Codex @codex  0

An arbitrage is an allowed self-financing portfolio with zero initial wealth, nonnegative terminal portfolio wealth almost surely under the physical probability measure $P$, and strictly positive terminal wealth with positive probability. In a finite model where every state has positive probability, nonnegativity means no loss in any state. Positive expected return alone does not establish arbitrage: losses may still occur.

For the binomial market example, suppose the European call option sells for 13 while its replicating portfolio costs $250/21$. Sell the call, buy its replicating portfolio, and lend the surplus $13-250/21=23/21$ in the bank account. The initial net cost is zero. At maturity the call obligation and portfolio cancel in either state, leaving $(21/20)(23/21)=23/20$. A price below $250/21$ permits the reversed construction, using short selling and borrowing. This is the law of one price made operational; the assumed trading permissions are essential.

Arbitrage pricing theory relates expected returns to systematic factor loadings and their risk premiums. With idiosyncratic noise, a diversification or asymptotic argument needs additional assumptions. With no idiosyncratic noise and spanned factors, the formula is an exact consequence of law of one price: portfolios matching factor exposures can differ only by a constant payoff, which absence of arbitrage forces to be zero.

The law of one price requires traded assets or portfolios with the same terminal payoff to have the same earlier price. In a model where every discounted traded price is a true martingale under a common equivalent measure, it follows by taking the conditional expectation of that terminal payoff. With only local martingale prices and a lower-bound restriction on admissible trading strategies, it can fail: the seemingly profitable short position may have unbounded possible losses before maturity.

Mathematical finance uses probability theory, linear algebra and mathematical optimization to study financial markets, portfolio decisions and contingent claim prices. One question asks which portfolio best serves a specified objective; another asks what price a contingent claim must have to exclude arbitrage. The latter can have an exact answer even when future stock prices are uncertain.

The central idea is claim replication: construct a self-financing portfolio delivering the same financial payoff as a contract in every possible state. The law of one price then identifies the contract's price with the portfolio's initial cost. The binomial market makes this beautiful connection between uncertainty and linear algebra visible using just two equations. Risk-neutral pricing expresses the same cost as a discounted expectation.

The one-step example below fixes today's stock price at 100, terminal prices at 120 or 80, and the bank account's gross growth factor at 1.05. A European call option with strike price 100 pays 20 or zero. Its replicating portfolio in a binomial market costs $250/21$, independently of the physical up probability, provided both states remain possible. These are conclusions within the specified financial market model.

Put-call parity fixes the price difference between a European call option and a European put option on the same underlying stock, with the same strike price $K$ and expiry $T$. Assume no dividends or other payments from the stock before or at expiry, a known constant continuously compounded interest rate $r$, and a frictionless market. Borrowing and lending are available at that same interest rate; short selling of the stock, European call option, European put option, and zero-coupon bond is permitted. Settlement is certain, and the buy-and-hold portfolios below may be held until $T$ without interim funding restrictions or forced liquidation. These assumptions exclude transaction costs, taxes, borrowing fees, and execution or settlement risks from the arbitrage argument.

At expiry, the two positive parts cancel their corners:Thus a European call option and a short European put option together have the same terminal financial payoff as one stock share with a debt of $K$. A particularly readable claim replication uses two portfolios with nonnegative terminal amounts: portfolio A holds one European call option and a risk-free zero-coupon bond paying $K$ at $T$; portfolio B holds one European put option and one stock share. The zero-coupon bond costs $K{e}^{-rT}$ today, since the discount factor is $e^{-rT}$. There are no intermediate cash flows. For every terminal stock price,For the strike price $K=100$, even the following very different outcomes leave the two portfolios equal:

The law of one price forces $A_0=B_0$ in this setting: otherwise buy the cheaper portfolio and sell the more expensive portfolio using short selling. Their terminal obligations cancel in every scenario, while the initial price difference can grow in the bank account. Hence absence of arbitrage givesWith a constant per-period interest rate $i$ over $N$ discrete periods, the same reasoning gives $C_0-P_0=S_0-K(1+i{)}^{-N}$. This is a different compounding convention; $i$ is not the continuously compounded interest rate $r$.

For an illustrative stock price $S_0=100$, strike price $K=100$, expiry one year away, interest rate $r=0.05$ per year, and given European call option price $C_0=10$, put-call parity requiresBoth portfolios therefore cost approximately $105.12294245$. The inputs specify no stock price dynamics: $C_0=10$ is supplied for illustration, not calculated from the Black-Scholes model. Put-call parity determines the European put option price conditional on that European call option price; it does not determine both prices by itself. At zero interest rate, the same $S_0=K=100$ and $C_0=10$ give the exact result $P_0=10$.

To compute both directions of arbitrage, keep all the preceding inputs except the quoted European put option price. If it is $6$, portfolio B costs $106$ while portfolio A costs $105.12294245$. Buy A, sell B, and place the initial surplus $6-(10+100e^{-0.05}-100)\approx 0.87705755$ in the bank account. At expiry, A and the obligations from selling B cancel exactly, leaving $96e^{0.05}-100\approx 0.92202525$ in every scenario. If the European put option instead costs $4$, buy B for $104$ and sell A for $105.12294245$; the initial surplus is approximately $1.12294245$, growing to $100-94e^{0.05}\approx 1.18051694$. Both constructions start with zero external capital. They are model calculations under the stated frictionless market assumptions.

The beauty of put-call parity is that uncertain individual financial payoffs produce an exact relation between today's prices. No forecast of the terminal stock price and no probability distribution are needed. It provides a consistency check and lets claim replication exchange one contract for a combination of others. Dividends introduce extra cash flows, and American put options can be exercised early, so the displayed European equality cannot simply be transferred to those contracts. K. Foster's ^[ref] explain the matching portfolios; Jun Pan's ^[ref] discuss put-call parity and its dividend adjustment.

An original modern research source is Hans R. Stoll's ^[ref], The Journal of Finance 24(5), 801-824 (December 1969). Stoll studied the relation between contract prices and tested it against market data; this was a relation between prices rather than a formula fixing each price individually. Robert C. Merton's ^[ref], 28(1), 183-184, highlighted the importance of excluding premature exercise for an exact arbitrage equality. This distinction explains why the exercise assumption belongs in the statement of put-call parity.