<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Risk-Neutral Pricing on Inflection Quant</title><link>https://inflectionquant.com/tags/risk-neutral-pricing/</link><description>Recent content in Risk-Neutral Pricing on Inflection Quant</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://inflectionquant.com/tags/risk-neutral-pricing/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Drift Lives in the Measure: An Intuitive Look at Girsanov's Theorem</title><link>https://inflectionquant.com/articles/girsanov/</link><pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://inflectionquant.com/articles/girsanov/</guid><description>&lt;h2 id="why-this-matters"&gt;Why This Matters&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;We want to price a derivative. Under the real world measure $\mathbb{P}$, we face
two problems. First, we do not know the true drift $\mu$ of the underlying, and
historical estimates are notoriously unreliable. Second, even if we knew $\mu$,
taking the expected payoff under $\mathbb{P}$ would still not give the market price.
Risky cash flows must be discounted more heavily than guaranteed ones because
investors are risk averse. Pricing under $\mathbb{P}$ requires both the true
probabilities of outcomes and a model for how the market prices risk. Both are
fundamentally unobservable. So what can we do?&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>How Randomness Solves a Deterministic Equation: An Intuitive Look at the Feynman–Kac Theorem</title><link>https://inflectionquant.com/articles/feynman_kac/</link><pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://inflectionquant.com/articles/feynman_kac/</guid><description>&lt;h2 id="why-this-matters"&gt;Why This Matters&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The first time I encountered the Feynman-Kac theorem, I found it fascinating but
unintuitive. The theorem claims that a deterministic PDE and the expectation of
a stochastic process are two representations of the same object. A PDE is smooth and
deterministic. A stochastic expectation involves randomness, probability measures, and
averaging over infinitely many paths. How could these be the same thing? I understood the steps of the proof, but I still didn’t have a clear intuition for why this equivalence should exist.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>