How do investors' expectations drive asset prices?



interpretation of the process defining the pricing kernel. Further, we apply
Girsanov’s theorem in a representative investor economy to gain a deeper
understanding of the pricing kernel.

4.1 Brief summary of Girsanov’s theorem

Assuming that the market, in some filtered probability space , G, Gt■ P) on
which defined a standard Brownian motion
W, admits no arbitrage possibil-
ities it is well known that there exists a martingale measure P equivalent to
P under which the forward price
Ft is a martingale4, thus

F = Ep (Fτ Qt) , O t T.

Defining the density process ηt := Ep (QGt), O tT, then F follows a
P-martingale if and only if ηF follows a P-martingale, in other words

ηtFt = Ep (ητFτ Qt) , O t T.

A with P ÇJq λjdt < ∞) = 1


(4)


Now, for an adapted real-valued process
consider

dΦjλ> = -Φjλ∖dWt ,
= 1
,

then it is clear that Φ^λ i is a P -martingale.


Further, the unique solution to


equation (4) is Φ/ = exp (— ' λudW7u f f λu2 du} for O t T. By
construction the process Φ^λ
h has the properties of a density process.

However, it follows from the no arbitrage assumption that there exists a
process
к such that Φ^d defines a probability measure P by
under which F is a martingale. Hence, we have

d^ = φw
dP t


O t T, P-a.s.


F = Ep (φ(*F Fτ Qt^ , O t T,                (5)

4We consider only forward contracts with maturity time T, thus for notational conve-
nience we write
Ft instead of Ftt?.



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. The name is absent
3. Implementation of a 3GPP LTE Turbo Decoder Accelerator on GPU
4. The Importance of Global Shocks for National Policymakers: Rising Challenges for Central Banks
5. ¿Por qué se privatizan servicios en los municipios (pequeños)? Evidencia empírica sobre residuos sólidos y agua.
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. The Response of Ethiopian Grain Markets to Liberalization
9. The Determinants of Individual Trade Policy Preferences: International Survey Evidence
10. Structural Influences on Participation Rates: A Canada-U.S. Comparison