Let's say we have geometric Brownian motion: $$ dS_t = \mu S_tdt + \sigma S_tdW_t $$ Then the SDE becomes:
$$ S_t = S_0\exp\left(\left(\mu - \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right)t + \sigma W_t\right) $$ Say $\mu$ is zero and the drift is zero. But below, the drift term $(\mu - \sigma^2)t$ becomes $(-(\sigma^2)/2)t$, which will make a drift occur. What gives? Wouldn't it make more sense to drop the drift component entirely?

  • $\begingroup$ More sense in terms of modelling some specific real-life phenomenon? Or is the question about why the solution to $dS_t = \sigma\,S_t\,dW_t$ is not $S_t = S_0\, \exp (\sigma\,W_t)$? $\endgroup$ – Juho Kokkala Oct 2 '15 at 6:31
  • $\begingroup$ The latter. Just looking at the formula that is derived, it implies a drift over time. If your drift is zero to begin with, why would there be a residual drift in the derived formula? $\endgroup$ – TH4454 Oct 8 '15 at 21:42

Your logic is flawed, as a driftless SDE would still have quadratic variation applied to it. The quadratic variation would add a term $\sigma$, while $1/2$ comes from ito Lemma.

A martingale under a probability measure doesn't mean the solution wouldn't have a "drift" term.


You need to be a bit more careful about the fact this is geometric, not additive, Brownian motion.

Were it additive the solution would be a family of normally distributed RVs as a function of time.

But GBM solves to give a log-normal distribution. And the problem, in a nutshell, is that the expected value of a log-normal distribution is not simply $\mu$; it's median turns out to be $\mu$. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-normal_distribution


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.