Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm trying to derive the valuation equation under a general stochastic volatility model. What one can read in the litterature is the following reasonning:

One consider a replicating self-financing portfolio $V$ with $\delta$ underlying and $\delta_1$ units of an other derivative $V_1$. One writes Itō on one hand, and the self-financing equation on the other hand, and then one identifies the terms in front of the two brownian motions and in front of $dt$. The first two identifications give $\delta$ and $\delta_1$, and the last identification gives us a PDE in $V$ and $V_1$.

Then what is commonly done is to write it with a left hand side depending on $V$ only, and a write hand side depending on $V_1$ only. So you get $f(V) = f(V_1)$. We could have chosen $V_2$ instead of $V_1$ so one gets $f(V) = f(V_1) = f(V_2)$. Thus $f(W)$ does not depends on the derivative $W$ one chooses, and is called the market price of the volatility risk. What I cannot understand in this reasonning is why $V$ does not depend on the derivatives $V_1$ you choose to hedge the volatility risk in your portfolio. As far as I see it, one should write $V(V_1)$ instead of $V$. Then one has $f(V(V_1)) = f(V_1)$ and $f(V(V_2)) = f(V_2)$ so one gets no unique market price of the volatility risk.

Does anyone know why does the price of a derivative does not depend on the derivative you choose to hedge against the volatility risk?

Thank you in advance!

share|improve this question
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.