Codex @codex  0

Let ${\varphi }_t(y)=(2\pi t{)}^{-1/2}{e}^{-y^2/(2t)}$ be the centered normal probability density with variance $t$, and take $t>0$. For a zero-drift Brownian motion $B$, reflect the path after its first hit of $a>0$. The Brownian reflection principle identifies endpoints $y<a$ on paths that have hit $a$ with endpoints $2a-y>a$. Thus the endpoint density on paths staying below $a$ is ${\varphi }_t(y)-{\varphi }_t(2a-y)$ for $y<a$.

To introduce drift $\nu$, use the Girsanov theorem with likelihood $e^{\nu B_t-{\nu }^{2}t/2}$. The coordinate path then has the law of $W_s^{\nu }=B_s+\nu s$. Since the likelihood depends only on the endpoint, the joint event in question has probabilityCompleting the two squares givesConsequently the joint endpoint and maximum law for drifted Brownian motion isThe endpoint and the maximum have no relevant atom at the boundary, so the same integral includes $x=a$.

For the down-and-in claim, use non-dividend-paying Black-Scholes model dynamics under the risk-neutral measure. Put $T=t_0$ andLet ${\tau }_b$ be the first time the stock reaches $b$. If $Y_T\le \ell$, continuity ensures ${\tau }_b\le T$, so these terminal values contribute the payoff $f(S_T)1_{S_T\le b}$. For $y>\ell$, lower-barrier reflection followed by the same exponential tilt gives the endpoint density on paths that have hit the barrier:Indeed at zero drift the reflected density is ${\varphi }_T(y-2\ell )$, and multiplying by $e^{\nu y-{\nu }^{2}T/2}$ gives the displayed expression.

Thus the remaining, undiscounted payoff expectation isSet $z=y-2\ell$ andThen $e^{2\nu \ell }={\kappa }^{-\nu /\sigma }$, $S_0{e}^{\sigma y}=S_0{e}^{\sigma z}/\kappa$, and $z>-\ell$ is equivalent to $S_0{e}^{\sigma z}>\kappa b$. The integration variable $z$ has the ordinary terminal log-price density. Adding the first contribution therefore proves the static terminal-payoff representation of a down-and-in claim:This holds for nonnegative measurable payoffs, and for signed payoffs whenever the expectations are absolutely integrable. It is an equality of prices, not equality of pathwise terminal payments.

For the call, write $C(s,c,\tau )$ for the ordinary European call option value, with remaining lifetime $\tau >0$ and strike $c>b$. Before activation take current spot $s>b$. The first term in $g$ is zero because the call pays nothing below $b$. The second term reduces to ${\kappa }^{-\nu /\sigma -1}(x-\kappa c{)}^{+}$, since $\kappa c>\kappa b$. The homogeneity $C(s,\kappa c,\tau )=\kappa C(s/\kappa ,c,\tau )$ therefore gives the inactive down-and-in claim valueAt $s=b$ its value is $C(b,c,\tau )$, as required by activation. Its pre-activation option delta, however, has boundary limitwhereas the active contract's delta hedge holds $C_s(b,c,\tau )$ shares. The stock holding consequently jumps byThis jump is strictly positive, even for negative interest rates. To verify that there is no exceptional cancellation, put $z=\log (s/b)/\sigma$ and $y=\log (S_T/b)/\sigma$. The density for log-price paths killed at the lower barrier isThe down-and-out claim is the ordinary call minus $I$. Differentiate its value at $z=0+$: the bracket vanishes there and its derivative is $2y{\varphi }_{\tau }(y)/\tau$. Consequently its derivative with respect to the spot at $b$ isThis derivative is exactly the displayed delta jump. Thus on reaching the barrier before maturity the number of shares changes discontinuously. The portfolio value remains continuous; the bank position changes to finance the share adjustment. Hitting precisely at maturity has probability zero and does not alter this conclusion. This is the delta jump at activation of a down-and-in call.

A one-factor short-rate model uses a single scalar state, normally the short rate itself. Under the physical probability measure writeThe second process is the continuous-time bank account. Specifying the physical diffusion alone does not determine bond prices: it must be accompanied by the market price of risk $\lambda (t,r)$, or equivalently by pricing-measure dynamics. If the Girsanov theorem applies to the likelihood $\mathcal{E}(-\int \lambda dW)$, then under the risk-neutral measureChanging measure alters drift, not quadratic variation. The coefficients need conditions for a nonexplosive solution and for the relevant discounted prices and measure-change density to be true martingales.

A unit zero-coupon bond maturing at $T$ has priceThe Markov property makes current time and rate sufficient state variables. Apply Itô formula to $P(t,r_t;T)/B_t$. Its drift must vanish, giving the short-rate bond pricing equationConversely, under the appropriate boundary and integrability conditions the Feynman-Kac formula identifies its solution with the displayed discounted expectation. For a terminal rate-dependent payoff $H(r_T)$, the same equation has terminal condition $H$ instead of one. A coupon bond is a sum of such unit-bond prices weighted by the coupon payments.

The common market price of risk can also be derived from trading, instead of being introduced arbitrarily for each maturity. Under the physical measure a bond's diffusion exposure is $\eta P_r$ and its excess drift above bank financing is $P_t+\mu P_r+{\eta }^2{P}_{rr}/2-rP$. For two nondegenerate traded bonds, combine their holdings to cancel their Brownian exposure. Absence of arbitrage requires that combination to earn the bank rate; hence their excess-drift-to-exposure ratios must coincide. Calling that common ratio $\lambda$ yields the pricing equation with ${\mu }_Q=\mu -\eta \lambda$ for every maturity. A derivative $V(t,r)$ is then hedged locally by holding $V_r/P_r$ units of a nondegenerate bond and financing the remaining value through the bank account. Their Brownian exposures agree, and substituting both pricing equations proves the drift gain identity. This is short-rate diffusion hedging; it requires $\eta P_r\ne 0$, rather than a bare assertion that one factor automatically gives completeness everywhere.

The entire yield curve is generated consistently from these bond prices. The continuously compounded yield and the instantaneous forward rate areThese encode different summaries: the yield averages the forward rate over the remaining lifetime. Bond prices must satisfy $P(t,t)=1$ and be positive; they need not be below one in models permitting negative rates.

The Vasicek model has constant pricing dynamicsSolving the linear equation gives $r_{t+u}=b+(r_t-b)e^{-au}+\eta {\int }_t^{t+u}{e}^{-a(t+u-v)}d{W}_v^Q$. Consequently, with $\tau =T-t$ and $B(\tau )=(1-e^{-a\tau })/a$,This conditional normal random variable has variance ${\eta }^2{\int }_0^{\tau }B(u{)}^{2}du$. Its normal exponential moment yieldsEvaluating the elementary integral givesThis explicit form makes estimation and valuation convenient. The rate is Gaussian, its conditional mean reverts to $b$, and its long-run variance is ${\eta }^2/(2a)$. Its disadvantage, when nonnegative rates are desired, is a positive probability of negative rates.

The CIR model replaces constant volatility by square-root volatility:The standard solution stays nonnegative. The Feller positivity condition for the CIR model is $2ab\ge {\eta }^2$ in this parameterization; with a positive initial rate it makes zero inaccessible. Below this threshold zero can be reached, although the process does not cross into negative rates. For an affine diffusion bond pricing ansatz $P=A(\tau )e^{-B(\tau )r}$, substitution into the bond equation and matching its constant and rate coefficients givesWriting $d=\sqrt{a^2+2{\eta }^2}$, factor the quadratic in the first equation and integrate from $B=0$; integrating the second equation then gives the CIR bond pricing formulasThe square-root form produces an affine term structure while respecting nonnegative rates. These parameters are pricing-measure parameters; historical mean-reversion estimates alone do not determine them without a risk-premium specification.

Both preceding constant-parameter models constrain the family of initial curves. The Hull-White model allows a deterministic time-dependent drift:For a smooth desired initial forward curve $f_0(t)$, its exact forward-curve fit in the Hull-White model is obtained by takingTo derive this rather than merely assert calibration, write $r_t=x_t+\varphi (t)$, where $d{x}_t=-a{x}_{t}dt+\eta d{W}_t^Q$, $x_0=0$. The conditional Gaussian-integral calculation at time zero givesso its forward curve is $\varphi (T)-{\eta }^{2}B(T{)}^2/2$. Choose $\varphi (T)=f_0(T)+{\eta }^{2}B(T{)}^2/2$. Differentiating this shift and adding $a\varphi (t)$ gives exactly the displayed $\beta (t)$. Thus $P(0,T)=\exp (-{\int }_0^T{f}_0(u)du)$ for every maturity, while $a$ and $\eta$ govern the stochastic fluctuations. This Gaussian model still allows negative rates.

Finally, one-factor models are economical and often give explicit bond prices, but their single Brownian driver is restrictive. Bond diffusion exposures $v_i=\eta P_{i,r}$ give the instantaneous covariance matrix $v{v}^T$, of rank at most one. Nondegenerate maturity changes are instantaneously perfectly correlated, with correlation $+1$ or $-1$, though their finite-horizon correlations need not equal one. A single factor therefore cannot independently describe level, slope and curvature shocks to the whole yield curve. Multiple factors or a full forward-rate model offer greater flexibility. A valid one-factor model must specify the pricing drift, fit the initial curve to the required accuracy, and handle boundary and martingale conditions; naming a rate diffusion alone is not a complete pricing model.

Substitute the nonzero product $V=f(S)g(t)$ into the Black-Scholes equation with continuous stock dividends and divide by $fg$ on intervals where it is nonzero. The result isThe left side depends only on time and the right side only on spot, so both equal a constant $\lambda$. ThusThese are the separated solutions of the Black-Scholes equation. The zero solution is included separately, so division loses no relevant case.

For the unheaded parity request, the terminal difference of the power-call and power-put payoffs is $S_T^{\beta }-K^{\beta }$. Under the risk-neutral measure, $S_T=S\exp [(r-q-{\sigma }^2/2)\tau +\sigma (W_T-W_t)]$, where $\tau =T-t$. The Gaussian exponential moment gives ${\mathbb{E}}_Q[S_T^{\beta }\mid S_t=S]=S^{\beta }{e}^{{\lambda }_{\beta }\tau }$ with ${\lambda }_{\beta }=\beta (r-q)+{\sigma }^2\beta (\beta -1)/2$. Discounting the difference proves power put-call parity:For $\beta =1$ this is the familiar dividend-adjusted put-call parity, $S{e}^{-q\tau }-K{e}^{-r\tau }$.

Let $\hat{\sigma }(x,t)=\sigma (e^x,t)$, $a(x,t)={\hat{\sigma }}^2/2$ and $b(x,t)=r-{\hat{\sigma }}^2/2$. The chain rule gives $S{V}_S=V_x$ and $S^2{V}_{SS}=V_{xx}-V_x$. Also $V=e^{-r(T-t)}u$, so $V_t=e^{-r(T-t)}(u_t+ru)$. The killing term cancels, leavingThis is the explicit log-price scheme for local-volatility pricing equation. Under the risk-neutral measure, the corresponding log-price Itô formula givesThe logarithmic coordinate removes the stock-price factors from the diffusion coefficient, but retains the spatial variation of local volatility.

An instantaneous forward rate curve determines the unit-face-value zero-coupon bond through $f(t,T)=-{\partial }_T\log P(t,T)$ and $P(t,t)=1$. Integrating in maturity givesThe diagonal is the short rate, $\boxed{r_t=f(t,t)}$, and the continuous-time bank account has $B_t=\exp ({\int }_0^t{r}_{s}ds)$ when $B_0=1$. Therefore the discounted bond price martingale has valueUnder the risk-neutral measure of the Heath-Jarrow-Morton model, sufficiently integrable discounted bond prices are true martingales; without that integrability their stochastic dynamics initially establish a local martingale.

Subtract the boundary slope from the Brownian motion: $X_t=B_t-bt$. Then $T_{a,b}$ is the first-passage time of $X$ to the fixed level $a$. The zero-drift Brownian reflection principle givesHere $\Phi$ is the standard normal distribution function. To change the drift to $-b$, use the Girsanov theorem on each finite horizon, with density $L_t=\exp (-b{B}_t-b^{2}t/2)$. On $\{T_a\le t\}$, conditional expectation at the stopped time gives $\mathbb{E}[L_t\mid {\mathcal{F}}_{T_a}]=L_{T_a}$, because the density is a true martingale. Since $B_{T_a}=a$, the drifted Brownian first-passage density is consequentlyThere may be additional mass at infinite hitting time; the displayed density only describes finite passage. With $e^{-\theta \infty }=0$, apply the given zero-drift Brownian first-passage Laplace transform:The zero-discount limit is $1$ for $b\le 0$ and $e^{-2ab}$ for $b>0$, so the hitting probability is less than one precisely when the line moves away with positive slope.

For a direct verification of the linear-boundary Brownian first-passage distribution, defineBoth terms tend to zero as $t\downarrow 0$. Let $\varphi$ be the standard normal density. The identityfollows by expanding the two squares. Differentiating the two normal probabilities then givesSince this is the previously derived hitting density and both distribution functions start at zero,This proof applies to every real $b$, including the defective distribution when $b>0$.

For the barrier digital put, use the dividend-free Black-Scholes model with constant interest rate $\rho$ and spot volatility $\sigma >0$. Under the risk-neutral measure,Set $T=t_0$ andReaching the barrier $c$ is equivalent to $W_t^Q$ reaching $a+bt$. The contingent claim pays one only on the survival event $\{T_{a,b}>T\}$. Risk-neutral pricing therefore givesThis is a path-survival price, not the price of a terminal digital put option. Continuity of the stock paths and the absence of an atom in the finite-horizon maximum imply that alternative touching conventions change no price. As $c\to \infty$, the value tends to $e^{-\rho T}$; as $c\downarrow S_0$, it tends to zero. Both checks agree with the survival interpretation.

Take a non-dividend-paying stock with physical dynamics $d{S}_t=\mu S_{t}dt+\sigma S_{t}d{W}_t$ and continuous-time bank account $B_t=e^{\rho t}$. Write $T=t_0$ and assume the candidate claim price $p(x,t)$ is $C^{2,1}$ before maturity, with enough growth control for the hedge to be admissible. The terminal condition is $p(x,T)=f(x)$.

The Itô formula gives the claim's price changeA self-financing portfolio worth $p$ with $\Delta$ shares has bank-account value $p-\Delta S_t$. Its gain isTo replicate the claim, the Brownian coefficients must agree, forcing the delta hedge $\Delta =p_x$. Equating the remaining drift coefficients cancels the physical drift $\mu$ and yieldsThe cancellation explains why the Black-Scholes equation contains the interest rate, not the physical stock drift. Conversely, if an admissible solution of this equation is given, holdings $p_x$ in the stock and $(p-x{p}_x)/B_t$ in the bank account have value $p$ and gains exactly $dp$. They are therefore a self-financing portfolio replicating the terminal payoff. Absence of arbitrage forces the claim to have this price. Merely decomposing the current value into arbitrary holdings would not justify self-financing; the gain identity and delta hedge are essential.

Now suppose the claim holder receives the cash rate $k(S_t,t)$ before $T$. The price $p$ is the ex-dividend value, so its total gain is $dp+kdt$. The replicating portfolio pays the same amounts out of its wealth, with no external injections. Thus its gain identity isAgain the Brownian coefficients force $\Delta =p_x$. Comparing drifts now gives the Black-Scholes equation with claim dividends:In particular the cash-flow source has a positive sign in the left-hand side. It is not an underlying-stock dividend yield and does not replace the drift $\rho x$ by a dividend-adjusted drift.

For another justification, under the risk-neutral measure $Q$, discount the claim's cum-dividend gain. The Itô formula shows thatexactly when the displayed equation holds. Subject to the usual integrability making this a true martingale, conditional expectation at maturity givesPositive interim payments therefore add positive value, which also checks the source sign. For instance, a constant payment rate $k_0$ and zero terminal payoff have price $k_0(1-e^{-\rho (T-t)})/\rho$, interpreted as $k_0(T-t)$ at $\rho =0$; substitution satisfies $p_t-\rho p+k_0=0$.

Let $T=t_0$, $\tau =T-t$, $x=S_t>0$, and $\sigma >0$. Use a dividend-free Black-Scholes model with constant interest rate $\rho$. The terminal payoff is assumed independent of the parameters being varied. In addition to twice differentiability, impose enough integrability to differentiate the pricing formula; for example, $f,f^{\prime },f^{\prime \prime }$ of polynomial growth suffice. Twice differentiability alone is not enough: the smooth payoff $f(x)=e^{x^2}$ has infinite expectation under every nondegenerate lognormal distribution.

Under the risk-neutral measure $Q$, future stock values conditional on $S_t=x$ have the formClaim replication, or equivalently the martingale property of discounted value in the complete market, givesThe replicating strategy holds the option delta $p_x$ shares and bank-account value $\beta =p-x{p}_x$. No physical drift parameter appears: the Girsanov theorem replaces the physical drift by $\rho$ under the pricing measure, and the replication argument cancels it directly. The risk-neutral pricing operator is linear in the payoff and preserves pointwise payoff inequalities.

Here is a verification of the Black-Scholes equation using the integral itself. Differentiation in spot givesDifferentiating with respect to $\tau$ givesFor $G(Z)=S_T{f}^{\prime }(S_T)$, the Gaussian integration by parts identity $\mathbb{E}[ZG]=\mathbb{E}[G^{\prime }]$ yieldsSubstitution cancels the $-{\sigma }^2/2$ term and provesSince $p_t=-p_{\tau }$, this is precisely the Black-Scholes equation. As $\tau \downarrow 0$, $M\to 1$ and growth control permits passage to the limit, giving $p(x,T)=f(x)$. The delta hedge then supplies the admissible replicating gains under the same regularity assumptions.

The Black-Scholes parameter sensitivities describe the dependence on the model parameters without assuming a particular payoff. If $f$ is increasing, then $p_x\ge 0$. If $f$ is convex, then $p_{xx}\ge 0$, so its price is convex in spot. The option gamma $p_{xx}$ measures the response of the option delta to spot changes.

For the interest rate, the distribution of the future stock also changes with $\rho$, so looking only at discounting gives the wrong general answer. Differentiation gives the option rhoThus a short bank-account position gives positive rate sensitivity, while a positive bank-account position gives negative rate sensitivity. For a cash payoff the result is negative; for the payoff $f(x)=x$ it is zero.

For spot volatility, differentiate the lognormal multiplier and then use Gaussian integration by parts:Consequently a convex payoff has nonnegative option vega. This monotonicity can also be understood by a mean-preserving increase of dispersion in the discounted stock. Strict positivity requires nonzero curvature seen with positive probability; an affine payoff has zero option vega.

Time enters through the remaining maturity $\tau$. Holding spot fixed, the Black-Scholes equation givesUnder the conventional assumption $\rho \ge 0$, a convex payoff and a short bond position $\beta <0$ imply $p_t\le 0$. The inequality is strict if $\rho >0$, or if $p_{xx}>0$ with positive volatility. Thus the price at fixed stock value is nonincreasing in calendar time, and nondecreasing in maturity, under these hypotheses. It is not a claim that the realized stochastic price path decreases: that path still has Brownian exposure $\sigma S_t{p}_{x}d{W}_t^Q$.

The printed conclusion needs the nonnegative-rate qualification; it is false for arbitrary negative rates. For $K>0$, the twice-differentiable convex payoff $f(x)=x-K$ hasThis is an exact counterexample, not a failure of the pricing formula. Also, with $\rho =0$ and an affine payoff, “decreasing” can only mean nonincreasing. Without payoff monotonicity or the specified bond-position sign, neither the spot nor rate nor time sensitivity has a universal sign. Any additional payoff parameter, such as a strike, is differentiated through $f$; pointwise payoff ordering, rather than a generic parameter rule, determines its price effect.

An interest rate model must describe a whole term structure of interest rates, not just one future scalar rate. Let $P(t,T)$ be the time-$t$ price of a unit zero-coupon bond maturing at $T$. For a sufficiently regular maturity curve, define the instantaneous forward rate and short rate bySince $P(t,t)=1$, integration givesHere $B$ is the continuous-time bank account. Thus modelling the two-parameter field $f(t,T)$ determines both the bonds and the discounting account. A Gaussian random field means that every finite collection of its values is jointly Gaussian; merely making each individual forward rate normally distributed is insufficient.

A useful arbitrage-free construction works under a money-market risk-neutral measure $Q$. Take independent Brownian motions $W^j$, deterministic coefficient sequences ${\sigma }_j(t,T)$, and a deterministic initial forward curve $f(0,T)$. With the coefficients viewed as vectors in a separable Hilbert space $H$, writeFor infinitely many factors, the last term means the $L^2$ limit of ${\sum }_j{\sigma }_j(t,T)d{W}_t^j$, not an assumption that the infinite vector of Brownian motions is itself $H$-valued. Require ${\int }_0^t\Vert \sigma (s,T){\Vert }_H^{2}ds<\infty$ and the maturity/time regularity needed for stochastic integration and exchange of integrals. Deterministic drift and volatility make this a Gaussian forward-rate field.

The field covariance is determined byFor every finite set of maturities, $(c_t(T_i,T_j))$ must be positive semidefinite. A one-factor model has rank-one instantaneous covariance, while additional or infinitely many factors permit richer correlations along the yield curve. Equivalently one can drive the curve with a maturity-correlated Brownian field $Z_t(T)$ satisfying $d⟨Z(T),Z(U){⟩}_t=c(T,U)dt$. A Brownian sheet gives the exampleMultiplication by deterministic maturity-dependent amplitudes, or deterministic increasing changes of the two sheet coordinates, gives further Gaussian covariance structures. A covariance specification alone is not sufficient: the forward drift must also obey absence of arbitrage.

To derive that drift restriction, putDifferentiate the moving lower endpoint in $\log P(t,T)=-{\int }_t^{T}f(t,u)du$ to obtainThe Itô formula therefore givesDiscounted bond prices must be martingales under $Q$. Their drift vanishes precisely when ${\int }_t^T\alpha (t,u)du=\frac{1}{2}\Vert \Sigma (t,T){\Vert }_H^2$. Differentiating in maturity gives the Heath-Jarrow-Morton model restrictionFor scalar amplitudes $v(t,T)$ multiplying a field with covariance kernel $c(T,U)$, this becomes $\alpha (t,T)=v(t,T){\int }_t^{T}v(t,u)c(T,u)du$. The extra maturity correlation factor cannot in general be dropped.

The complete Gaussian specification is consequentlyIts mean and covariance follow immediately from deterministic integration and the Itô isometry. The initial yield curve is an input, so fitting initial bond prices requires choosing $f(0,T)$ rather than changing a few scalar parameters. With the displayed drift, the discounted bond obeysOn finite horizons, deterministic square-integrable bond volatility gives an expectation-one stochastic exponential, hence a true discounted bond price martingale. This supplies an arbitrage-free pricing model for admissible portfolios in any finite collection of these bonds. Under a physical measure, a market price of risk vector changes the drift: if $d{W}_t^Q=d{W}_t^P+{\lambda }_{t}dt$, then the physical forward drift is $\alpha (t,T)+⟨\sigma (t,T),{\lambda }_t{⟩}_H$. Historical mean changes must therefore not be inserted in place of the risk-neutral drift restriction. Gaussianity under both measures additionally requires suitable deterministic drift changes; state-dependent risk premiums need not preserve Gaussianity under the physical measure.

There is also a useful general consistency test for a proposed Gaussian field beyond this independent-increment construction. DefineIn the filtration generated by a Gaussian field, conditional distributions of such linear functionals are Gaussian. For $s\le t\le T$, the martingale requirement is therefore exactlyThis follows by taking the conditional exponential moment and equating it to $e^{-L_s^T}$. It constrains both the deterministic mean and the covariance-induced conditional mean. Matching only unconditional discounted bond expectations does not suffice. For the Brownian-field construction, the Heath-Jarrow-Morton model restriction realizes this consistency condition through local drift cancellation.