Option Pricing: Real and Risk-Neutral Distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The central premise of the Black and Scholes [Black, F., Scholes, M. (1973). The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. Journal of Political Economy 81, 637–659]\nand Merton [Merton, R. (1973). Theory of rational option pricing. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 4, 141–184] option pricing theory is that there exists a self-financing dynamic trading policy of the stock and risk free accounts that renders the market dynamically complete. This requires that the market be complete and perfect. In this essay, we are concerned with cases in which dynamic trading breaks down either because the market is incomplete or because it is imperfect due to the presence of trading costs, or both. Market incompleteness renders the risk-neutral probability measure non unique and allows us to determine the option price only within a range. Recognition of trading costs requires a refinement in the definition\nand usage of the concept of a risk-neutral probability measure. Under these market conditions, a replicating dynamic trading policy does not exist. Nevertheless, we are\nable to impose restrictions on the pricing kernel and derive testable restrictions on the prices of options.We illustrate the theory in a series of market setups, beginning with\nthe single period model, the two-period model and, finally, the general multiperiod model, with or without transaction costs.We also review related empirical results that\ndocument widespread violations of these restrictions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".