In the book "Mathematics of Financial Markets" by R. J. Elliott and P. E. Kopp, Second Edition there is a claim made in the proof of Lemma 2.2.5., namely that $V_0(\theta)=V_0(\phi)$. I don't see why this would hold without making a rather long argument about EMM, which the book has not gotten to yet. The assumptions on the trading strategies $\phi$ and $\theta$ are that they generating strategies of the contingent claim $H$ in a viable market model in discrete time $\mathbb T = \{0,1,...,T\}$. Using the definitions from the book this means that for $\xi\in\{\theta,\phi\}$ the following assumptions hold
- $V_T(\xi)=H$
- $\xi_{t+1}\cdot S_t = \xi_t\cdot S_t$ for all $t\in\{1,...,T-1\}$ (self financing)
- $V_t(\xi)\geq 0$ for all $t\in\mathbb T$
- $H$ is a non-negative random variable
- There exists no strategy $\eta$ with $V_0(\eta)=0, P(V_T(\eta) > 0) > 0$ and $V_T(\eta)\geq 0$ (no arbitrage)
So my question is: Is there a simple argument here? The proof states it in the form of "since $V_0(\theta)=V_0(\phi)$", so I would suspect there is such a simple argument.