6

I would like to extend my question about about FX Forward rates in stochastic interest rate setup: FX forward with stochastic interest rates pricing

We consider a FX process $X_t = X_0 \exp( \int_0^t(r^d_s-r^f_s)ds -\frac{\sigma^2}{2}t+ \sigma W_t^2)$ where $r^d$ and $r^f$ are stochastic processes not independent of the Brownian motion $W$. The domestic risk-neutral measure is denoted by $\mathbb Q^d$.

The domestic and foreign bank accounts are $\beta^d$ and $\beta^f $ respectively. The domestic and foreign zero-coupon bond prices of maturity $T$ at time $t$ are respective $B_d(t,T)$ and $B_f(t,T)$.

The domestic bond follows the SDE

$$ \frac{dB_d(t,T)}{B_d(t,T)} = r^d_t \ dt + \sigma(t,T) \ dW^1_t $$

with deterministic initial conditions $B_d(0,T)$. The drift and volatility functions in the SDEs are all deterministic functions and $W^1$ and $W^2$ are standard Brownian motions such that $\langle W^1, W^2\rangle_t =\rho \ dt$.

Now consider domestic $\tau$-forward measure $\mathbb Q^{d,\tau}$ $$ \left. \frac{d\mathbb Q^{d,\tau}}{d\mathbb Q^d}\right|_{\mathcal F_t} = \frac{B_d(t,\tau)}{\beta_t^dB_d(0,\tau)} = \mathcal E_t \left( \int_0 ^. \sigma(s,\tau) \ dW^1_s\right) $$

and the $\mathbb Q^{\tau}$-Brownian motions $$ W^{1,\tau}_. := W^1_. + \int_0 ^. \sigma(s,\tau) \ ds $$

$$ W^{2,\tau}_. := W^2_. + \rho \int_0 ^. \sigma(s,\tau) \ ds $$

Question

I would like to calculate the non-deliverable FX forward rate. Since the fixing date $t_f$ is such that $t_f< T$, where $T$ is the settlement date, it implies to pass by the calculation following expectation: $$\mathbb E^{\mathbb Q^d} _t \left[ \exp(-\int_t^T r^d_s ~ds)\ X_{t_f}\right]$$

I can get to this point

$$ \mathbb E^{\mathbb Q^d} _t \left[ \exp(-\int_t^T r^d_s ~ds)\ X_{t_f}\right]= B_d(t,t_f)\ \mathbb E^{\mathbb Q^{d,t_f}}_t\left[ B_b(t_f,T)X_{t_f}\right]. $$

From that point I am struggling to get through all the calculations. Is there a smart way to compute the last expectation?

Joe
  • 301
  • 2
  • 7
  • Your problem formulation seems pretty weird to me. – Quantuple Jul 28 '16 at 08:15
  • @Quantuple: Can you develope please? What particularly sounds weird for you? – Joe Jul 28 '16 at 08:20
  • The Radon-Nikodym derivative characterising the domestic to domestic $T$-forward measure for instance. – Quantuple Jul 28 '16 at 08:41
  • There is a typo, it should be $\tau$ instead of $T$. Is that what you mean ? – Joe Jul 28 '16 at 08:46
  • For the SDE formulation you can assume a HJM setup. So you can have such a representation. – Joe Jul 28 '16 at 09:10
  • Your definition of the forward measure in the comment is mistaken. Mine had another typo that I just fixed. Besides all that you havent said what you dont understand about the question. The question it pretty clear. How to calculate the last expectation in the forward measure assuming the setup I described? The motivation comes from the NDF. Everething is said! – Joe Jul 28 '16 at 09:16
  • What you wrote is not really HJM. – Quantuple Jul 28 '16 at 09:17
  • I cannot write a book here. We need to start from some basic assumptions. The model I work with is not the question here. It is a given. – Joe Jul 28 '16 at 09:19
  • You are not asked to write a book, just to be clear and accurate with the assumptions... I hope someone here can help you. – Quantuple Jul 28 '16 at 09:23
  • I am just saying that it is not the point at all and I dont see why that would blocks the comprehension of what has been asked. I gave a set of modeling assumptions that I kindly ask to be accepted. – Joe Jul 28 '16 at 09:36
  • Yes I understand what you say @Joe. But since we don't agree on the details (notably the RN derivative) I don't understand how you can write: $\mathbb E^{\mathbb Q^d} t \left[ \exp(\int_t^T r^d_s ~ds)\ X{t_f}\right]= B_d(t,t_f)\ \mathbb E^{\mathbb Q^{d,t_f}}t\left[ B_b(t_f,T)X{t_f}\right]$, that's why I'm looking at your assumptions and formulation. – Quantuple Jul 28 '16 at 12:36
  • There is a typo in my formula. =) There is a minus missing for the discount factor in LHS. Just fixed it. Are you ok with that after the correction? Check RN derivative's definition given by Gordon in the answer of the question in the link at the begining of this question. – Joe Jul 28 '16 at 12:57
  • Yes well I do not really agree with that definition either (although the result is correct). And no, I would expect something along the lines of: $$ \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb Q^d}t \left[ -\exp(\int_t^T r^d_s ds) X{t_f}\right] = \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb Q^d} t \left[ \frac{B_t^d}{B_T^d} X{t_f}\right] = \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb Q^{d,t_f}}t\left[ \frac{B_t^d}{B_T^d} X{t_f} \left( \underbrace{\frac{B^d_{t_f} B_d(t_f,T)}{B_t^d}}_{ \frac{d\mathbb{Q}^d}{d\mathbb{Q}^{d,t_f}}} \right) \right] $$ see here section 3.1: http://www.frouah.com/finance%20notes/The%20T-Forward%20Measure.pdf – Quantuple Jul 28 '16 at 13:10
  • where $B_d(t,T) := P(t,T)$ and $B^d(t) := B(t)$. Note that it is also the result Gordon gets when he writes the abstract Bayes rule (although IMHO the RN is wrong), compare the lines [3] and [4] in the step (2) of his answer. PS: I just realised I made a typoand the last term (RN) should be: $\frac{B_{t_f}^d B_d(t,t_f)}{B^d_t}$ – Quantuple Jul 28 '16 at 13:15
  • Note that this is perfectly consistent, because setting $t_f=T$ the RN in the RHS is such that many things simplify and RHS becomes: $\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{d,T}}\left[ X_T B_d(t,T) \right]$ which we can rewrite $\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{d,T}}\left[ \frac{X_T}{B_d(T,T)} B_d(t,T) \right]$ since $B_d(T,T):=1$, and this basically corresponds to writing that $X_{t}$ is martingale when expressed in the $T$-forward measure numéraire (= the zero coupon bond $B_d(t,T)$). – Quantuple Jul 28 '16 at 13:49
  • We should easly agree about the first point: $ \left. \frac{d\mathbb Q^{d,T}}{d\mathbb Q^d}\right|{\mathcal F_T} = \frac{1}{\beta_T^dB_d(0,T)} = \mathcal E_T \left( \int_0 ^. \sigma(s,T) \ dW^1_s\right) $ therefore since it is a exponential martingale $ \left. \frac{d\mathbb Q^{d,T}}{d\mathbb Q^d}\right|{\mathcal F_t} = \mathcal E_t \left( \int_0 ^. \sigma(s,T) \ dW^1_s\right) = \mathbb E_t[\mathcal E_T \left( \int_0 ^. \sigma(s,T) \ dW^1_s\right)] = \mathbb E_t \left[\frac{1}{\beta_T^dB_d(0,T)}\right]=\frac{B_d(t,T)}{\beta_t^dB_d(0,T)} $. – Joe Jul 28 '16 at 13:55
  • You include the bayes conditional expectation term in the definition. – Joe Jul 28 '16 at 13:57
  • For you the change of measure comes from a multiplyer $ \left. \frac{d\mathbb Q^{d,T}}{d\mathbb Q^d}\right|{\mathcal F_t} =\frac{\mathcal E_T}{\mathcal E_t} =\frac{B_d(t,T)}{\beta_t^dB_d(0,T)} \frac{ \beta_t^d B_d(0,T)}{B_d(t,T)} = \frac{B^d_t}{B^d_T B_d(t,T)}$ as for me the change of measure is given by multiplying by $ \left. \frac{d\mathbb Q^{d,T}}{d\mathbb Q^d}\right|{\mathcal F_T} \left. /\frac{d\mathbb Q^{d,T}}{d\mathbb Q^d}\right|_{\mathcal F_t}=\frac{\mathcal E_T}{\mathcal E_t} $ which at the end of the day is has the same effect. – Joe Jul 28 '16 at 14:15
  • We are in the same page now! =) Despite the RN derivative definition which is not the question here, let's finally jump to the last expectation =) – Joe Jul 28 '16 at 14:17
  • Fix the typo with the minus outside the exp – Joe Jul 28 '16 at 14:26
  • Okay, Now I understand what you mean, it's all a question of definition of $d\mathbb{Q}^{d,T}/d\mathbb{Q}^d$ indeed.

    But anyhow, do you agree with my RHS so that: $$ \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb Q^d}t \left[ \exp(-\int_t^T r^d_s ds) X{t_f} \right] = \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb Q^{d,t_f}}t\left[ \frac{B_t^d}{B_T^d} X{t_f} \left( \frac{B^d_{t_f} B_d(t,t_f)}{B_t^d} \right) \right] $$ and thus $$ \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{ Q}^d}t \left[ \exp(-\int_t^T r^d_s ds) X{t_f}\right] = B_d(t,t_f) \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{d,t_f}}t \left[ X{t_f} \exp\left(-\int_{t_f}^T r_s ds\right) \right] $$

    – Quantuple Jul 28 '16 at 14:27
  • No. I dont agree, because $B_T^d$ is not $\mathcal F_{t_f}$-measurable That is a commum mistake when changing to the forward measure. You need to make the ZC appears (which is a proper $\mathcal F_{t_f}$-measurable r.v.). You can justify the trick by the tower rule. That would lead you exactly to the same expression I've writen in the original question. – Joe Jul 28 '16 at 14:34
  • OK sorry, I finally got it (long day, need cofee), you used tower law to get to your final expression. – Quantuple Jul 28 '16 at 14:34
  • As I said, all that does not really matters. The problem starts with calculating the expectation. All the tecnical stuff is not important here. It is just a context. The goal is to calculate the expectation! – Joe Jul 28 '16 at 14:37
  • This is a pretty trick question. To obtain the final result, we need dynamics for domestic bonds $B_d(t, t_f)$ and $B_d(t, T)$, foreign bond $B_f(t, t_f)$, and the exchange rate $X_t$. I would suggest to model the short rates. Then we need dynamics for $r_t^d$, $r_t^f$, and $X_t$, which appears simpler than to work with bonds directly. – Gordon Jul 28 '16 at 14:42
  • Thanks Gordon. Assume the same log normal kind of dynamics for both foreign and domestic bonds (just indexing the vols). Same for the FX rate $X_t$. I have a model for short interest rate under which bonds are lognormal. – Joe Jul 28 '16 at 14:58
  • You can use Hull-White short rate model, then you do not need to have a separate dynamics for $B_d(t, t_f)$ and $B_d(t, T)$. – Gordon Jul 28 '16 at 15:13
  • Lets assume that case then. – Joe Jul 28 '16 at 15:20
  • @Joe, apologies for me not understanding what you meant yesterday, had a long day... Still, although this was not part of the question, I needed to understand your assumptions in order to get on with the computation (you would not believe the number of questions here that are "ill-posed"). Hope no offense was taken and that Gordon's answer's helps. – Quantuple Jul 29 '16 at 07:33

1 Answers1

3

We consider the expectation \begin{align*} E^{Q_d^{t_f}} \Big(P_d(t_f, T) X_{t_f} \mid \mathcal{F}_t \Big), \end{align*} where $Q_d^{t_f}$ is the $t_f$-forward measure, and $P_d(t_f, T)$ is the price at $t_f$ of a domestic zero-coupon bond with maturity $T$. Note that $P_d(t_f, T) X_{t_f}$ is the value at time $t_f$ of the process \begin{align*} P_d(t, T) X_t \frac{P_f(t, t_f)}{P_d(t, t_f)}, \end{align*} where $P_f(t, t_f)$ is the price at $t$ of a foreign zero-coupon bond with maturity $t_f$. If we model the bond prices directly, then we need dynamics for the four processes $X_t$, $P_d(t, t_f)$, $P_d(t, T)$, and $P_f(t, t_f)$. For simplicity, we model the short rates based on the Hull-White interest rate model with corresponding correlated dynamics for $X_t$, $r_t^f$, and $r_t^d$.

Let $X_t$ be the instantaneous exchange rate from one unit foreign currency to units of domestic currency, and $r^d_t$ and $r^f_t$ be the domestic and the equity's denominated foreign short interest rates at time $t$. Moreover, let \begin{align*} \Xi= (\rho_{i, j})_{i,j=1}^3 \end{align*} be the correlation matrix of the driving Brownian motions of the 3$-$dimensional random process $\{(X_t, r^f_t, r^d_t),\, t \geq 0\}$, and let $$ LL^T = \Xi, $$ where $L=(l_{i,j})_{i,j=1}^3$ is a lower triangular matrix and $l_{i, i} >0$, for $i=1, \ldots, 3$, be the Cholesky decomposition of $\Xi$.

We assume that, under the domestic risk-neutral probability measure $Q_d$, \begin{align*} dX_t &= X_t\Big[\big(r^d_t - r^f_t\big) dt + \sigma^X dW_t^1\Big], \\ dr^f_t &= \Big[\big( \theta_t^f - \lambda^f r_t^f \big) - \rho_{2, 1}\sigma^f \sigma^X\, \Big] dt + \sigma^f \sum_{i=1}^2 l_{2, i} d W_t^i,\\ dr^d_t &= \big( \theta_t^d - \lambda^d r_t^d \big) dt + \sigma^d\sum_{i=1}^3 l_{3, i} d W_t^i, \end{align*} where $\{W_t^1,\, t \ge 0\}, \ldots, \{W_t^3,\, t \ge 0\}$ are independent standard Brownian motions, $\theta_{t}^{a},$ are piece-wise constant functions, and $\lambda^{a}$ and $\sigma^{a}$ are positive constant, for $a=X$, $d$, or $f$. Here, $\lambda^d$ and $\lambda^f$ are the mean-reverting speed of the respective dynamic processes.

Note that, under the foreign risk-neutral probability measure $Q_f$, $\{\widehat{W}_t^1= W_t^1-\sigma^X t,\, t \ge 0\}$, $\{\widehat{W}_t^2=W_t^2,\, t \ge 0\}$, and $\{\widehat{W}_t^3=W_t^3,\, t \ge 0\}$ are independent standard Brownian motions. Moreover, \begin{align*} dX_t &= X_t\Big[\left(r^d_t - r^f_t + (\sigma^X)^2\right) dt + \sigma^X d\widehat{W}_t^1\Big], \\ dr^f_t &= \big( \theta_t^f - \lambda^f r_t^f \big) dt + \sigma_t^f \sum_{i=1}^2 l_{2, i} d \widehat{W}_t^i,\\ dr^d_t &= \Big[\big( \theta_t^d - \lambda^d r_t^d \big) + \rho_{3, 1}\sigma^d \sigma^X\,\Big] dt + \sigma^d\sum_{i=1}^3 l_{3, i} d \widehat{W}_t^i. \end{align*}

Let $P_d(t, T)$ and $P_f(t, T)$ denote the prices, at time $t$, of the domestic and foreign zero-coupon bonds with maturity $T$. From this question, \begin{align*} P_a(t, T) &= e^{A_a(t, T) - B_a(t, T) r_t^a}, \end{align*} for $a=d$ or $f$, where \begin{align*} \beta_a(t, T) &= \frac{1}{\lambda^a}\left(1-e^{-\lambda^a (T-t)} \right),\\ A_a(t, T) &= -\int_t^T \theta_s^a\beta_a(s, T) ds - \frac{(\sigma^a)^2}{2(\lambda^a)^2}(\beta_a(t, T)-T+t) - \frac{(\sigma^a)^2}{4\lambda^a}\beta_a(t, T)^2. \end{align*} Then, under the domestic risk-neutral measure, \begin{align*} \frac{dP_d(t, T)}{P_d(t, T)} &= r_t^d dt - \beta_d(t, T)\sigma^d \sum_{i=1}^3 l_{3, i} d W_t^i,\\ \frac{dP_f(t, T)}{P_f(t, T)} &= r_t^f dt - \beta_f(t, T)\sigma^f \sum_{i=1}^2 l_{2, i} d \widehat{W}_t^i\\ &=\left(r_t^f + \rho_{2,1}\beta_f(t, T)\sigma^f \sigma^X \right)dt - \beta_f(t, T)\sigma^f \sum_{i=1}^2 l_{2, i} d W_t^i. \end{align*}

Let $Q_d^{t_f}$ be the domestic $t_f$-forward measure. Moreover, let $B_d(t)=e^{\int_0^t r_s^d ds}$ be the domestic money market account value at time $t$. Then, \begin{align*} \frac{dQ_d^{t_f}}{dQ_d}\big|_t &= \frac{P_d(t, t_f)}{P_d(0, t_f) B_d(t)}\\ &=\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t (\sigma^d \beta_d(s, t_f))^2ds - \int_0^t\sigma^d \beta_d(s, t_f) \sum_{i=1}^3 l_{3, i} d W_s^i\right). \end{align*} Then, $\{\widetilde{W}_t^1,\, 0 \le t \le t_f\}$, $\{\widetilde{W}_t^2,\, 0 \le t \le t_f\}$, and $\{\widetilde{W}_t^3,\, 0 \le t \le t_f\}$, where, for $i=1, \ldots, 3,$ \begin{align*} \widetilde{W}_t^i = W_t^i + \int_0^t l_{3, i} \sigma^d\beta_d(u, t_f) du, \end{align*} are independent standard Brownian motions.

Let $F_X(t, t_f)=X_t\frac{P_f(t, t_f)}{P_d(t, t_f)}$ be the forward exchange rate at time $t$ for maturity $t_f$. Then, \begin{align*} \frac{dF_X(t, t_f)}{F_X(t, t_f)} = \sigma^X d\widetilde{W}_t^1 + \beta_d(t, t_f)\sigma^d \sum_{i=1}^3 l_{3, i} d \widetilde{W}_t^i- \beta_f(t, t_f)\sigma^f \sum_{i=1}^2 l_{2, i} d \widetilde{W}_t^i. \end{align*} Moreover, let \begin{align*} M(t, t_f) &= -\frac{1}{2}\int_t^{t_f} \bigg((\sigma^X)^2 + (\beta_d(u, t_f)\sigma^d)^2 + (\beta_f(u, t_f)\sigma^f)^2\\ &\quad + 2 \rho_{1, 3}\sigma^X \sigma^d\beta_d(u, t_f)- 2 \rho_{1, 2}\sigma^X \sigma^f\beta_f(u, t_f) - 2 \rho_{2, 3}\sigma^d \sigma^f \beta_d(u, t_f)\beta_f(u, t_f)\bigg) du. \end{align*} Then, \begin{align*} X_{t_f} &= F_X(t_f, t_f)\\ &=F_X(t, t_f) \exp\bigg(M(t, t_f) \\ &\quad + \int_t^{t_f} \Big( \sigma^X d\widetilde{W}_u^1 + \beta_d(u, t_f)\sigma^d \sum_{i=1}^3 l_{3, i} d \widetilde{W}_u^i- \beta_f(u, t_f)\sigma^f \sum_{i=1}^2 l_{2, i} d \widetilde{W}_u^i\Big)\bigg). \end{align*} Furthermore, let \begin{align*} N(t, t_f) &= e^{-\lambda^d (t_f-t)} r_t + \int_t^{t_f} \theta_u^d e^{-\lambda^d(t_f-u)} du -\int_t^{t_f}(\sigma^d)^2 e^{-\lambda^d(t_f-u)}\beta_d(u, t_f) du. \end{align*} Then, \begin{align*} r_{t_f}^d &= e^{-\lambda^d (t_f-t)} r_t + \int_t^{t_f} \theta_u^d e^{-\lambda^d(t_f-u)} du + \int_t^{t_f} \sigma^d e^{-\lambda^d(t_f-u)} \sum_{i=1}^3 l_{3, i} d W_u^i\\ &= N(t, t_f)+ \int_t^{t_f} \sigma^d e^{-\lambda^d(t_f-u)} \sum_{i=1}^3 l_{3, i} d \widetilde{W}_u^i. \end{align*} That is, \begin{align*} P_d(t_f, T) X_{t_f} &= \exp\bigg(A_d(t_f, T) - B_d(t_f, T) r_{t_f}^d \bigg)X_{t_f}\\ &= F_X(t, t_f) \exp\bigg(A_d(t_f, T) - B_d(t_f, T)N(t, t_f) + M(t, t_f)\\ &\quad - B_d(t_f, T) \int_t^{t_f} \sigma^d e^{-\lambda^d(t_f-u)} \sum_{i=1}^3 l_{3, i} d \widetilde{W}_u^i \\ &\quad + \int_t^{t_f} \Big( \sigma^X d\widetilde{W}_u^1 + \beta_d(u, t_f)\sigma^d \sum_{i=1}^3 l_{3, i} d \widetilde{W}_u^i- \beta_f(u, t_f)\sigma^f \sum_{i=1}^2 l_{2, i} d \widetilde{W}_u^i\Big) \bigg). \end{align*} Let \begin{align*} V(t, t_f, T) &= \int_t^{t_f} \bigg((\sigma^X)^2 + \Big(\beta_d(u, t_f)\sigma^d - B_d(t_f, T)\sigma^d e^{-\lambda^d(t_f-u)} \Big)^2 + (\beta_f(u, t_f)\sigma^f)^2\\ &\quad + 2 \rho_{1, 3}\sigma^X \Big(\beta_d(u, t_f)\sigma^d - B_d(t_f, T)\sigma^d e^{-\lambda^d(t_f-u)} \Big)- 2 \rho_{1, 2}\sigma^X \sigma^f\beta_f(u, t_f) \\ &\quad - 2 \rho_{2, 3}\sigma^f \beta_f(u, t_f)\Big(\beta_d(u, t_f)\sigma^d - B_d(t_f, T)\sigma^d e^{-\lambda^d(t_f-u)} \Big)\bigg) du\\ &= -2M(t, t_f) + B_d(t_f, T)\int_t^{t_f}\bigg[ B_d(t_f, T)\Big( \sigma^d e^{-\lambda^d(t_f-u)} \Big)^2 \\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad - 2 (\sigma^d)^2\beta_d(u, t_f)e^{-\lambda^d(t_f-u)} -2 \rho_{1, 3}\sigma^X \sigma^d e^{-\lambda^d(t_f-u)}\\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad +2 \rho_{2, 3}\sigma^d \sigma^f \beta_f(u, t_f) e^{-\lambda^d(t_f-u)} \bigg]du. \end{align*} Moreover, let \begin{align*} V_0(t, t_f, T) &=B_d(t_f, T)\int_t^{t_f}\bigg[ B_d(t_f, T)\Big( \sigma^d e^{-\lambda^d(t_f-u)} \Big)^2 \\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad - 2 (\sigma^d)^2\beta_d(u, t_f)e^{-\lambda^d(t_f-u)} -2 \rho_{1, 3}\sigma^X \sigma^d e^{-\lambda^d(t_f-u)} \\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad +2 \rho_{2, 3}\sigma^d \sigma^f \beta_f(u, t_f) e^{-\lambda^d(t_f-u)} \bigg]du. \end{align*} Then \begin{align*} &\ E^{Q_d^{t_f}} \Big(P_d(t_f, T) X_{t_f} \mid \mathcal{F}_t \Big) \\ =&\ F_X(t, t_f) \exp\bigg(A_d(t_f, T) - B_d(t_f, T)N(t, t_f) + M(t, t_f) +\frac{1}{2} V(t, t_f, T) \bigg)\\ =&\ F_X(t, t_f) \exp\bigg(A_d(t_f, T) - B_d(t_f, T)N(t, t_f) + \frac{1}{2} V_0(t, t_f, T) \bigg). \end{align*}

Gordon
  • 21,114
  • 1
  • 35
  • 80
  • 1
    @Joe, any comments or feedback? – Gordon Aug 05 '16 at 16:40
  • I hadn't seen this question. I think your solution is true. indeed, it is so nice (+1) –  Aug 28 '16 at 20:45
  • @Joe Your behavior is not fairly. –  Aug 28 '16 at 20:52
  • @BehrouzMaleki and Joe, generally, a poster should at least question and challenge the answer, so that we can improve and fine tune the answer together. – Gordon Aug 29 '16 at 12:01
  • Exactly @Gordon –  Aug 29 '16 at 13:37
  • just to summarize, are you implying that the non-deliverable forward rate $ E^{Q_d^{t_f}} \Big(P_d(t_f, T) X_{t_f} \mid \mathcal{F}_t \Big)$ is equal to deliverable forward rate $\ F_X(t, t_f)$ multiplied by the last term in your formula? – dayum Apr 18 '19 at 13:38
  • 1
    I do not assume that, but you can treat it as an approximation. – Gordon Apr 18 '19 at 16:27