GBM-Inspired Forward Process

• GBM-Inspired Forward Process is a stochastic model that uses SDE structure and log-normal increments to forecast asset prices.
• It employs maximum likelihood estimation and statistical tests to validate parameters, ensuring accurate risk quantification via MSE and confidence intervals.
• Despite its tractability at certain time scales, the model struggles with high-frequency data, indicating a need for extensions like jump-diffusion or stochastic volatility.

Geometric Brownian Motion (GBM)–Inspired Forward Process comprises a class of stochastic models where the fundamental mechanism for forward (temporal) evolution draws on the SDE structure, scaling properties, and distributional assumptions of geometric Brownian motion. These models generalize, critique, or adapt the GBM paradigm to serve as a forward process for data-driven prediction, generative modeling, and empirical risk assessment in a variety of fields—most prominently quantitative finance. Recent arXiv literature has focused intensively on practical model calibration, forward uncertainty propagation, and evaluation of the adequacy and limitations of GBM-inspired processes at different temporal aggregation levels.

1. Mathematical Structure of the GBM Forward Process

A geometric Brownian motion models a positive, continuous-time stochastic process $p_t$ via the SDE

$$dp_t = \mu p_t\,dt + \sigma p_t\,ds, \qquad 0 \leq t < T,$$

where $\mu$ is the drift, $\sigma$ is the diffusion (volatility), and $ds$ denotes standard Brownian increments. The solution,

$$p_{t+1} = p_t \exp\left[\left(\mu - \frac{1}{2} \sigma^2\right) (t+1-t) + \sigma (s_{t+1} - s_t)\right],$$

implies that forward-in-time transitions of $p_t$ obey multiplicative, log-normally distributed dynamics.

Expectation and variance under the model are explicit: $$E(p_{t+1}) = p_t \exp\left[\left(\mu - \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2\right)\Delta t\right]$$

$$\operatorname{var}(p_{t+1}) = p_t^2 \exp\left[2\mu + \sigma^2\Delta t\right]\left(\exp[\sigma^2\Delta t] - 1\right).$$

The GBM structure enforces three primary statistical properties on the forward process:

• Log-normal increments: Forward log-returns are Gaussian iid, $$R_t = \ln(p_t/p_{t-1}) \sim N\left((\mu-\frac12\sigma^2)\Delta t,\; \sigma^2 \Delta t\right)$$.
• Proportional noise: Incremental uncertainty is multiplicative in the current state.
• Markov property: Future evolution depends only on current value, not on the entire trajectory.

2. Empirical Validation and Estimation

Parameter inference proceeds via maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) using observed log returns. For time series $p_1, \ldots, p_N$, the log-likelihood is

$L(\theta) = \sum_{t=1}^{N} \ln f_\theta(R_t),$

where $f_\theta(R_t)$ is the normal density. Empirical fit of a GBM-inspired forward process must rigorously test the underlying data for

• Stationarity (Augmented Dickey-Fuller);
• Normality (histogram, Q-Q plot, Shapiro-Wilk);
• Independence/random walk (Ljung-Box, Hurst exponent).

Forecasts and probabilistic intervals are then constructed using analytical expressions for the mean and variance of future $p_{t+1}$, assuming the last observed price as the starting point.

3. Predictive Adequacy, Time Scale Sensitivity, and Confidence Intervals

In practical application (e.g., stock price modeling on the Ghana Stock Exchange (Quayesam et al., 19 Mar 2024)), the alignment between GBM-inspired forward forecasts and actual data is sensitive to temporal aggregation. Monthly returns for equities satisfying GBM prerequisites (normal, stationary, uncorrelated log returns) yield predictive mean square errors (MSE) as low as 2.6%–11.9% and robust coverage of realized prices within analytic 95% confidence bands. At higher frequencies (weekly or daily), empirical violations of normality or independence invalidate the model and degrade out-of-sample fit (MSE up to 41%).

Equity	Time Step	MSE (%)	CI Coverage
UTB	Monthly	2.6	Yes
GOIL	Monthly	6.3	Yes
TLW	Monthly	11.9	Yes
GCB	Monthly	32.3	Yes
TOTAL	Monthly	41.0	Yes

This demonstrates the inherent trade-off: GBM-inspired forward processes offer highly tractable, interval-quantifiable predictions but only at time scales and on series where underlying stochastic assumptions are not empirically violated.

4. Model Limitations and the Need for Extensions

Despite robustness for some assets and time scales, GBM-inspired forward processes possess well-documented structural shortfalls:

• Misspecification at high frequency: Return distributions at weekly/daily scales often show excess kurtosis, autocorrelation, or non-stationarity, breaching GBM assumptions.
• Lack of jump or regime-switching: GBM cannot capture market jumps, discrete shocks, or transitions between different data-generating regimes.
• Constant volatility, drift assumptions: Empirical volatility clustering and drift variation (stylized facts) are not described.

Consequently, point and interval forecasts from GBM-inspired forward processes may miss directional moves, underestimate risk during periods of market stress, or overpredict expected returns.

A plausible implication is that extensions incorporating jump-diffusion, time-varying parameters, or stochastic volatility SDEs are required to correctly model asset forward evolution outside the restrictive GBM domain.

5. Practical Guidance for Deployment and Model Evaluation

For applied modeling:

• Restrict deployment of GBM-inspired forward processes to equities and time resolutions where all core statistical assumptions are statistically validated.
• Utilize MLE-based confidence intervals as primary risk quantification; compare realized trajectories to expected and boundary bands.
• Quantify predictive error via MSE, interpreting values below 10% as indicative of model adequacy, but always check that actual prices fall within interval forecasts.
• Monitor for systematic bias: Persistent over- or under-shooting of forecasts vs. observed prices indicates violation of model assumptions or non-stationarity in drift/volatility.

When serial dependence, excess kurtosis, or regime switching is present in the data, proceed immediately to more general forward specifications.

6. Broader Significance and Research Directions

GBM-inspired forward processes persist as the principal mathematical mechanism in continuous-time asset pricing, risk quantification, and forward uncertainty propagation due to their tractability and analytic transparency. However, their empirical limitations mandate regular hypothesis testing and judicious restriction to validated use cases. Recent research emphasizes the development and validation of more general forward processes—incorporating jump, stochastic volatility, and regime-switching features—to better approximate real-world price dynamics and enable more resilient forecasting and risk management in financial systems (Quayesam et al., 19 Mar 2024).

---

References: All claims and formulas in this entry are sourced directly from (Quayesam et al., 19 Mar 2024).