The document provides an introduction to quantitative finance concepts including option pricing models. It begins with an outline and terminology. It then covers the Black-Scholes option pricing model, which uses stochastic calculus to derive a partial differential equation for pricing European options. The document also discusses replicating strategies in discrete and continuous time models, as well as extensions like American options and the Greeks.

1. A Tutorial Introduction to
Quantitative Finance
M. Vidyasagar
Executive Vice President
Tata Consultancy Services
Hyderabad, India
sagar@atc.tcs.com
ROCOND 2009, Haifa, Israel
Full tutorial introduction to appear in Indian Academy of Sciences
publication, available upon request.

2. And Now for Something Completely Different!

3. Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
Preliminaries: Introduction of terminology, problems studied, etc.
Finite market models: Basic ideas in an elementary setting.
Black-Scholes theory: What is it and why is it so (in-)famous?
Some simple modifications of Black-Scholes theory
What went wrong?
Some open problems that would interest control theorists

4. Preliminaries

5. Some Terminology
A market consists of a ‘safe’ asset usually referred to as a ‘bond’,
together with one or more ‘uncertain’ assets usually referred to as
‘stocks’.
A ‘portfolio’ is a set of holdings, consisting of the bond and the stocks.
We can think of it as a vector in Rn+1 where n is the number of
stocks. Negative ‘holdings’ correspond to borrowing money or ‘shorting’ stocks.
An ‘option’ is an instrument that gives the buyer the right, but not the
obligation, to buy a stock a prespecified price called the ‘strike price’
K.
A ‘European’ option can be exercised only at a specified time T . An
‘American’ option can be exercised at any time prior to a specified
time T .

6. European vs. American Options
The value of the European option is {ST −K}+. In this case it is worthless even though St > K for some intermediate times. The American
option has positive value at intermediate times but is worthless at time
t = T.

7. The Questions Studied Here
• What is the minimum price that the seller of an option should be
willing to accept?
• What is the maximum price that the buyer of an option should be
willing to pay?
• How can the seller (or buyer) of an option ‘hedge’ (minimimze or
even eliminate) his risk after having sold (or bought) the option?

8. Finite Market Models

9. One-Period Model
Many key ideas can be illustrated via ‘one-period’ model.
We have a choice of investing in a ‘safe’ bond or an ‘uncertain’ stock.
B(0) = Price of the bond at time T = 0.
(1 + r)B(0) at time T = 1.
It increases to B(1) =
S(0) = Price of the stock at time T = 0.
S(1) =
S(0)u with probability p,
S(0)d with probability 1 − p.
Assumption: d < 1 + r < u; otherwise problem is meaningless!
Rewrite as d < 1 < u , where d = d/(1 + r), u = u/(1 + r).

10. Options and Contingent Claims
An ‘option’ gives the buyer the right, but not the obligation, to buy
the stock at time T = 1 at a predetermined strike price K. Again,
assume S(0)d < K < S(0)u.
More generally, a ‘contingent claim’ is a random variable X such that
X=
Xu if S(1) = S(0)u,
Xd if S(1) = S(0)d.
To get an option, set X = {S(1) − K}+. Such instruments are called
‘derivatives’ because their value is ‘derived’ from that of an ‘underlying’
asset (in this case a stock).
Question: How much should the seller of such a claim charge for the
claim at time T = 0?

11. An Incorrect Intuition
View the value of the claim as a random variable.
X=
Xu with probability pu = p,
Xd with probability pd = 1 − p.
So
E[X, p] = (1 + r)−1[pXu + (1 − p)Xd].
Is this the ‘right’ price for the contingent claim?
NO! The seller of the claim can ‘hedge’ against future fluctuations of
stock price by using a part of the proceeds to buy the stock himself.

12. The Replicating Portfolio
Build a portfolio at time T = 0 such that its value exactly matches
that of the claim at time T = 1 irrespective of stock price movement.
Choose real numbers a and b (investment in stocks and bonds respectively) such that
aS(0)u + bB(0)(1 + r) = Xu, aS(0)d + bB(0)(1 + r) = Xd,
or in vector-matrix notation
[a b]
S(0)u
S(0)d
B(0)(1 + r) B(0)(1 + r)
= [Xu Xd].
This is called a ‘replicating portfolio’. The unique solution is
[a b] = [Xu Xd]
S(0)u
S(0)d
B(0)(1 + r) B(0)(1 + r)
−1
.

13. Cost of the Replicating Portfolio
So how much money is needed at time T = 0 to implement this replicating strategy? The answer is
c = [a b]
S(0)
B(0)
= [Xu Xd]
S(0)u
S(0)d
B(0)(1 + r) B(0)(1 + r)
= (1 + r)−1[Xu Xd]
qu
qd
−1
S(0)
B(0)
,
where with u = u/(1 + r), d = d/(1 + r), we have
q :=
qu
qd
=
u d
1 1
−1
1
1


1−d
=  u −d 
u −1
u −d
Note that qu, qd > 0 and qu + qd = 1. So q := (qu, qd) is a probability
distribution on S(1).

14. Martingale Measure: First Glimpse
Important point: q depends only on the returns u, d, and not on the
associated probabilities p, 1 − p.
Moreover,
−1 S(1), q] = S(0)u 1 − d + S(0)d u − 1 = S(0).
E[(1 + r)
u −d
u −d
Under this synthetic distribution, the discounted expected value of the
stock price at time T = 1 equals S(0). Hence {S(0), (1 + r)−1S(1)} is
a ‘martingale’ under the synthetic probability distribution q.
Thus
c = (1 + r)−1[Xu Xd]
qu
qd
is the discounted expected value of the contingent claim X under the
martingale measure q.

15. Arbitrage-Free Price of a Claim
Theorem: The quantity
c = (1 + r)−1[Xu Xd]
qu
qd
is the unique arbitrage-free price for the contingent claim.
Suppose someone is ready to pay c > c for the claim. Then the
seller collects c , invests c − c in a risk-free bond, uses c to implement
replicating strategy and settle claim at time T = 1, and pockets a riskfree profit of (1 + r)(c − c). This is called an ‘arbitrage opportunity’.
Suppose someone is ready to sell the claim for c < c. Then the buyer
can make a risk-free profit.

16. Multiple Periods: Binomial Model
The same strategy works for multiple periods; this is called the binomial model.
Bond price is deterministic:
Bn+1 = (1 + rn)Bn, n = 0, . . . , N − 1.
Stock price can go up or down: Sn+1 = Snun or Sndn.
There are 2N possible sample paths for the stock, corresponding to
each h ∈ {u, d}N . For each sample path h, at time N there is a payout
Xh.
Claim becomes due only at the end of the time period (European
contingent claim). In an ‘American’ option, the buyer chooses the
time of exercising the option.

17. Define dn = dn/(1 + rn), un = un/(1 + rn),
1 − dn
un − 1
.
qu,n =
, qd,n =
un − dn
un − dn;
Introduce a modified stochastic process
Sn+1 =
Snun with probability qu,n,
Sndn with probability qd,n.
Then
E{(1 + rn)−1Sn+1|Sn, Sn−1, . . . , S0} = Sn, for n = 0, . . . , N − 1.
Thus the discounted process

n−1




(1 + ri)−1Sn
i=0
where the empty product is taken as one, is a martingale.

18. Replicating Strategy for N Periods
We already know to replicate over one period. Extend argument to N
periods.
Suppose j ∈ {u, d}N −1 is the set of stock price transitions up to time
N − 1. So now there are only two possibilities for the final sample path:
ju and jd, and only two possible payouts: Xju and Xjd. Denote these
by cju and cjd respectively. We already know how to compute a cost cj
and a replicating portfolio [aj bj] to replicate this claim, namely:
cj = (1 + rn−1)−1 cjuqu,n + cjdqd,n .
[aj bj] = [cju cjd]
Sjuj
Sjdj
Bj(1 + rN −1) Bj(1 + rN −1)
−1
.

19. Do this for each j ∈ {u, d}N −1. So if we are able to replicate each of
the 2N −1 payouts cj at time T = N − 1, then we know how to replicate
each of the 2N payouts at time T = N .
Repeat backwards until we reach time T = 0.
decreases by a factor of two at each time step.
Number of payouts

21. Arbitrage-Free Price for Multiple Periods
Recall earlier definitions:
dn
un
1 − dn
un − 1
dn =
,u =
, qu,n =
.
, qd,n =
1 + rn n
1 + rn
un − dn
un − dn;
Now define
N −1
qh =
qh,n, ∀h ∈ {u, d}N ,
n=0

−1
N −1
c0 := 
(1 + rn)
Xhqh.
n=0
h∈{u,d}N
c0 is the expected value of the claim Xh under the synthetic distribution
{qh} that makes the discounted stock price a martingale. Moreover,
c0 is the unique arbitrage-free price for the claim.

22. Replicating Strategy in Multiple Periods
Seller of claim receives an amount c0 at time T = 0 and invests a0 in
stocks and b0 in bonds, where
[a0 b0] = [cu cd]
S0u0
S0 d 0
B0(1 + r0) B0(1 + r0)
−1
.
Due to replication, at time T = 1, the portfolio is worth cu if the stock
goes up, and is worth cd if the stock goes down. At time T = 1, adjust
the portfolio according to
[a1 b1] = [ci0u ci0d]
S1u1
S1 d 1
B1(1 + r1) B1(1 + r1)
where i0 = u or d as the case may be. Then repeat.
−1
,

23. Important note: This strategy is self-financing:
a0S1 + b0B1 = a1S1 + b1B1
whether S1 = S0u0 or S1 = S0d0 (i.e. whether the stock goes up or
down at time T = 1). This property has no analog in the one-period
case.
It is also replicating from that time onwards.
Observe: Implementation of replicating strategy requires reallocation
of resources N times, once at each time instant.

24. Black-Scholes Theory

25. Continuous-Time Processes: Black-Scholes Formula
Take ‘limit’ at time interval goes to zero and N → ∞; binomial asset
price movement becomes geometric Brownian motion:
1
µ − σ 2 t + σWt , t ∈ [0, T ],
2
where Wt is a standard Brownian motion process. µ is the ‘drift’ of
the Brownian motion and σ is the volatility.
St = S0 exp
Bond price is deterministic: Bt = B0ert.
simple option: XT = {ST − K}+.
Claim is European and a
What we can do: Make µ, σ, r functions of t and not constants.
What we cannot do: Make σ, r stochastic! (Stochastic µ is OK.)

26. Theorem (Black-Scholes 1973):
price is
log(S0/K ∗)
1 √
√
C0 = S0Φ
+ σ T
2
σ T
The unique arbitrage-free option
− K ∗Φ
log(S0/K ∗) 1 √
√
− σ T
2
σ T
,
where
c
1
−u2 /2 du
√
e
Φ(c) =
2π −∞
is the Gaussian distribution function, and K ∗ = e−rT K is the discounted
strike price.

27. Black-Scholes PDE
Consider a general payout function erT ψ(e−rT x) to the buyer if ST = x
(various exponentials discount future payouts to T = 0). Then the
unique arbitrage-free price is given by
C0 = f (0, S0),
where f is the solution of the PDE
∂f
1 2 2 ∂ 2f
+ σ x
= 0, ∀(t, x) ∈ (0, T ) × (0, ∞),
2
∂t
2
∂x
with the boundary condition
f (T, x) = ψ(x).
No closed-form solution in general (but available if ψ(x) = (x − K ∗)+).

28. Replicating Strategy in Continuous-Time
Define
∗
Ct = C0 +
t
0
∗
∗
fx(s, Ss )dSs , t ∈ (0, T ),
where the integral is a stochastic integral, and define
∗
∗
∗
αt = fx(t, St ), βt = Ct − αtSt .
Then hold αt of the stock and βt of the bond at time t.
Observe: Implementation of self-financing fully replicating strategy
requires continuous trading.

29. Some Simple Modifications of Black-Scholes Theory

30. Extensions to Multiple Assets
Binomial model extends readily to multiple assets.
Black-Scholes theory extends to the case of multiple assets of the form
(i)
St
(i)
= S0 exp
1
(i)
µ(i) − [σ (i)]2 t + σWt
, t ∈ [0, T ],
2
(i)
where Wt , i = 1, . . . , d are (possibly correlated) Brownian motions.
(1)
(d)
Analog of Black-Scholes PDE: C0 = f (0, S0 , . . . , S0 ) where f satisfies a PDE. But no closed-form solution for f in general.

31. American Options
An ‘American’ option can be exercised at any time up to and including
time T .
So we need a ‘super-replicating’ strategy: The value of our portfolio
must equal or exceed the value of the claim at all times.
If Xt = {St − K}+, then both price and hedging strategy are same as
for European claims.
Very little known about pricing American options in general. Theory
of ‘optimal time to exercise option’ is very deep and difficult.

32. Sensitivities and the ‘Greeks’
Recall C0 = f (0, S0) is the correct price for the option under BlackScholes theory. (We need not assume the claim to be a simple option!)
∂C0
∂∆
∂ 2C0
∆=
,
,Γ =
=
2
∂S0
∂S0
∂S0
∂C0
∂f (t, Xt)
∂f (t, Xt)
,θ = −
,ρ =
.
∂σ
∂t
∂r
‘Delta-hedging’: A strategy such that ∆ = 0 – return is insensitive to
initial stock price (to first-order approximation).
Vega = ν =
‘Delta-gamma-hedging’: A strategy such that ∆ = 0, Γ = 0 – return
is insensitive to initial stock price (to second-order approximation).

33. What Went Wrong?

34. What Went Wrong?
My view: The current financial debacle owes very little to poor modeling of risks. Most significant factors were:
• Complete abdication of oversight responsibility by US government –
led to over-leveraging and massive conflicts of interests
• OTC trading of complex instruments – made ‘price discovery’ impossible
⇒ Net outstanding derivative positions: $ 760 trillion!
⇒ U.S. Annual GDP: $ 13 trillion, World’s: $ 60 trillion
⇒ 90% of derivatives traded OTC – No regulation whatsoever!
• ‘One-way’ rewards for traders: Heads the traders win – tails the depositors and shareholders lose
• Real bonuses paid on virtual profits, and so on
Please read full paper for elaboration.

35. Some Open Problems That Would Interest Control Theorists

36. Some Open Problems
• Incomplete markets: Replication is impossible
• Multiple martingale measures: Which one to choose?
• Computing the ‘greeks’ when there are no closed-form formulas
• Alternate models for asset price movement: Why geometric Brownian
motion?

37. Incomplete Markets
Consider the one-period model where the asset takes three, not two,
possible values.

 S(0)u

with probability pu,
S(1) = S(0)m with probability pm,

 S(0)d with probability p ,
d
To construct a replicating strategy, we need to choose a, b such that
[a b]
S(0)u
S(0)m
S(0)d
(1 + r)B(0) (1 + r)B(0) (1 + r)B(0)
No solution in general – replication is impossible!
= [Xu Xm Xd].

38. Martingale measures
Let us try to find a synthetic measure q = (qu, qm, qd) so that
E[(1 + r)−1S(1), q] = S(0).
Need to choose qu, qm, qd such that
qu + qm + qd = 1, quu + qmm + qdd = 1 + r.
Infinitely many martingale measures!
Is there a relationship?

39. Finite Market Case: DMW Theorem
Consider d assets over N time instants, each assuming values in R.
We allow infinitely many values for each asset, correlations, etc. Let
˜
P denote the law of these assets (law over RdN ).
Theorem (Dalang-Morton-Willinger):
are equivalent:
The following statements
˜
˜
• There exists a probability measure Q on RdN that is equivalent to P
˜
such that, under Q, the process {Sn}N
n=0 is a martingale.
• There does not exist an arbitrage opportunity.
Moreover, if either of these equivalent conditions holds, then it is pos˜
sible to choose the measure Q in such a way that the Radon-Nikodym
˜ ˜
derivative (dQ/dP ) is bounded.

40. Existence of a Replicating Strategy
Define
˜
˜
V−(X) := min E[X, Q], V+(X) := max E[X, Q],
˜
Q∈M
˜
Q∈M
where M is the set of martingale measures.
[V−(X), V+(X)] is arbitrage-free.
Then every price in
Note: V−(X) is the maximum that the buyer of the claim would (normally) be willing to pay. Similarly, V+(X) is the minimum that the
seller of the claim would (normally) be willing to accept.
Theorem: A European contingent claim with the payout function X
is replicable if and only if V−(X) = V+(X).
Modulo technical conditions, replicability ≈ unique martingale measure.

41. Minimum Relative Entropy Martingage Measures
˜
In incomplete markets (M is infinite), choose Q to minimize the relative
entropy:
˜
˜
Q∗ = arg min H(Q
˜
Q∈M
˜
P ),
where
n
˜
H(Q
˜
P) =
qi
qi log .
pi
i=1
˜
Choose martingale measure that is ‘closest’ to the real-world law P .
˜
Q∗ has a nice interpretation in terms of maximizing utility. Since M is
˜ ˜
˜
a convex set and H(Q P ) is convex in Q, this is a convex optimization
problem.

42. Computing the Greeks
Even for simple geometric Brownian motion models, no closed form
for fair price C0 = f (0, S0) unless claim X is a simple option. So how
to compute the ‘greeks’ ?
One possibility: Evaluate fair price(s) using stochastic (Monte Carlo)
simulation; then differentiate numerically. Absolutely fraught with numerical instabilities and sensitivities.
Answer: Malliavin calculus.
Originally developed for Brownian motion, now extented to arbitrary
L´vy processes.
e

43. Alternate Models for Asset Prices
Geometric L´vy processes: Assume
e
St = S0 exp(Lt),
where {Lt} is a L´vy process.
e
A L´vy process is the most general process with independent incree
ments. For all practical purposes, a L´vy process consists of a Wiener
e
process (Brownian motion) plus a countable number of ‘jumps’.
Sad fact: Replication is possible only for geometric Brownian motion
asset prices!

44. Ergo: GBM (Geometric Brownian Motion) is the only asset price model
for which there exists a unique martingale measure and the theory is
very ‘pretty’.
Unfortunately, real world distributions are quite far from Gaussian, in
the range [µ − 10σ, µ + 10σ]. Moreover, they are also ‘skewed’ in the
positive direction.
A tractable theory of pricing claims with real world probabilities is still
waiting to be discovered.

45. Conclusions
Quantitative finance has definitely made pricing and trading more ‘scientific’, but several poorly understood issues still remain:
• Irrational behavior
• Non-equilibrium economics (e.g. incomplete information)
• Correlated increments in asset price returns
• Effects of alternate asset price models on option pricing and/or trading strategies.
In short, what is unknown dwarfs what is known.
Thank You!