Teaching Note 96-02: Risk Neutral Pricing in Discrete Time
Teaching Note 96-02: Risk Neutral Pricing in Discrete Time
Teaching Note 96-02: Risk Neutral Pricing in Discrete Time
The pricing of derivatives via the risk neutrality argument has been a source of much
confusion. Those who do not understand the process are led to believe that some mysterious hand-
waving has been done and that the resulting price is somehow tainted by ignoring the risk. In fact,
risk neutral pricing makes no such assumption of risk neutrality. It simply uses the assumption of no
arbitrage rather than risk aversion to drive the pricing process.
The point is most easily made in the binomial pricing framework. Consider an asset currently
priced at S whose price one period later can be Su with probability q or Sd with probability 1-q. The
factors u and d represent one plus the percentage change in the asset price. How would that asset be
priced in a world of risk averse investors? Under risk aversion any risky asset is priced as the
discounted value of its future expectation. The expected future price of the asset is qSu + (1- q)Sd.
Consequently, the current price would be given as
qSu + (1 - q)Sd
S=
1+ k
where k is the risky discount factor, which will consist of the risk free rate, r, plus a risk premium.
The rate k is sometimes considered as having arisen out of an asset=s covariance with the market
portfolio approach (the CAPM) or some alternative model of market equilibrium but it is not
necessary to assume any such type of equilibrium.
Given knowledge of S, u and d, however, we can re-state the price of the asset in the
following manner: Are there values p and 1-p that can be substituted for q and 1-q and permit us to
change k to the risk-free rate, r. In the absence of arbitrage, the answer is yes.
Consider the requirements for a world of no arbitrage opportunities and in which there are but
two assets, the stock and a risk-free bond. If an arbitrage opportunity is possible, then one could
borrow at the risk-free rate the price of the stock, purchase the stock and guarantee that one period
later he would earn at least the risk-free rate. This is equivalent to the requirement that u > d > 1 +
pSu + (1 - p)Sd
S=
1+ r
The proof is simple. Divide the expression above by S and multiply by 1 + r giving 1 + r = pu + (1-
p)d. This is easily converted into p = (1+r-d)/(u-d).
We see from the above equation that the price of an asset can be re-stated simply by changing
the probabilities and discounting at the risk-free rate. The only information we are required to know
is the volatility (as represented by u and d) and the risk-free rate. We are making no assumptions
about how investors feel about risk. Indeed what we have done is perfectly compatible with risk
aversion. If by chance investors were risk averse, the above expression gives precisely the value of
the asset.
What we have just seen is called the arbitrage theorem. It simply states that if there are no
opportunities for arbitrage, then it is possible to state the price of the asset in terms of risk-neutral
probabilities where the discounting is done at the risk-free rate. The theorem goes two-ways. If it is
possible to state the price of the asset in the above manner, then there are no arbitrage possibilities.
1
The reason we see a A1" in front of the r and not in front of the u and d is that u and d are already specified as 1 plus the up
and down returns. In some writings, r is already specified as 1 plus the risk-free rate.
p = q - φ q(1 - q) .
Thus, the binomial probability is the actual probability minus the risk premium times the square root
term, which is by definition the volatility of a binomial process. In short, knowing the binomial
probability, p = (1+r-d)/(u-d), tells us everything we need to know to avoid having to know the risk
aversion, φ, and the actual probability, q.
Note that we have not introduced options to the problem. The point is easily established
without the use of options. When introducing options, however, it is easily shown that a call option
can be replicated by positions in the asset and the risk-free bond. That being the case, the call is a
redundant asset. Consequently, introducing a redundant asset does nothing to change the nature of
the market, provided of course that the redundant asset is properly priced. But that will be true by
the requirement of no arbitrage.
Though we have introduced this point in the simple binomial framework, it can also be made,
albeit with more mathematical complexity in the continuous time models.
It is difficult to attribute this material to any one source. It has evolved out of a number of prominent
works such as
Rendleman, R. and B. Bartter. ATwo State Option Pricing.@ The Journal of Finance
34 (December, 1979), 1092-1110.