Skip to content

Proving a Discounted Stock Price Is a Risk-Neutral Martingale

Original question

I'm trying to prove that a discounted asset price is a martingale under the risk-neutral measure. What steps should I follow?
Express the asset's dynamics under the risk-neutral measure Q\mathbb Q, divide its price by the money-market account, and verify that the result is a true martingale. In a no-dividend constant-coefficient model with risk-free rate rr and volatility σ\sigma, the discounted price is
e−rtSt=S0eσWtQ−12σ2t.e^{-rt}S_t=S_0e^{\sigma W_t^{\mathbb Q}-\frac12\sigma^2t}.

It has conditional expected growth of one by independence of the future Brownian increment and its normal moment-generating function.

Discount the traded value and verify the conditional mean

Assume dSt=rSt dt+σSt dWtQdS_t=rS_t\,dt+\sigma S_t\,dW_t^{\mathbb Q} with S0>0S_0>0. The discount factor is deterministic and of finite variation, so the product rule yields
d(e−rtSt)=e−rtdSt−re−rtSt dt=σe−rtSt dWtQ.d(e^{-rt}S_t)=e^{-rt}dS_t-re^{-rt}S_t\,dt =\sigma e^{-rt}S_t\,dW_t^{\mathbb Q}.

This shows that the discounted process S~\widetilde S is a local martingale. To prove the stronger claim, solve the driftless geometric SDE or use its exponential representation. At any s<ts<t,

EQ[S~t∣Fs]=S~s EQ ⁣[eσ(WtQ−WsQ)−12σ2(t−s)]=S~s.\mathbb E_{\mathbb Q}[\widetilde S_t\mid\mathcal F_s] =\widetilde S_s\, \mathbb E_{\mathbb Q}\!\left[ e^{\sigma(W_t^{\mathbb Q}-W_s^{\mathbb Q})-\frac12\sigma^2(t-s)} \right] =\widetilde S_s.

The process is adapted, and its finite-time first moments equal S0S_0. You could alternatively verify EQ∫0Tσ2S~u2 du<∞\mathbb E_{\mathbb Q}\int_0^T \sigma^2\widetilde S_u^2\,du<\infty, which ensures its stochastic integral is a true martingale on the finite interval.

To verify the martingale directly, write the discounted stock at tt as its value at ss times e−σ2(t−s)/2+σ(WtQ−WsQ)e^{-\sigma^2(t-s)/2+\sigma(W_t^{\mathbb Q}-W_s^{\mathbb Q})}. The second factor is independent of the information at ss and has mean one by the Gaussian exponential moment. This checks both why the discounted value is fair under Q\mathbb Q and why the undiscounted conditional mean still grows at rr. When the asset pays dividends, the traded gains include those cash flows and the same statement requires accounting for them.

For an original exercise, assume r=0.04r=0.04 and σ=0.25\sigma=0.25, and suppose S0.5=108S_{0.5}=108 is observed. Then EQ[S1∣F0.5]=108e0.02≈110.18\mathbb E_{\mathbb Q}[S_1\mid\mathcal F_{0.5}]=108e^{0.02}\approx110.18. Multiplying by e−0.04e^{-0.04} gives 108e−0.02≈105.86108e^{-0.02}\approx105.86, precisely the discounted time-0.50.5 value. In units of time 0.50.5, the equivalent equality is S0.5=e−0.02EQ[S1∣F0.5]S_{0.5}=e^{-0.02}\mathbb E_{\mathbb Q}[S_1\mid\mathcal F_{0.5}].

For a stock with continuous proportional dividend yield qq, the ex-dividend price drifts at r−qr-q under Q\mathbb Q. In that case the martingale is the discounted gain process, e−rtSt+∫0te−ruqSu due^{-rt}S_t+\int_0^t e^{-ru}qS_u\,du. The dividend integral offsets the negative −q-q drift of the discounted ex-dividend price.

A deterministic time-varying rate works similarly. Replace erte^{rt} by exp⁡(∫0tru du)\exp(\int_0^t r_u\,du) and use rtStr_tS_t as the drift under Q\mathbb Q. The product rule removes the local rate at each instant.

Interactive example

Turn a fair random walk into a biased one

Start at zero. Each independent step adds 1 on heads and subtracts 1 on tails. Compare expected change with the variability of a single walk.

Expected change per step 0.00 · martingale
A random walk compared with its expected path-4-2008162432StepsPosition
  • One simulated walk
  • Expected walk

References and next steps