This question might appear trivial to many (considering the questions on this site), but I think it reflects something fundamental that I am missing.

To keep things simple, assume everyone is risk-neutral and there is no inflation etc, so that prices are determined using expected values.

Let us be in year 0. Consider an asset that pays \$1 in year 1 and \$1 in year 2. Let $r_{01}$ and $r_{02}$ denote the (annually compounded) 1-year spot rate and 2-year spot rate respectively. The standard textbook way to price this asset is:

$$P_0 = \frac{1}{1+r_{01}} + \frac{1}{(1+r_{02})^2}$$

Here is an alternative approach that seems reasonable. We have $P_0 = \frac{1}{1+r_{01}} + \frac{E[P_1]}{1+r_{01}}$ where $P_1$ is the expected price the asset will fetch in year 1. At time 0, $P_1$ is still a random variable and it is calculated by $P_1 = \frac{1}{1+r_{12}}$ where $r_{12}$ is the one-year spot rate when we are in year 1 (hence this is a random variable at year 0). In this case,

$$P_0 = \frac{1}{1+r_{01}} + \frac{E[P_1]}{1+r_{01}} = \frac{1}{1+r_{01}} + E\left(\frac{1}{1+r_{12}}\right)\frac{1}{1+r_{01}}$$

If these two pricing methods are to be equal, then one needs

$$ \frac{1}{(1+r_{02})^2} = E\left(\frac{1}{1+r_{12}}\right)\frac{1}{1+r_{01}}$$

It does not appear to me that this must be so. In fact, I think it is the case that $(1+r_{01})E(1+r_{12})=(1+r_{02})^2$ [by considering the expected amount \$1 under a two-year strip or rollover one-year strips will earn; if LHS>RHS, then borrow \$1 cash using $(1+r_{02})^2$ units of 2-year strips and lend out all that cash on $1+r_{01}$ units of 1-year strips and lent out all earnings again at end of year 1 on $(1+r_{01})(1+r_{12})$ units of 1-year strip to make profit in year 2 in expectation]. Since $E(1/X)\neq 1/E(X)$ in general, the two pricing methods cannot lead to equal outcomes. How do I resolve this contradiction?


3 Answers 3


$$\frac{1}{(1+r_{02})^2} = E\left(\frac{1}{1+r_{12}}\right)\frac{1}{1+r_{01}}$$

Indeed, in the pricing measure, the distribution of $r_{12}$ has to be such that this relation holds.

If you look at drift derivations for the LIBOR market model, a lot of work goes into making this sort of equation hold.

  • $\begingroup$ May I ask what is then incorrect about the relation $(1+r_{01})E(1+r_{12})=1+r_{02}$? I tried to explain a way (in the last paragraph of my question) to make money in expectation if equality does not hold. What is wrong with the reasoning? $\endgroup$
    – suncup224
    Jul 6, 2015 at 12:39
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, I think I got it. I was taking expectations across different scenarios of year 2, and that is not allowed because the "dollar value" are different across the two scenarios $\endgroup$
    – suncup224
    Jul 7, 2015 at 10:47
  • $\begingroup$ @suncup224: You can take the expectations, but you need to use different probability measures. $\endgroup$
    – Gordon
    Jul 7, 2015 at 13:05
  • $\begingroup$ i think the essential point here is that the concept of "risk-neutral measure" is a lot more complicated in interest-rate land than in equity-land. Covariance between discounting and value leads to drift also known as convexity corrections. Once you choose something to discount by that fixes the measure (i.e. a numeraire). I have extensive discussion of discounting and drifts in "more mathematical finance." $\endgroup$
    – Mark Joshi
    Jul 7, 2015 at 23:17

There is no conflict here. In the identity, \begin{align*} \frac{1}{(1+r_{02})^2} = E\left(\frac{1}{1+r_{12}}\right)\frac{1}{1+r_{01}}, \end{align*} the expectation is under the year-1 forward measure. However, in the identity \begin{align*} (1+r_{01})E(1+r_{12})=(1+r_{02})^2, \end{align*} the expectation is under the year-2 forward measure.

For illustration, let $P(t, u)$ be the price at time $t$ of a zero-coupon bond with maturity $u$ and unit face value. Moreover, let $B_t$ be the money market account (or deposit account) value at time $t$. For notations, let $T_1=1$ and $T_2=2$. Then \begin{align*} r_{12} &\triangleq L(T_1; T_1, T_2)\\ &=\frac{1}{T_2-T_1}\left(\frac{P(T_1, T_1)}{P(T_1, T_2)}-1\right)\\ &=\frac{1}{P(T_1, T_2)}-1. \end{align*} We also note that $ P(0, T_1) = \frac{1}{1+r_{01}}, $ and $ P(0, T_2) = \frac{1}{(1+r_{02})^2}. $ Let $E$, $E_1$, and $E_2$ be respectively the expectation operators under the risk-neutral measure $P$, the year-1 forward measure $P_1$ and the year-2 forward measure $P_2$.

It is well known that the process $\{L(t; T_1, T_2) \mid 0\leq t \leq T_1 \}$ is a martingale under the year-2 forward measure. Then \begin{align*} E_2(1+r_{12}) &= E_2(1+L(T_1; T_1, T_2))\\ &= 1+ L(0; T_1, T_2)\\ &= \frac{P(0, T_1)}{P(0, T_2)}\\ &= \frac{(1+r_{02})^2}{1+r_{01}}. \end{align*} That is, \begin{align*} (1+r_{01})E_2(1+r_{12})=(1+r_{02})^2. \end{align*}

On the other hand, note that, for $0 \leq t \leq T_1$, \begin{align*} \frac{dP}{dP_1}\big|_t = \frac{B_t P(0, T_1)}{P(t, T_1)}. \end{align*} Then, \begin{align*} \frac{1}{(1+r_{02})^2} &= P(0, T_2)\\ &= E\left(\frac{1}{B_{T_2}}\right)\\ &= E\left(\frac{1}{B_{T_1}}E\left(\frac{B_{T_1}}{B_{T_2}} \mid \mathcal{F}_{T_1}\right)\right)\\ &= E\left(\frac{1}{B_{T_1}} P(T_1, T_2)\right)\\ &= E_1\left(\frac{dP}{dP_1}\big|_{T_1} \frac{1}{B_{T_1}} P(T_1, T_2)\right)\\ &= P(0, T_1)E_1(P(T_1, T_2))\\ &= P(0, T_1)E_1\left(\frac{1}{1+r_{12}}\right)\\ &= \frac{1}{1+r_{01}}E_1\left(\frac{1}{1+r_{12}}\right), \end{align*} where $\mathcal{F}_{T_1}$ is the information set at time $T_1$. That is, \begin{align*} \frac{1}{(1+r_{02})^2} = E_1\left(\frac{1}{1+r_{12}}\right)\frac{1}{1+r_{01}}. \end{align*}

EDIT: The last identity can also be shown by the measure change between the forward measures $P_1$ and $P_2$. Specifically, for $0 \leq t \leq T_1$, \begin{align*} \frac{dP_1}{dP_2}\big|_t = \frac{P(t, T_1)P(0, T_2)}{P(t, T_2)P(0, T_1)}. \end{align*} Consequently, \begin{align*} E_1\left(\frac{1}{1+r_{12}}\right) &= E_1\left(P(T_1, T_2)\right)\\ &= E_2\left(\frac{dP_1}{dP_2}\big|_{T_1} P(T_1, T_2)\right)\\ &= \frac{P(0, T_2)}{P(0, T_1)}\\ &= \frac{1+r_{01}}{(1+r_{02})^2}. \end{align*}

  • $\begingroup$ I think this is the answer I am looking for but there's something I don't quite understand. Wouldn't $r_{12}$ become known by the time we are in year 1? So isn't the expectations computed in year 0 using the distribution of what $r_{12}$ will be in year 1? In other words, what do you mean by the "year-2 forward measure"? $\endgroup$
    – suncup224
    Jul 7, 2015 at 2:18
  • $\begingroup$ @suncup224. The year-2 forward measure is the pricing measure with $P(t, T_2)$, for $0\leq t \leq T_2$, as the numeraire process. $r_{12}$ is known at time $T_1$, but with the expectations under the different measures, you have different values. This is the treason that you have two identities. $\endgroup$
    – Gordon
    Jul 7, 2015 at 12:46

If the prices were not equal, there would be an immediate arbitrage opportunity as you can lock in the forward rate today. Hence the law of one price holds.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.