Changing the Numeraire to a Stock and the Stock-Ratio Martingale
Summary
The document examines whether one stock divided by another remains a martingale after changing from the money-market account to a stock numeraire. It sets out two uncorrelated stock processes under the risk-neutral measure and applies a Radon–Nikodym density based on the numeraire stock. The questioner then derives transformed Brownian motions and uses Itô’s lemma on the price ratio, obtaining an expectation that appears to violate the martingale condition.
The text presents the derivation as an unresolved question and does not include an answer or correction. Its formulas should therefore be treated as an attempted argument rather than a validated result; in particular, the stated stochastic dynamics and measure-change calculation require careful checking before drawing conclusions. The useful topic is the relationship between numeraire changes, equivalent measures, and relative asset prices, but the document supplies no independent evidence or resolved method.
Key ideas
- A numeraire change defines a new measure through a Radon–Nikodym density involving the chosen asset.
- The document studies the ratio of two stocks under a measure associated with one stock.
- It uses Girsanov’s theorem and Itô’s lemma to examine the ratio process.
- The derivation is unresolved and should not be treated as a confirmed conclusion.
Tags
Full text
# Stock Price as Numeraire, Two Stocks & One Money Market Account
# Stock Price as Numeraire, Two Stocks & One Money Market Account
We have two uncorrelated Stock price processes and the classical Money-Market (MM) account. Under the MM Numeraire, both stocks are Martingales when discounted by the MM, as usual.
Question: I would like to change the Numeraire to one of the stocks and apply the Fundamental Theorem of Asset pricing to show that the stock, when discounted by the other stock as Numeraire, is still a martingale.
I fail to show that, here goes my attempt:
Assume that we have two stocks, $X(t)$ and $Y(t)$ and the usual deterministic Money Market Account $M(t)$. Under the risk-neutral measure $Q$ associated with $M(t)$, let the processes for $X(t)$ and $Y(t)$ be as follows:
$$ X(t)=X(0)+\int^{t}_{0}r X(h)dh+\int^{t}_{0}\sigma_x X(h)dW_x(h) $$
$$ Y(t)=Y(0)+\int^{t}_{0}r Y(h)dh+\int^{t}_{0}\sigma_y X(h)dW_y(h) $$
Above, $W_x$ and $W_y$ are two uncorrelated standard Wiener processes under $Q$. Changing the Numeraire to $X(t)$ gives the following Radon-Nikodym:
$$ \frac{dQ_{X(t)}}{dQ}=\frac{M(t_0)}{M(t)}* \frac{X(t)}{X(t_0)} = \frac{e^{rt-0.5\sigma_x^2t+\sigma_xW_t}}{e^{rt}} = e^{-0.5\sigma_x^2t+\sigma_xW_t} $$
We see that the Radon-Nikodym can be directly applied via the Cameron-Martin-Girsanov theorem to both $W_x$ and $W_y$, whereby it will add drift of $\sigma_xt$ to both Brownians under the measure $Q_{X(t)}$. Consequently, the processes for $X_t$ and $Y_t$ under $Q_{X(t)}$ become:
$$ X_t = X_0exp{(rt+0.5\sigma_x^2t+ \sigma_x \tilde{W_x}(t)}) $$
$$ Y_t = Y_0exp{(rt-0.5\sigma_y^2t+ \sigma_x \sigma_y t+ \sigma_y \tilde{W_y}(t)}) $$
Above, $\tilde{W_y}(t)=W_y(t)-\sigma_xt$ is a standard Wiener process under the measure $Q_{X(t)}$ and also $\tilde{W_x}(t)=W_x(t)-\sigma_xt$ is another (uncorrelated) standard Wiener proces under the same measure $Q_{X(t)}$.
Now will the ratio of $X_t$ and $Y_t$ be a Martingale under $Q_{X(t)}$?
Let's see. First note that the ratio $\frac{Y(t)}{X(t)}$ itself will require the application of Ito's Lemma. Let $F(X_t,Y_t)=\frac{Y(t)}{X(t)}$, application of two-dimensional Ito's lemma yields:
$$ F(t)=F(0)+\int^{t}_{0}\left(r_y - r_x + \sigma_x^2-\rho \sigma_x\sigma_y\right) F(h)dh+\int^{t}_{0}\sigma_x F(h)d\tilde{W}_x(h)+\int^{t}_{0}\sigma_y F(h)d\tilde{W}_Y(h) =\\F(0)+\int^{t}_{0}\left(\sigma_x\sigma_y\right) F(h)dh+\int^{t}_{0}\sigma_x F(h)d\tilde{W}_x(h)+\int^{t}_{0}\sigma_y F(h)d\tilde{W}_Y(h) = \\ F_0exp\left( \left[\sigma_x\sigma_y-0.5\left(\sigma_x^2 + \sigma_y^2 \right) \right]t+ \sigma_x \tilde{W}_x + \sigma_y \tilde{W}_y \right) $$
Now:
$$\mathbb{E}^{Q_{X(t)}}{ \left[ \frac{Y(t)}{X(t)}|\mathcal{F}_0 \right] } = \mathbb{E}^{Q_{X(t)}}{ \left[ F(t)|\mathcal{F}_0 \right] } = F_0exp \left( \sigma_x \sigma_y \right) = \frac{Y(0)}{X(0)} exp \left(\sigma_x \sigma_y \right) $$
(above, I used the fact that: $\sigma_1 W_1(t)+\sigma_2W_2(t)=(distribution)={W_3}(t)\sqrt{\sigma_1^2 + \sigma_2^2}$ where $W_1$ and $W_2$ are two independent Brownian motions and $W_3$ is just another Standard Brownian motion. The equality holds in distribution, so can be used inside an expectation operator).
Clearly $\frac{Y(0)}{X(0)} exp \left(\sigma_x \sigma_y \right) \ne \frac{Y(0)}{X(0)} $ so the Martingale condition is NOT satisfied.
Any help on this would be hughly appreciated.Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.