Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2606.00800

Multiplicative Langevin Process for Volatilities Produces Observed Q-Variance Regularities

Abstract

Q-variance (so-called) posits a statistical relationship $\mathbf{E}(σ^2 | z) = σ_0^2 + \tfrac{1}{2}z^2$ between an asset's volatility $σ^2$, as observed in a time interval $T$, and its (suitably scaled) return $z$ in the same interval. We here show that this relationship is {\em exactly equivalent} to to positing an Inverse Gamma probability distribution for $σ^2$ itself. We then show that such a distribution is exactly generated by a multiplicative Langevin process with an arbitrary, settable coherence time $τ_c$, so that very nearly the same Q-variance relationship will hold for all $T \ll τ_c$.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

William H. Press, Alex Dannenberg. 2026-06-24. Multiplicative Langevin Process for Volatilities Produces Observed Q-Variance Regularities. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00800

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Yet another asymptotic formula for implied volatility

We derive a first-order representation of Black-Scholes implied variance in a continuous local martingale model. Total implied variance is the conditional expectation of the quadratic variation of the log price given its terminal value, up to a smaller-order term, for bounded standardized log-strikes. The framework incorporates small volatility-of-volatility, fast mean-reverting, and short-maturity asymptotics.

q-fin.PR

(Early) AI Compute Asset Pricing

Compute (computing power) is a scarce, capital-intensive input at the center of the AI economy. Compute capital expenditure and service flow already exceed 1% of U.S. GDP and are growing rapidly. The price of compute reflects uncertainty over AI adoption. The announced launch of compute futures turns this uncertainty into a tradable risk, raising questions on the pricing of a new asset class. We provide an early asset-pricing framework for compute. We begin by discussing the underlying compute rental market and its indexation. We then turn to pricing: 1) direct no-arbitrage links between futures prices and current spot prices fail due to the non-storable nature of compute, 2) synthetic futures prices from existing term rental contracts are likely upper bounds on true futures prices and, 3) upon financialization, futures prices will be investors' expectations of spot prices at expiration net of a risk premium. Using synthetic futures as stand-ins before the compute futures market launches, we construct the first compute futures return panel sorted by GPU generation and maturity. Our preliminary evidence is consistent with a positive compute risk premium, suggesting hedging pressure on the part of compute providers.

q-fin.PR

The existence of optimal bang-bang controls for GMxB contracts

A large collection of financial contracts offering guaranteed minimum benefits are often posed as control problems, in which at any point in the solution domain, a control is able to take any one of an uncountable number of values from the admissible set. Often, such contracts specify that the holder exert control at a finite number of deterministic times. The existence of an optimal bang-bang control, an optimal control taking on only a finite subset of values from the admissible set, is a common assumption in the literature. In this case, the numerical complexity of searching for an optimal control is considerably reduced. However, no rigorous treatment as to when an optimal bang-bang control exists is present in the literature. We provide the reader with a bang-bang principle from which the existence of such a control can be established for contracts satisfying some simple conditions. The bang-bang principle relies on the convexity and monotonicity of the solution and is developed using basic results in convex analysis and parabolic partial differential equations. We show that a guaranteed lifelong withdrawal benefit (GLWB) contract admits an optimal bang-bang control. In particular, we find that the holder of a GLWB can maximize a writer's losses by only ever performing nonwithdrawal, withdrawal at exactly the contract rate, or full surrender. We demonstrate that the related guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit contract is not convexity preserving, and hence does not satisfy the bang-bang principle other than in certain degenerate cases.

q-fin.PR