Why Swaption Pricing Uses the Annuity Measure
Summary
The document asks whether a European swaption can be priced equivalently under the risk-neutral measure and the forward swap measure, using the swap annuity as numeraire. The key correction is that the annuity at expiry is stochastic because it depends on prevailing discount rates. It therefore cannot be removed from the risk-neutral expectation as if it were known at the initial date.
Using the annuity as numeraire incorporates this rate dependence into the forward swap measure, leaving the payoff expectation in a form suited to swaption pricing. The question's proposed risk-neutral derivation incorrectly treats the expiry annuity as constant. The response identifies that error but does not provide the requested Girsanov derivation or a complete comparison of the measures. The discussion is conceptual and does not specify a volatility model or pricing inputs.
Key ideas
- The swap annuity at expiry is stochastic because discount rates can change.
- A stochastic annuity cannot be taken outside a risk-neutral expectation as a fixed quantity.
- The forward swap measure follows from choosing the annuity as numeraire.
- Measure choice affects how the payoff expectation is represented in swaption pricing.
- The response flags the derivation error but does not show a full Girsanov proof.
Tags
Full text
# Change of Numeraire to price European swaptions
# Change of Numeraire to price European swaptions
In the pricing of a European swaption, it is common to use the annuity factor $A(t)$ as the Numeraire. I was trying to write down the pricing formula via the bank account as numeraire to see if they were equivalent. Let $C(t)$ be the price at time $t$ of a European swaption with strike rate $s_K$ and swap rate $s_T$ that prevails at maturity $T$ then the price can be determined via martingale pricing:
(1) Bank account numeraire: $P(0,T)$ under the risk-neutral measure $\mathbb{Q}$: \begin{align} C(0) &= P(0,T) \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[\frac{A(T)\max\{s_T-s_K,0\}}{P(T,T)}\right] \\ &=P(0,T)A(T)\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}[\max\{s_T-s_K,0\}] \\ &=A(0)\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}[\max\{s_T-s_K,0\}] \end{align} Assuming that the swap rate $s_T$ follows a lognormal process then the above expression essentially comes down to evaluating a call struck on $s_K$ under the risk-neutral measure.
(2) Annuity as numeraire: $A(t)$ under forward swap measure $\mathbb{A}$: \begin{align} C(0) &= A(0) \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{A}}\left[\frac{A(T)\max\{s_T-s_K,0\}}{A(T)}\right] \\ &=A(0)\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{A}}[\max\{s_T-s_K,0\}] \end{align}
Is the above correct? I am much more used to value under the risk-neutral measure, so my question is that it seems that taking the expectation under the risk-neutral measure or the forward swap measure should give the same result. Why is this so? Is there some way by using Girsanov's theorem to prove this?
## Answer by Antoine Conze (score 3, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/38531
Your (1) is incorrect because the annuity $A(T)$ is stochastic (it depends on discount rates on expiry) and therefore cannot be taken out of the expectation $E_Q[]$. This is why one resorts to pricing under the annuity measure.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.