I seem to remember, though am beginning to question my memory, stumbling across a very nice alternative derivation of Black-Scholes in one of the Wilmott on Quantitative Finance books. Each term was added as a hedging a component, and the final step was taking expectation of the pnl/error terms over a large/infinite number of rebalancings. I've been through all 3 books and can't seem to find this derivation. It may be it was in another (potentially Wilmott) paper which I've forgotten. Any help pointing me in the right direction would be truly appreciated. Apologies for the vague description. If I remembered it better I might not need to find it again.

The "Frequently Asked Questions on Quantitative Finance" book has a collection of BS derivations, maybe there?

Yes there are 10+ ways of deriving it in there.

I think it's what I call the "Black-Scholes for accountants" derivation. And, yes, as finitud says, it's in FAQQF2.P

Given Google's global reach it is not altogether inconceivable that the pages you are looking for may be available online.

Thanks for that, acastaldo! If I get a chance to reduce your income then I shall not pass the opportunity!P

Ironically, Google's motto is 'Do No Evil'.

To do no evil you need a degree of (corporate?) empathy, which the likes of Google and, especially, Facebook don't seem to possess!P

QuoteOriginally posted by: PaulTo do no evil you need a degree of (corporate?) empathy, which the likes of Google and, especially, Facebook don't seem to possess!PIt's worse than that. Google's mission contradicts their motto:QuoteOriginally posted by: GoogleGoogle's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.Although organizing information may not be evil, both the "universally accessible" and "useful" element of the mission are fraught with evil. "Universal access" harms privacy rights, copyrights, and the rights of political dissidents. "Useful" means that Google is evil to the extent that Google is useful to evil users.

One could teach the senior Google people the importance of privacy by exposing their peccadilloes in public. Unfortunately this plan falls down because I've never met a geek who has ever done anything even vaguely interesting, let alone anything embarrassing!P

Great. That's the one. Thanks. If it's any consolation I must have seen it somewhere before, presumably in something already in our library.Isn't Google's motto 'Don't Be Evil'? Semantic loopholes, evil, sneaky or other?

Consider FAQQF2 is investing not spending. Anyway, financial schools are so expensive that buying this book should NOT worsen your pain. Value is not price.