In Kerry Back, A Course in Derivative Securities, Sect. 1.4 (page 29), the author stated the FTAP in the following form (in boldface):

If there are no arbitrage opportunities, then for each (non-dividend-paying) asset, there exists a probability measure such that the ratio of any other (non-dividend-paying) asset price to the first (numeraire) asset price is a martingale.

And he commented that

We have applied this statement to the risk-free asset, which pays dividends (interest). However, the price $R_u = R_d = e^{rT}$ includes the interest, so no interest has been withdrawn—the interest has been reinvested—prior to the maturity T of the option. This is what we mean by a “non-dividend-paying” asset. In general, we will apply the formulas developed in this and the following section to dividend-paying assets by considering the portfolios in which dividends are reinvested.

In such spirits, when we want to use a dividend paying stock $S_t$ as numeraire we should actually use the "reinvested" asset $e^{qt}S_t$ as the numeraire instead.

My question is, what would be the consequences of really using a div-paying asset, such as $S_t$ (when $q>0$) as numeraire? Is it possible to make the corresponding martingale measure not exist, for example? (But in my opinion, the existence of a martingale measure seems only to rely on positivity...)


Well, consider using $S_t$ as the numeraire and let the asset be the reinvested stock $S_te^{qt}$. Then this ratio equals $e^{qt}$ so can never be a martingale.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for this counterexample. Is there a deeper explanation (economic or mathematical) on this restriction? $\endgroup$ – Vim Feb 24 at 13:13
  • $\begingroup$ The example of a discrete dividend might help : the ratio of some asset to the numeraire will systematically jump upwards on the date that the numeraire pays a dividend. That’s not a martingale. Basically a dividend paying asset is a different class of asset than a reinvested one. The residual price of the dividend paying asset can’t perform as well as the non paying one, on average. $\endgroup$ – dm63 Feb 24 at 19:20
  • $\begingroup$ Anything can be a numeraire. This is really a tautological statement about the implied risk-neutral measure. $\endgroup$ – mathtick Apr 7 at 11:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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