# Change of numeraire from bank account to Zcb [closed]

Why is there no drift adjustment when numeraire is changed from bank account (risk neutral measure) to zero coupon bond who matures at time of payoff (fwd risk neutral measure) ?

## closed as unclear what you're asking by Quantuple, JejeBelfort, g g, Daneel Olivaw, amdoptNov 3 '17 at 20:06

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• I do not know in what context you are saying this. If you assume deterministic interest rates, the the risk-neutral measure and the forward measure are the same. However, with stochastic interest rates, then the drift term will be changed. – Gordon Oct 10 '17 at 17:02
• Deterministic interest rates. Why are the 2 measures the same? They are not - they have different values! – Randor Oct 10 '17 at 17:50
• Maybe the answer is that the volatility of each numeraire is zero ? – Randor Oct 10 '17 at 18:29

Let $B_t= e^{\int_0^t r_sds}$ be the money-market account value at time $t$, and $P(t, T)$ be the value of the zero-coupon bond with maturity $T$ and unit face amount. Moreover, let $Q$ be the risk-neutral measure and $Q_T$ be the $T$-forward measure. If the interest rate $r_t$ is deterministic, then \begin{align*} P(t, T) &= E\left(e^{-\int_t^T r_s ds} \,|\, \mathcal{F}_t\right)\\ &= e^{-\int_t^T r_s ds} = \frac{B_t}{B_T}, \end{align*} where $E$ is the expectation under the risk-neutral measure $Q$. Moreover, for $0 \le t \le T$, \begin{align*} \frac{dQ}{dQ_T}\big|_t &= \frac{B_t P(0, T)}{P(t, T)}\\ &=\frac{B_t \frac{1}{B_T}}{\frac{B_t}{B_T}}=1. \end{align*} In particular, for any $A\in \mathcal{F}_T$, \begin{align*} Q(A) &= \int_{\Omega} \pmb{1}_A dQ \\ &= \int_{\Omega} \pmb{1}_A \frac{dQ}{dQ_T}\big|_T dQ_T \\ &= \int_{\Omega} \pmb{1}_A dQ_T \\ &=Q_T(A). \end{align*} That is, $Q=Q_T$.
• Let $(V_t)_{t \geq 0}$ denote a self-financing portfolio wealth process adapted to the filtration $\Bbb{F} = \{ (\mathcal{F}_t)_{t \geq 0} \}$. Under the measure $\Bbb{Q}$ associated to the numéraire $B_t$ one should have $$\frac{V_0}{B_0} = \Bbb{E}_0^\Bbb{Q} \left[ \frac{V_t}{B_t} \right]$$Similarly, under $\Bbb{Q}^T$ associated to $P(t,T)$, $$\frac{V_0}{P(0,T)} = \Bbb{E}_0^\Bbb{Q} \left[ \frac{V_t}{P(t,T)} \right]$$ – Quantuple Oct 11 '17 at 10:02
• Hence indeed: $$V_0 = \Bbb{E}_0^\Bbb{Q} \left[ V_t \frac{B_0}{B_t} \right] = \Bbb{E}_0^\Bbb{Q^T} \left[ V_t \frac{P(0,T)}{P(t,T)} \right]$$ hence indeed $$\left. \frac{d\Bbb{Q}}{d\Bbb{Q}^T} \right\vert_{\mathcal{F}_t} = \frac{B_t P(0,T) }{ B_0 P(t,T) }$$ with $B_0=1$ – Quantuple Oct 11 '17 at 10:07
• Thanks @Quantuple for your clarification. Indeed, the Radon-NiKodym derivative can be treated as the ratio of the normalized numeraires, that is, $\frac{B_t}{B_0}$ and $\frac{P(t, T)}{P(0, T)}$. – Gordon Oct 11 '17 at 12:34