, it is possible to argue bycontradiction. We leave the details as an exercise.
(⇐) (MATH3975) We prove this implication by contrapositive. Let usthus assume that the contingent claim X is not attainable. Our goal isto find two risk-neutral probabilities, say Q and Q, for which
EQ((1 + r)−1X
)6= EQ
((1 + r)−1X
). (3)
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 77 / 87
Proof of (⇐) in Proposition 4.5: 2
Proof of Proposition 4.5.
Consider the matrix A introduced in Proposition 4.4.
Since the claim X is not attainable, there is no solution Z ∈ Rn+1
to the linear systemAZ = X.
We define the following subsets of Rk
B = image (A) =AZ |Z ∈ Rn+1
⊂ Rk
and C = X.Then B is a proper subspace of Rk and, obviously, the set C isconvex and compact. Moreover, B ∩ C = ∅.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 78 / 87
Proof of (⇐) in Proposition 4.5: 3
Proof of Proposition 4.5.
In view of Corollary 4.1, there exists a non-zero vectorY = (y1, . . . , yk) ∈ Rk such that
〈b, Y 〉 = 0 for all b ∈ B,〈c, Y 〉 > 0 for all c ∈ C.
In view of the definition of B and C, this means that for everyj = 0, 1, . . . , n
〈Aj , Y 〉 = 0 and 〈X,Y 〉 > 0 (4)
where Aj is the jth column of the matrix A.
It is worth noting that the vector Y depends on X.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 79 / 87
Proof of (⇐) in Proposition 4.5: 4
Proof of Proposition 4.5.
We assumed that the market model is arbitrage-free and thus, by theFTAP, the class M is non-empty.
Let Q ∈M be an arbitrary risk-neutral probability measure.
We may choose a real number λ > 0 to be small enough in order toensure that for every i = 1, 2, . . . , k
Q(ωi) := Q(ωi) + λ(1 + r)yi > 0. (5)
In the next step, our next goal is to show that Q is also a risk-neutralprobability measure and it is different from Q.
In the last step, we will show that inequality (3) is valid.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 80 / 87
Proof of (⇐) in Proposition 4.5: 5
Proof of Proposition 4.5.
From the definition of A in Proposition 4.4 and the first equality in(4) with j = 0, we obtain
k∑i=1
λ(1 + r)yi = λ〈A0, Y 〉 = 0.
It then follows from (5) that
k∑i=1
Q(ωi) =
k∑i=1
Q(ωi) +
k∑i=1
λ(1 + r)yi = 1
and thus Q is a probability measure on the space Ω.
In view of (5), it is clear that Q satisfies condition R.1.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 81 / 87
Proof of (⇐) in Proposition 4.5: 6
Proof of Proposition 4.5.
It remains to check that Q satisfies also condition R.2.
We examine the behaviour under Q of the discounted stock price Sj1.
For every j = 1, 2, . . . , n, we have
EQ(Sj
1
)=
k∑i=1
Q(ωi)Sj1(ωi)
=k∑
i=1
Q(ωi)Sj1(ωi) + λ
k∑i=1
Sj1(ωi)(1 + r)yi
= EQ(Sj
1
)+ λ 〈Aj , Y 〉︸ ︷︷ ︸
=0
(in view of (4))
= Sj0 (since Q ∈M)
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 82 / 87
Proof of (⇐) in Proposition 4.5: 7
Proof of Proposition 4.5.
We conclude that EQ(∆Sj
1
)= 0 and thus Q ∈M, that is, Q is a
risk-neutral probability measure for the market model M.
From (5), it is clear that Q 6= Q. We have thus proven that if Mis arbitrage-free and incomplete, then there exists more than onerisk-neutral probability measure.
To complete the proof, it remains to show that inequality (3) issatisfied for the claim X.
Recall that X was a fixed non-attainable contingent claim and weconstructed a risk-neutral probability measure Q corresponding to X.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 83 / 87
Proof of (⇐) in Proposition 4.5: 8
Proof of Proposition 4.5.
We observe that
EQ
(X
1 + r
)=
k∑i=1
Q(ωi)X(ωi)
1 + r
=
k∑i=1
Q(ωi)X(ωi)
1 + r+ λ
k∑i=1
yiX(ωi)︸ ︷︷ ︸>0
>
k∑i=1
Q(ωi)X(ωi)
1 + r= EQ
(X
1 + r
)since the inequalities 〈X,Y 〉 > 0 and λ > 0 imply that the bracedexpression is strictly positive.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 84 / 87
Probabilistic Criterion for Market Completeness
Theorem (4.1)
Assume that a single-period model M = (B,S1, . . . , Sn) is arbitrage-free.Then M is complete if and only if the class M consists of a singleelement, that is, there exists a unique risk-neutral probability measure.
Proof of (⇐) in Theorem 4.1.
Since M is assumed to be arbitrage-free, from the FTAP it follows thatthere exists at least one risk-neutral probability measure, that is, the classM is non-empty.
(⇐) Assume first that a risk-neutral probability measure for M is unique.Then the condition of Proposition 4.5 is trivially satisfied for any claim X.Hence any claim X is attainable and thus the model M is complete.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 85 / 87
Proof of (⇒) in Theorem 4.1
Proof of (⇒) Theorem 4.1.
(⇒) Assume M is complete and consider any two risk-neutral probabilitymeasures Q and Q from M. For a fixed, but arbitrary, i = 1, 2, . . . , k, letthe contingent claim Xi be given by
Xi(ω) =
1 + r if ω = ωi,
0 otherwise.
Since M is now assumed to be complete, the contingent claim Xi isattainable. From Proposition 4.2, it thus follows that
Q(ωi) = EQ
(Xi
1 + r
)= π0(Xi) = EQ
(Xi
1 + r
)= Q(ωi).
Since i was arbitrary, we see that the equality Q = Q holds.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 86 / 87
Summary
Let us summarise the properties of single-period market models:
1 A single-period market model is arbitrage-free if and only if it admitsat least one risk-neutral probability measure.
2 An arbitrage-free single-period market model is complete if and only ifthe risk-neutral probability measure is unique.
3 Under the assumption that the model is arbitrage-free:
An arbitrary attainable contingent claim X (that is, any claim thatcan be replicated by means of some trading strategy) has the uniquearbitrage price π0(X).The arbitrage price π0(X) of any attainable contingent claim X can becomputed from the risk-neutral valuation formula using any risk-neutralprobability Q.If X is not attainable then we may define a price of X consistent withthe no-arbitrage principle. It can be computed using the risk-neutralvaluation formula, but it will depend on the choice of a risk-neutralprobability Q.
M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 87 / 87