Deriving a Forward Price from the Spot Price and Discount Factor
Summary
The document addresses the relationship between an asset's spot price and its forward price for delivery at a future date. Its central intuition is that a zero-coupon bond paying one unit at delivery represents the discount factor for that date. Dividing the current asset price by that bond price compounds the spot value into the no-arbitrage forward price, assuming the asset has no intervening income or other carrying benefits or costs.
The answer connects this relationship to the familiar continuously compounded formula, where the spot price is grown at the interest rate to maturity, and suggests arbitrage as the rationale: a discrepancy between the forward quote and the cost of financing the spot asset could be exploited through borrowing, buying, or selling the asset and taking the opposite forward position. The explanation is informal and has a notation error when it equates the bond price to an exponential growth factor; the correct bond discount factor is the inverse of that growth factor. Asset income, storage, and other carry adjustments are not addressed.
Key ideas
- For an asset without income or carrying adjustments, the forward price equals spot divided by the zero-coupon bond discount factor.
- A bond paying one unit at delivery gives the present value of that future payment.
- The forward relationship follows from financing and no-arbitrage arguments.
- Income, storage costs, and other carry effects require adjustments beyond the simplified explanation.
Tags
Full text
# forward rate/zero coupon
# forward rate/zero coupon
We have an asset with the price process $S_t$, $0\leq t\leq T$ Further we have a zero coupon bond, and the price of it at time $t$ is denoted by $P(t,T)$ (with payoff 1 at time T). Let $F_{(t, T )}[S]$ denote the forward price, I need to argue that the following relationship holds:
$F_{(t, T )}[S] =\frac{S_t}{P(t,T)}$
Could someone please help me with the argumentation?
## Answer by blizzard16 (score 1, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/75243
I think there are two things to get straight for the correct intuition. Understand what forward price (1) and $P(t, T)$ with pay-off 1 at T (2) means. Let's begin with the forward price:
$F_{(t,T)}[S]$ means what would be the price of the stock $S$ at time $t$ given that you agree to make a deal prior of the asset's transfer at time $T$. At least I would assume this for clarity, correct if I am wrong.
Now the 2nd building block: zero-coupon bond that pays $FV=1$ at $T$. Since we are so lucky that we have $FV=1$, we can treat the $P(t, T)$ as a discount factor. If the $P(t, T)$ evaluates, say to $.8$. That means that 1 dollar at time $T$ is worth 0.8 dollars at time $t$.
Let's now put everything together. Usually forward prices for assets are quoted followingly: $F_0=S_0e^{rT}$, where $F_0$ is the forward price of a stock given its price $S_0$. Then the $S_0$ is multiplied the inverse of the $F_0$'s discount factor or by continuous compounding w.r.t rate of return $r$ of $S_0$ and time $T$ to arrive at the forward contracts value. See if you can connect the points.
So in your case the $P(t, T)=e^{rT}$ and essentially $P(t, T)<1$ making it useful to interpret $F_{(t,T)}[S]=S_tP(t,T)^{(-1)}$. You can verify this by putting some numbers for the $P(t,T)$ since it works here as inverse of the discount factor as it's essentially compunding the value of the stock $S$ at time $t$ to its value at $T$ that is the price of the forward contract for the stock.
Disclaimer: the reason why I am not putting any more formulas for the variables is that it's not necessary and there's no clear definition's for them as the same properties hold for multiple different types of functions that reflect asset prices and discount factors.
E: didn't really answer your question: given the context I gave you, could an arbitrage opportunity arise if the equality didn't hold? If such does, how would you make money out of it?
I hope this helps you.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.