Skip to content
All library documents

How Currency Quote Inversion Affects Return Volatility

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Ussu

Summary

The document examines whether the currency used to express an FX position changes measured volatility. It distinguishes simple returns from log returns when a rate is inverted. For reciprocal exchange rates, simple returns are not exact negatives and therefore need not have identical sample standard deviations; log returns change sign, so their standard deviation is unchanged.

A numerical sample illustrates the distinction, while an Ito-lemma derivation shows that if an exchange rate follows geometric Brownian motion, its reciprocal has the same diffusion volatility and a transformed drift. The answers also connect quote choice to the broader idea that valuation should be consistent across numeraires. These conclusions depend on the return definition and model assumptions: equality of log-return volatility under inversion does not mean simple-return volatility is generally identical, and the geometric Brownian motion result assumes the specified continuous-time process.

Key ideas

  • Inverting an FX quote maps its gross return to the reciprocal.
  • Simple returns on reciprocal rates are not exact sign reversals, so their volatility can differ.
  • Log returns on reciprocal rates are exact negatives and have equal standard deviations.
  • Under geometric Brownian motion, the inverse rate has the same diffusion volatility and a changed drift.
  • The measured result depends on the return convention and, for the Ito result, the assumed model.

Tags

Full text
# Premium Currency and Volatility


# Premium Currency and Volatility












Does the volatility of a Currency Pair depend on the currency in which the premium is paid? For example- will the Volatility of USDJPY change if the premium is paid in USD instead of JPY. Is there any mathematical formulation for this?

## Answer by Bob Jansen (score 2, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/57046

It depends, on what you mean by returns. For simple returns: no, for log returns yes. To recap, simple returns are given by $$R_\textrm{simple} = \frac{P_{t+1}}{P_t}-1$$ and log returns are given by $$R_\textrm{log} = \log \left(\frac{P_{t+1}}{P_t}\right).$$ The rate of change is given by $$R = \frac{P_{t+1}}{P_t}.$$

A percentage increase in one currency of a pair, implies a decrease in the other of the same size, so $$R^\textrm{USDJPY} = \frac{P_{t+1}}{P_t} = x$$ implies $$R^\textrm{JPYUSD}\frac{P'_{t+1}}{P'_t} = \frac{1}{x}$$ where $P'_t$ is the reverse rate.

In words, if EURUSD is trading at 1.20 today and at 1.212 tomorrow the return from a USD perspective is $1.212 / 1.20 - 1 = 1\%$ as today the USD holder was holding 120 cents of USD and tomorrow he would be holding 1.212 cents of USD. On the other hand, from a EUR perspective the loss is $1.20 / 1.212 - 1 = -0.99\%$.

We can now do a simple experiment to get a feeling of the volatility for these types of returns in R:

```
> # Simple returns
> set.seed(1)
> returns <- rnorm(10, 1, 0.01) # One added back to R_simple
> returns
 [1] 0.9937355 1.0018364 0.9916437 1.0159528 1.0032951 0.9917953 1.0048743
 [8] 1.0073832 1.0057578 0.9969461
> sd(returns - 1)
[1] 0.00780586
> sd(1/returns - 1)
[1] 0.007769419
```

Clearly, the volatility of simple returns is not the same. Using the same sample suggests that the volatility of the log returns is equal:

```
> sd(log(returns))
[1] 0.0077874
> sd(log(1/returns))
[1] 0.0077874
```

This can be shown to always hold with $x$ defined as above. The log returns for $P_t$ and $P'_t$ are then given by $\log(x)$ and \begin{align} \log(1/x) &=\log{1} - \log{x} \\ &= -\log{x} \end{align}

The standard deviation of sample is equal to standard deviation of the mirrored around its mean.

## Answer by StackG (score 3)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/57062

If you're modelling the FX rate as a geometric brownian motion and asking whether the volatility depends on whether you model the rate or the inverse rate, then the answer is no - and we can demonstrate it using Ito's lemma

Assuming the rate $X$ obeys \begin{align} {\frac {dX} X} = rdt + \sigma dW \end{align}

for some rate $r$ and volatility $\sigma$, lemma says that for a function $f(X,t)$

\begin{align} df = \Bigl( {\frac {\partial f} {\partial t}} + r X {\frac {\partial f} {\partial X}} + {\frac {\sigma^2 X^2} 2} {\frac {\partial^2 f} {\partial X^2}} \Bigr) dt + \sigma {\frac {\partial f} {\partial X}} dW \end{align}

Substituting in $f(X,t) = {\frac 1 X}$, we get

\begin{align} d{\frac 1 X} &= \Bigl( rX {\frac {-1} {X^2}} + {\frac {\sigma^2 X^2 } 2} {\frac {2} {X^3}} \Bigr) dt - \sigma X {\frac {1} {X^2}} dW\\ &= - {\frac 1 X} \Bigl( \bigr(r - \sigma^2 \bigl) dt + \sigma dW\Bigr) \end{align}

So the inverse process ${\frac 1 X}$ also follows a geometric brownian motion, with a drift of $-r + \sigma^2$ and a volatility of $\sigma$ (ie. the same volatility as $X$)

## Answer by river_rat (score 1)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/58048

As a general rule of thumb, the price of a thing should not depend intrinsically in the units of value in question. Since quoting something in X per 1 unit of a base currency or 1/X per 1 unit of counter currency happen to be questions revolving around units, the price of an option should not depend on that choice. The entire area of measure change and looking at different numeraires is effectively this simple fact taken to its logical conclusion.

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.