How to check if arbitrage is possibile in a recombining Binomial tree?












1












$begingroup$



Consider the recombining Binomial tree below; knowing that:





  • $S_0 = 100$ is the cost of an asset at $t=0$ (now),


  • $∆t$ is the distance between two time points, e.g. $∆t = 0.5 =$ six months,

  • $u = e^{σsqrt{∆t}}, d = 1/u, σ = 0.25,$

  • In the market there is a risk-free asset that grows as $B_{t_{i+1}} = B_{t_i}e^{r∆t}$ with $r = 0.01, B_0 = 1,$


perform the following:



Check if it is possible to create arbitrage opportunities by trading on the
underlying asset and the bank account. If the market is arbitrage free, deduce the probability measure $Q$.




Looking at the image below, it seems like $Delta t=1$, since looking at the indeces of $S_0, S_1, S_2$ I guess $Delta t=2-1=1-0=1$, is this correct?



Does "...by trading on the underlying asset and the bank account" means that I have to create a portfolio made of risky assets and risk-free assets and check if arbitrage is possible?



Anyway, from the book "Arbitrage theory in continuous time" by Bjork, I found the following ways to check if arbitrage is possibile in the binomial model:




  1. the binomial model is free of arbitrage iff $d < 1 + r < u;$

  2. the binomial model is free of arbitrage iff $Pi(T;X)=X$ ($T$ time of expiry), where $Pi(t;X)$ is the price of a claim $X$ at time $t;$

  3. the market model is arbitrage free iff there exists a martingale measure $Q.$


I don't know how to use the second approach, moreover the third one needs the computation of the probability measure $Q$ (i.e. to compute the probabilities $p_u$ of an "up" and $p_d$ of a "down") which has to be done after checking if the market is arbitrage free.



So I'm trying the first approach, i.e. to check if
$$e^{-sigmasqrt{∆t}} < 1+r < e^{sigmasqrt{∆t}}.$$
My first doubt here is that the middle term is a constant, while the first and third terms depend on $Delta t$. So, should I check the inequality only one time using $Delta t=1$, or since the model has two periods, have I also to check the inequality with $Delta t=2$?



Using $Delta t=1$ we get
$$e^{-0.25} < 1.01 < e^{0.25} quadimpliesquad 0.78<1.01<1.28.$$
Then the market is arbitrage free. Is this procedure correct?





Assuming the previous approach is correct, notice that from the previous inequality it follows that $1+r$ can be written as convex combination of $u$ and $d$:
$$1+r=pcdot u+(1-p)cdot d,quad pin[0,1]$$
which leds to the formula for $p$:
$$p=frac{(1+r)-d}{u-d}, quad 1-p=frac{u-(1+r)}{u-d}.$$
Using the exercise's input (and $Delta t=1$) we find $p=p_u=0.46$ (prob. of an "up") and so $1-p=p_d=0.54$ (prob. of a "down"). Is this the right answer to the question "deduce the probability measure $Q$" ?





[fig.: the recombining binomial tree][1]










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    1












    $begingroup$



    Consider the recombining Binomial tree below; knowing that:





    • $S_0 = 100$ is the cost of an asset at $t=0$ (now),


    • $∆t$ is the distance between two time points, e.g. $∆t = 0.5 =$ six months,

    • $u = e^{σsqrt{∆t}}, d = 1/u, σ = 0.25,$

    • In the market there is a risk-free asset that grows as $B_{t_{i+1}} = B_{t_i}e^{r∆t}$ with $r = 0.01, B_0 = 1,$


    perform the following:



    Check if it is possible to create arbitrage opportunities by trading on the
    underlying asset and the bank account. If the market is arbitrage free, deduce the probability measure $Q$.




    Looking at the image below, it seems like $Delta t=1$, since looking at the indeces of $S_0, S_1, S_2$ I guess $Delta t=2-1=1-0=1$, is this correct?



    Does "...by trading on the underlying asset and the bank account" means that I have to create a portfolio made of risky assets and risk-free assets and check if arbitrage is possible?



    Anyway, from the book "Arbitrage theory in continuous time" by Bjork, I found the following ways to check if arbitrage is possibile in the binomial model:




    1. the binomial model is free of arbitrage iff $d < 1 + r < u;$

    2. the binomial model is free of arbitrage iff $Pi(T;X)=X$ ($T$ time of expiry), where $Pi(t;X)$ is the price of a claim $X$ at time $t;$

    3. the market model is arbitrage free iff there exists a martingale measure $Q.$


    I don't know how to use the second approach, moreover the third one needs the computation of the probability measure $Q$ (i.e. to compute the probabilities $p_u$ of an "up" and $p_d$ of a "down") which has to be done after checking if the market is arbitrage free.



    So I'm trying the first approach, i.e. to check if
    $$e^{-sigmasqrt{∆t}} < 1+r < e^{sigmasqrt{∆t}}.$$
    My first doubt here is that the middle term is a constant, while the first and third terms depend on $Delta t$. So, should I check the inequality only one time using $Delta t=1$, or since the model has two periods, have I also to check the inequality with $Delta t=2$?



    Using $Delta t=1$ we get
    $$e^{-0.25} < 1.01 < e^{0.25} quadimpliesquad 0.78<1.01<1.28.$$
    Then the market is arbitrage free. Is this procedure correct?





    Assuming the previous approach is correct, notice that from the previous inequality it follows that $1+r$ can be written as convex combination of $u$ and $d$:
    $$1+r=pcdot u+(1-p)cdot d,quad pin[0,1]$$
    which leds to the formula for $p$:
    $$p=frac{(1+r)-d}{u-d}, quad 1-p=frac{u-(1+r)}{u-d}.$$
    Using the exercise's input (and $Delta t=1$) we find $p=p_u=0.46$ (prob. of an "up") and so $1-p=p_d=0.54$ (prob. of a "down"). Is this the right answer to the question "deduce the probability measure $Q$" ?





    [fig.: the recombining binomial tree][1]










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$



      Consider the recombining Binomial tree below; knowing that:





      • $S_0 = 100$ is the cost of an asset at $t=0$ (now),


      • $∆t$ is the distance between two time points, e.g. $∆t = 0.5 =$ six months,

      • $u = e^{σsqrt{∆t}}, d = 1/u, σ = 0.25,$

      • In the market there is a risk-free asset that grows as $B_{t_{i+1}} = B_{t_i}e^{r∆t}$ with $r = 0.01, B_0 = 1,$


      perform the following:



      Check if it is possible to create arbitrage opportunities by trading on the
      underlying asset and the bank account. If the market is arbitrage free, deduce the probability measure $Q$.




      Looking at the image below, it seems like $Delta t=1$, since looking at the indeces of $S_0, S_1, S_2$ I guess $Delta t=2-1=1-0=1$, is this correct?



      Does "...by trading on the underlying asset and the bank account" means that I have to create a portfolio made of risky assets and risk-free assets and check if arbitrage is possible?



      Anyway, from the book "Arbitrage theory in continuous time" by Bjork, I found the following ways to check if arbitrage is possibile in the binomial model:




      1. the binomial model is free of arbitrage iff $d < 1 + r < u;$

      2. the binomial model is free of arbitrage iff $Pi(T;X)=X$ ($T$ time of expiry), where $Pi(t;X)$ is the price of a claim $X$ at time $t;$

      3. the market model is arbitrage free iff there exists a martingale measure $Q.$


      I don't know how to use the second approach, moreover the third one needs the computation of the probability measure $Q$ (i.e. to compute the probabilities $p_u$ of an "up" and $p_d$ of a "down") which has to be done after checking if the market is arbitrage free.



      So I'm trying the first approach, i.e. to check if
      $$e^{-sigmasqrt{∆t}} < 1+r < e^{sigmasqrt{∆t}}.$$
      My first doubt here is that the middle term is a constant, while the first and third terms depend on $Delta t$. So, should I check the inequality only one time using $Delta t=1$, or since the model has two periods, have I also to check the inequality with $Delta t=2$?



      Using $Delta t=1$ we get
      $$e^{-0.25} < 1.01 < e^{0.25} quadimpliesquad 0.78<1.01<1.28.$$
      Then the market is arbitrage free. Is this procedure correct?





      Assuming the previous approach is correct, notice that from the previous inequality it follows that $1+r$ can be written as convex combination of $u$ and $d$:
      $$1+r=pcdot u+(1-p)cdot d,quad pin[0,1]$$
      which leds to the formula for $p$:
      $$p=frac{(1+r)-d}{u-d}, quad 1-p=frac{u-(1+r)}{u-d}.$$
      Using the exercise's input (and $Delta t=1$) we find $p=p_u=0.46$ (prob. of an "up") and so $1-p=p_d=0.54$ (prob. of a "down"). Is this the right answer to the question "deduce the probability measure $Q$" ?





      [fig.: the recombining binomial tree][1]










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$





      Consider the recombining Binomial tree below; knowing that:





      • $S_0 = 100$ is the cost of an asset at $t=0$ (now),


      • $∆t$ is the distance between two time points, e.g. $∆t = 0.5 =$ six months,

      • $u = e^{σsqrt{∆t}}, d = 1/u, σ = 0.25,$

      • In the market there is a risk-free asset that grows as $B_{t_{i+1}} = B_{t_i}e^{r∆t}$ with $r = 0.01, B_0 = 1,$


      perform the following:



      Check if it is possible to create arbitrage opportunities by trading on the
      underlying asset and the bank account. If the market is arbitrage free, deduce the probability measure $Q$.




      Looking at the image below, it seems like $Delta t=1$, since looking at the indeces of $S_0, S_1, S_2$ I guess $Delta t=2-1=1-0=1$, is this correct?



      Does "...by trading on the underlying asset and the bank account" means that I have to create a portfolio made of risky assets and risk-free assets and check if arbitrage is possible?



      Anyway, from the book "Arbitrage theory in continuous time" by Bjork, I found the following ways to check if arbitrage is possibile in the binomial model:




      1. the binomial model is free of arbitrage iff $d < 1 + r < u;$

      2. the binomial model is free of arbitrage iff $Pi(T;X)=X$ ($T$ time of expiry), where $Pi(t;X)$ is the price of a claim $X$ at time $t;$

      3. the market model is arbitrage free iff there exists a martingale measure $Q.$


      I don't know how to use the second approach, moreover the third one needs the computation of the probability measure $Q$ (i.e. to compute the probabilities $p_u$ of an "up" and $p_d$ of a "down") which has to be done after checking if the market is arbitrage free.



      So I'm trying the first approach, i.e. to check if
      $$e^{-sigmasqrt{∆t}} < 1+r < e^{sigmasqrt{∆t}}.$$
      My first doubt here is that the middle term is a constant, while the first and third terms depend on $Delta t$. So, should I check the inequality only one time using $Delta t=1$, or since the model has two periods, have I also to check the inequality with $Delta t=2$?



      Using $Delta t=1$ we get
      $$e^{-0.25} < 1.01 < e^{0.25} quadimpliesquad 0.78<1.01<1.28.$$
      Then the market is arbitrage free. Is this procedure correct?





      Assuming the previous approach is correct, notice that from the previous inequality it follows that $1+r$ can be written as convex combination of $u$ and $d$:
      $$1+r=pcdot u+(1-p)cdot d,quad pin[0,1]$$
      which leds to the formula for $p$:
      $$p=frac{(1+r)-d}{u-d}, quad 1-p=frac{u-(1+r)}{u-d}.$$
      Using the exercise's input (and $Delta t=1$) we find $p=p_u=0.46$ (prob. of an "up") and so $1-p=p_d=0.54$ (prob. of a "down"). Is this the right answer to the question "deduce the probability measure $Q$" ?





      [fig.: the recombining binomial tree][1]







      probability-theory finance






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 29 '18 at 20:53







      sound wave

















      asked Dec 29 '18 at 16:18









      sound wavesound wave

      28619




      28619






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$


          1. You can't tell from the image what $Delta t$ is. It is also not really important because we can just work with arbitrary $r$, $d$ and $u$ (not necessarily given by an equation like $u = e^{sigma{sqrt Delta t}}$).

          2. Yes, you have to make a portfolio containing a number of shares of the risky and risk-free assets. For example, you can look at a portfolio of $1$ risky asset and $-100$ risk-less assets and see what happens if we have $1 + r leq d$. Using this technique, you can arrive at the conclusion that there is no arbitrage iff $d < 1+r < u$. Then you can go back to your specific example (where you have specific $d$, $r$ and $u$) and check if this is true.

          3. You already seem to have a formula for the probabilities of an up- and down-movement under the risk-free measure $Q$, so yes, you just need to plug in your specific $r$, $d$ and $u$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thank you very much
            $endgroup$
            – sound wave
            Jan 2 at 13:43











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3055996%2fhow-to-check-if-arbitrage-is-possibile-in-a-recombining-binomial-tree%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1












          $begingroup$


          1. You can't tell from the image what $Delta t$ is. It is also not really important because we can just work with arbitrary $r$, $d$ and $u$ (not necessarily given by an equation like $u = e^{sigma{sqrt Delta t}}$).

          2. Yes, you have to make a portfolio containing a number of shares of the risky and risk-free assets. For example, you can look at a portfolio of $1$ risky asset and $-100$ risk-less assets and see what happens if we have $1 + r leq d$. Using this technique, you can arrive at the conclusion that there is no arbitrage iff $d < 1+r < u$. Then you can go back to your specific example (where you have specific $d$, $r$ and $u$) and check if this is true.

          3. You already seem to have a formula for the probabilities of an up- and down-movement under the risk-free measure $Q$, so yes, you just need to plug in your specific $r$, $d$ and $u$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thank you very much
            $endgroup$
            – sound wave
            Jan 2 at 13:43
















          1












          $begingroup$


          1. You can't tell from the image what $Delta t$ is. It is also not really important because we can just work with arbitrary $r$, $d$ and $u$ (not necessarily given by an equation like $u = e^{sigma{sqrt Delta t}}$).

          2. Yes, you have to make a portfolio containing a number of shares of the risky and risk-free assets. For example, you can look at a portfolio of $1$ risky asset and $-100$ risk-less assets and see what happens if we have $1 + r leq d$. Using this technique, you can arrive at the conclusion that there is no arbitrage iff $d < 1+r < u$. Then you can go back to your specific example (where you have specific $d$, $r$ and $u$) and check if this is true.

          3. You already seem to have a formula for the probabilities of an up- and down-movement under the risk-free measure $Q$, so yes, you just need to plug in your specific $r$, $d$ and $u$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thank you very much
            $endgroup$
            – sound wave
            Jan 2 at 13:43














          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$


          1. You can't tell from the image what $Delta t$ is. It is also not really important because we can just work with arbitrary $r$, $d$ and $u$ (not necessarily given by an equation like $u = e^{sigma{sqrt Delta t}}$).

          2. Yes, you have to make a portfolio containing a number of shares of the risky and risk-free assets. For example, you can look at a portfolio of $1$ risky asset and $-100$ risk-less assets and see what happens if we have $1 + r leq d$. Using this technique, you can arrive at the conclusion that there is no arbitrage iff $d < 1+r < u$. Then you can go back to your specific example (where you have specific $d$, $r$ and $u$) and check if this is true.

          3. You already seem to have a formula for the probabilities of an up- and down-movement under the risk-free measure $Q$, so yes, you just need to plug in your specific $r$, $d$ and $u$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$




          1. You can't tell from the image what $Delta t$ is. It is also not really important because we can just work with arbitrary $r$, $d$ and $u$ (not necessarily given by an equation like $u = e^{sigma{sqrt Delta t}}$).

          2. Yes, you have to make a portfolio containing a number of shares of the risky and risk-free assets. For example, you can look at a portfolio of $1$ risky asset and $-100$ risk-less assets and see what happens if we have $1 + r leq d$. Using this technique, you can arrive at the conclusion that there is no arbitrage iff $d < 1+r < u$. Then you can go back to your specific example (where you have specific $d$, $r$ and $u$) and check if this is true.

          3. You already seem to have a formula for the probabilities of an up- and down-movement under the risk-free measure $Q$, so yes, you just need to plug in your specific $r$, $d$ and $u$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Dec 31 '18 at 16:54









          Tki DenebTki Deneb

          32710




          32710












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you very much
            $endgroup$
            – sound wave
            Jan 2 at 13:43


















          • $begingroup$
            Thank you very much
            $endgroup$
            – sound wave
            Jan 2 at 13:43
















          $begingroup$
          Thank you very much
          $endgroup$
          – sound wave
          Jan 2 at 13:43




          $begingroup$
          Thank you very much
          $endgroup$
          – sound wave
          Jan 2 at 13:43


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3055996%2fhow-to-check-if-arbitrage-is-possibile-in-a-recombining-binomial-tree%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Ellipse (mathématiques)

          Quarter-circle Tiles

          Mont Emei