Unit 9, lesson 68

Heath Jarrow Morton and the drift restriction

How the Heath-Jarrow-Morton framework models the instantaneous forward curve, how bond price dynamics follow from it, and why the HJM drift restriction fixes forward drifts, with an exponential volatility kernel.

  • Video 68
  • Forward-curve and market models

A rates desk that models every point of the forward curve as its own diffusion can match today’s curve exactly by taking it as the starting value. It still has to choose a volatility and a drift for each maturity, and the question is whether the drifts are a free choice. Under a pricing measure for the money-market account they are not. This lesson derives the dynamics of zero-coupon bond prices from the forward curve and shows that requiring discounted bonds to be local martingales determines every forward drift from the volatilities, which is the Heath-Jarrow-Morton drift restriction.

Key terms

Instantaneous forward rate

Definition Suppose that at time tt the zero-coupon bond prices P(t,T)P(t,T) for maturities T≥tT \ge t are positive, satisfy P(t,t)=1P(t,t) = 1 and are differentiable in TT. The instantaneous forward rate for maturity TT is

f(t,T)=−∂∂Tln⁡P(t,T),f(t,T) = -\frac{\partial}{\partial T} \ln P(t,T),

and integrating it over maturity recovers the bond price,

P(t,T)=exp⁡(−∫tTf(t,u) du).\begin{aligned} &P(t,T) \\[0.4em] &= \exp\Bigl(-\int_t^T f(t,u)\,du\Bigr). \end{aligned}

The forward rate is annualized and continuously compounded. It is the limit, as δ↓0\delta \downarrow 0, of the simple forward rate (P(t,T)/P(t,T+δ)−1)/δ\bigl(P(t,T)/P(t,T+\delta) - 1\bigr)/\delta for lending over [T,T+δ][T, T+\delta] agreed at time tt. The short rate is its value on the diagonal, rt=f(t,t)r_t = f(t,t), and the continuously compounded zero yield y(t,T)=−ln⁡P(t,T)/(T−t)y(t,T) = -\ln P(t,T)/(T-t) is the average of the forward rates over [t,T][t,T]. Nothing forces a forward rate to be positive. It is negative at the maturities where the bond price increases with maturity.

In plain words The forward rate for maturity TT is the rate that can be locked in today for lending over an instant that starts at TT. A discount factor compounds all of these instantaneous rates between now and its maturity, and the short rate is the first of them.

Example For the constructed curve P(0,T)=exp⁡(−0.03T−0.001T2)P(0,T) = \exp(-0.03T - 0.001T^2), differentiating gives f(0,T)=0.03+0.002Tf(0,T) = 0.03 + 0.002T. The short rate is r0=f(0,0)=0.03r_0 = f(0,0) = 0.03, the forward rate at five years is 0.040.04, and the five-year zero yield is 0.03+0.001⋅5=0.0350.03 + 0.001 \cdot 5 = 0.035, the average of the forward rates over [0,5][0,5]. Integrating the forward curve,

∫05f(0,u) du=0.15+0.025=0.175,\begin{aligned} &\int_0^5 f(0,u)\,du \\[0.4em] &= 0.15 + 0.025 = 0.175 , \end{aligned}

which recovers P(0,5)=e−0.175≈0.839457P(0,5) = e^{-0.175} \approx 0.839457.

Heath-Jarrow-Morton framework

Definition Fix a horizon T∗T^* and a filtered probability space carrying a dd-dimensional Brownian motion WQW^{\mathbb{Q}} under a measure Q\mathbb{Q} equivalent to P\mathbb{P}. In the Heath-Jarrow-Morton framework the forward rate of each maturity T≤T∗T \le T^* evolves as

f(t,T)=f(0,T)+∫0tα(s,T) ds+∫0tσ(s,T)⋅dWsQ\begin{aligned} &f(t,T) = f(0,T) \\[0.4em] &\quad + \int_0^t \alpha(s,T)\,ds \\[0.4em] &\quad + \int_0^t \sigma(s,T) \cdot dW^{\mathbb{Q}}_s \end{aligned}

for 0≤t≤T0 \le t \le T. The initial curve f(0,⋅)f(0,\cdot) is today’s forward curve, a given deterministic function that is integrable on [0,T∗][0,T^*], so the model reproduces today’s bond prices by construction. The drift α(t,T)\alpha(t,T) is real valued and the forward-rate volatility σ(t,T)\sigma(t,T) takes values in Rd\mathbb{R}^d. Both are jointly measurable in the outcome, the time and the maturity, adapted in tt for each fixed TT, and integrable enough for the ordinary and the stochastic Fubini theorems to apply to integrals over maturity, which holds for example when α\alpha and σ\sigma are bounded. The short rate rt=f(t,t)r_t = f(t,t) is assumed well defined with ∫0T∗∣rt∣ dt<∞\int_0^{T^*} \lvert r_t \rvert\,dt < \infty, and the money-market account is Bt=exp⁡(∫0trs ds)B_t = \exp\bigl(\int_0^t r_s\,ds\bigr). The kkth component of σ(t,T)\sigma(t,T) is the response of the forward rate to the kkth Brownian driver, and the length ∥σ(t,T)∥\lVert \sigma(t,T) \rVert is its absolute volatility in rate units per square root year. Two maturities move with the instantaneous correlation

σ(t,T1)⋅σ(t,T2)∥σ(t,T1)∥ ∥σ(t,T2)∥\frac{\sigma(t,T_1) \cdot \sigma(t,T_2)}{\lVert \sigma(t,T_1) \rVert\,\lVert \sigma(t,T_2) \rVert}

when both volatilities are nonzero. With one factor, d=1d = 1, this correlation is 11 or −1-1, so the increments of all forward rates are perfectly correlated up to sign, and several factors are needed for the curve to twist or bend. The framework is written under Q\mathbb{Q} with the intention that Q\mathbb{Q} be a pricing measure for the numeraire BB, and the next two cards find the drifts that make it one.

In plain words The framework starts from today’s whole forward curve and lets every point of it diffuse. You choose how strongly each maturity responds to each source of randomness. The drift looks like a second free choice, but under a pricing measure it is not.

Example Take the constructed two-factor volatility

σ(t,T)=(0.0080.006 e−0.5(T−t)).\sigma(t,T) = \begin{pmatrix} 0.008 \\ 0.006\,e^{-0.5(T-t)} \end{pmatrix}.

The forward rate maturing now has the volatility vector (0.008,0.006)(0.008, 0.006) of length 0.010.01, which is 100100 basis points per square root year. With ten years remaining the second component has decayed to about 0.000040.00004, and the length is about 0.00800010.0080001. The instantaneous correlation between the forward rates with one and with ten years remaining is about 0.9120.912, and between those with zero and with ten years remaining about 0.8030.803. A one-factor model with positive volatilities would make both correlations equal to 11.

Bond price dynamics

Definition Under the hypotheses of the framework, define for t≤Tt \le T the integrated drift and the integrated volatility

A(t,T)=∫tTα(t,u) du,Σ(t,T)=∫tTσ(t,u) du.\begin{gathered} A(t,T) = \int_t^T \alpha(t,u)\,du, \\[0.4em] \Sigma(t,T) = \int_t^T \sigma(t,u)\,du . \end{gathered}

For every maturity T≤T∗T \le T^* and 0≤t≤T0 \le t \le T,

ln⁡P(t,T)=ln⁡P(0,T)+∫0t(rs−A(s,T)) ds−∫0tΣ(s,T)⋅dWsQ,\begin{aligned} &\ln P(t,T) = \ln P(0,T) \\[0.4em] &\quad + \int_0^t \bigl(r_s - A(s,T)\bigr)\,ds \\[0.4em] &\quad - \int_0^t \Sigma(s,T) \cdot dW^{\mathbb{Q}}_s , \end{aligned}

and Itô’s lemma for the exponential gives

dP(t,T)P(t,T)=(rt−A(t,T)+12∥Σ(t,T)∥2) dt−Σ(t,T)⋅dWtQ.\begin{aligned} &\frac{dP(t,T)}{P(t,T)} = \Bigl(r_t - A(t,T) \\[0.4em] &\qquad + \tfrac12 \lVert \Sigma(t,T) \rVert^2\Bigr)\,dt \\[0.4em] &\quad - \Sigma(t,T) \cdot dW^{\mathbb{Q}}_t . \end{aligned}

To prove the first identity, insert the integral form of f(t,u)f(t,u) into ln⁡P(t,T)=−∫tTf(t,u) du\ln P(t,T) = -\int_t^T f(t,u)\,du, exchange the order of the time and maturity integrals, by Fubini’s theorem for the drift and by the stochastic Fubini theorem for the Brownian term, and collect the pieces with maturities below tt into ∫0tf(s,s) ds=∫0trs ds\int_0^t f(s,s)\,ds = \int_0^t r_s\,ds. The term with rsr_s is the contribution of the moving lower limit. As calendar time advances, the front of the interval [t,T][t,T] drops out of the integral, which in differential form reads, formally, f(t,t) dt−∫tTdf(t,u) duf(t,t)\,dt - \int_t^T df(t,u)\,du for the increment of −∫tTf(t,u) du-\int_t^T f(t,u)\,du. The logarithm has Brownian loading −Σ(t,T)-\Sigma(t,T), so its quadratic variation grows at the rate ∥Σ(t,T)∥2\lVert \Sigma(t,T) \rVert^2, and the exponential adds half of it to the drift. Dividing by the money-market account removes rtr_t, so the discounted bond price satisfies

d(P(t,T)/Bt)P(t,T)/Bt=(12∥Σ(t,T)∥2−A(t,T)) dt−Σ(t,T)⋅dWtQ.\begin{aligned} &\frac{d\bigl(P(t,T)/B_t\bigr)}{P(t,T)/B_t} \\[0.4em] &= \Bigl(\tfrac12 \lVert \Sigma(t,T) \rVert^2 \\[0.4em] &\qquad - A(t,T)\Bigr)\,dt \\[0.4em] &\quad - \Sigma(t,T) \cdot dW^{\mathbb{Q}}_t . \end{aligned}

In plain words A bond price is the exponential of minus the area under the forward curve between now and maturity. That area changes for two reasons. The curve itself moves, and the interval shrinks from the front as time passes, which removes the short rate’s contribution and makes the bond accrue at rtr_t. The Brownian loading of the bond is minus the total of the forward-rate volatilities over its remaining life, so a shock that raises the forward rates lowers the bond price.

Example Take the one-factor constant volatility σ(t,T)=0.01\sigma(t,T) = 0.01, which is the continuous-time Ho-Lee model. A bond with five years to maturity has Σ=0.01⋅5=0.05\Sigma = 0.01 \cdot 5 = 0.05, so its price has a proportional volatility of 0.050.05 per square root year with the loading −0.05-0.05. If every forward rate were driftless under Q\mathbb{Q}, then A=0A = 0 and the discounted bond would have the relative drift 12⋅0.052=0.00125\tfrac12 \cdot 0.05^2 = 0.00125 per year. A discounted bond price with a nonzero drift is not a local martingale, so driftless forward rates are incompatible with Q\mathbb{Q} being a pricing measure.

HJM drift restriction

Definition Under the hypotheses of the framework, the discounted bond prices P(t,T)/BtP(t,T)/B_t are local martingales under Q\mathbb{Q} for every maturity T≤T∗T \le T^* if and only if

A(t,T)=12∥Σ(t,T)∥2A(t,T) = \tfrac12 \lVert \Sigma(t,T) \rVert^2

for every TT, for almost every t≤Tt \le T, almost surely. This follows from the previous card, because a continuous semimartingale is a local martingale exactly when its drift vanishes. When α\alpha and σ\sigma are continuous in maturity, differentiating in TT with ∂TA(t,T)=α(t,T)\partial_T A(t,T) = \alpha(t,T) and ∂T12∥Σ(t,T)∥2=σ(t,T)⋅Σ(t,T)\partial_T \tfrac12 \lVert \Sigma(t,T) \rVert^2 = \sigma(t,T) \cdot \Sigma(t,T) gives the equivalent pointwise form, the HJM drift restriction

α(t,T)=σ(t,T)⋅∫tTσ(t,u) du,\begin{aligned} &\alpha(t,T) \\[0.4em] &= \sigma(t,T) \cdot \int_t^T \sigma(t,u)\,du , \end{aligned}

and integrating it back from T=tT = t, where AA and Σ\Sigma vanish, recovers the first form. Once the initial curve and the volatility are chosen, the drift under Q\mathbb{Q} is determined, so it is not a parameter to fit. Under the restriction, with Σ=Σ(s,T)\Sigma = \Sigma(s,T) inside the integrals,

P(t,T)Bt=P(0,T)×exp⁡(−∫0tΣ⋅dWsQ−12∫0t∥Σ∥2 ds).\begin{aligned} &\frac{P(t,T)}{B_t} = P(0,T) \\[0.4em] &\quad \times \exp\Bigl(-\int_0^t \Sigma \cdot dW^{\mathbb{Q}}_s \\[0.4em] &\qquad - \tfrac12 \int_0^t \lVert \Sigma \rVert^2\,ds\Bigr) . \end{aligned}

A positive local martingale is a supermartingale, and this one is a true martingale under an additional condition such as Novikov’s,

EQ[e12∫0T∥Σ(s,T)∥2ds]<∞,\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}\Bigl[e^{\frac12 \int_0^T \lVert \Sigma(s,T) \rVert^2 ds}\Bigr] < \infty ,

which holds whenever σ\sigma is bounded. With true martingales, P(t,T)=EQ[e−∫tTrs ds∣Ft]P(t,T) = \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}\bigl[e^{-\int_t^T r_s\,ds} \mid \mathcal{F}_t\bigr], and together with admissibility conditions on trading strategies such a measure rules out arbitrage among the bonds. The restriction does not make the market complete, and it says nothing about the drift under P\mathbb{P}, which contains a market price of risk. Forward rates are in general not martingales under Q\mathbb{Q}, since their drift α(t,T)\alpha(t,T) is exactly what cancels the convexity term of the bond.

In plain words Bonds are traded, so in units of the money-market account their prices may not drift under the pricing measure. Their drift has two parts, the integrated forward drift and the convexity term from exponentiating, and these must cancel. That forces each forward rate to drift by the product of its own volatility and the total volatility of the forward rates between now and its maturity.

Example In the Ho-Lee case σ(t,T)=0.01\sigma(t,T) = 0.01 the restriction gives α(t,T)=0.01⋅0.01 (T−t)=0.0001 (T−t)\alpha(t,T) = 0.01 \cdot 0.01\,(T - t) = 0.0001\,(T - t), so under Q\mathbb{Q} the forward rate with five years remaining drifts up by 0.00050.0005 per year, which is 55 basis points per year. Integrating over the remaining life,

A=∫050.0001 z dz=0.00125=12⋅0.052,\begin{aligned} A &= \int_0^5 0.0001\,z\,dz \\[0.4em] &= 0.00125 = \tfrac12 \cdot 0.05^2 , \end{aligned}

exactly the convexity term of the previous card. The short rate becomes rt=f(t,t)=f(0,t)+0.00005 t2+0.01 WtQr_t = f(t,t) = f(0,t) + 0.00005\,t^2 + 0.01\,W^{\mathbb{Q}}_t, the Ho-Lee short rate fitted to today’s curve.

Exponential volatility kernel

Definition The exponential volatility kernel is the deterministic one-factor volatility

σ(t,T)=η e−a(T−t),0≤t≤T,\begin{gathered} \sigma(t,T) = \eta\,e^{-a(T-t)}, \\[0.4em] 0 \le t \le T, \end{gathered}

with constants η>0\eta > 0, in rate units per square root year, and a>0a > 0, per year. It is bounded and deterministic, so the hypotheses of the framework and Novikov’s condition hold. With τ=T−t\tau = T - t,

Σ(t,T)=η (1−e−aτ)a,α(t,T)=η2e−aτ(1−e−aτ)a,A(t,T)=η2(1−e−aτ)22a2.\begin{gathered} \Sigma(t,T) = \frac{\eta\,(1 - e^{-a\tau})}{a}, \\[0.4em] \alpha(t,T) = \frac{\eta^2 e^{-a\tau}(1 - e^{-a\tau})}{a}, \\[0.4em] A(t,T) = \frac{\eta^2 (1 - e^{-a\tau})^2}{2a^2} . \end{gathered}

The last line comes from integrating α\alpha directly, using

∫0τ(e−az−e−2az) dz=1−e−aτa−1−e−2aτ2a=(1−e−aτ)22a,\begin{aligned} &\int_0^\tau \bigl(e^{-az} - e^{-2az}\bigr)\,dz \\[0.4em] &= \frac{1 - e^{-a\tau}}{a} - \frac{1 - e^{-2a\tau}}{2a} \\[0.4em] &= \frac{(1 - e^{-a\tau})^2}{2a} , \end{aligned}

and it equals 12Σ(t,T)2\tfrac12 \Sigma(t,T)^2, as the restriction requires. As a→0a \to 0 the kernel tends to the constant η\eta, with Σ→ητ\Sigma \to \eta\tau and α→η2τ\alpha \to \eta^2\tau, the Ho-Lee values. With this kernel the short rate rt=f(t,t)r_t = f(t,t) follows the Hull-White model with mean reversion aa and volatility η\eta, fitted to the initial curve.

In plain words A shock moves the near end of the forward curve most, and its effect fades along the curve at the rate aa. The bond volatility therefore levels off at η/a\eta/a for long maturities instead of growing in proportion to maturity as in the Ho-Lee case.

Example With the constructed values η=0.01\eta = 0.01, a=0.2a = 0.2 and τ=3\tau = 3 years, e−0.6≈0.548812e^{-0.6} \approx 0.548812. The forward-rate volatility is σ(t,T)≈0.00548812\sigma(t,T) \approx 0.00548812, the integrated volatility is Σ≈0.0225594\Sigma \approx 0.0225594 per square root year, so the bond’s Brownian loading is about −0.0225594-0.0225594, and the forward drift is

α≈0.00548812×0.0225594≈0.000123809\begin{aligned} \alpha &\approx 0.00548812 \\[0.4em] &\quad \times 0.0225594 \\[0.4em] &\approx 0.000123809 \end{aligned}

per year, about 1.241.24 basis points per year. The integrated drift is A≈0.000254464=12Σ2A \approx 0.000254464 = \tfrac12 \Sigma^2 per year, and a numerical integration of α\alpha over the remaining maturity gives the same value. Without mean reversion the same η\eta would give Σ=0.03\Sigma = 0.03 and α=0.0003\alpha = 0.0003, so mean reversion lowers the volatility of this three-year bond from 0.030.03 to about 0.02260.0226.

Check yourself

  1. In the Ho-Lee case σ(t,T)=0.008\sigma(t,T) = 0.008 with one factor, take a bond with ten years to maturity. Find Σ(t,T)\Sigma(t,T), the drift α(t,T)\alpha(t,T) of the forward rate at that maturity and the integrated drift A(t,T)A(t,T), and check the drift restriction. What is the proportional volatility of the bond price?
Show the answer

The integrated volatility is Σ=0.008⋅10=0.08\Sigma = 0.008 \cdot 10 = 0.08 per square root year, and the restriction gives α=0.008⋅0.08=0.00064\alpha = 0.008 \cdot 0.08 = 0.00064 per year for the forward rate with ten years remaining. The drift of the forward rate with zz years remaining is 0.000064 z0.000064\,z, so

A=∫0100.000064 z dz=0.000064⋅50=0.0032,\begin{aligned} A &= \int_0^{10} 0.000064\,z\,dz \\[0.4em] &= 0.000064 \cdot 50 = 0.0032 , \end{aligned}

which equals 12⋅0.082=12⋅0.0064=0.0032\tfrac12 \cdot 0.08^2 = \tfrac12 \cdot 0.0064 = 0.0032, as the restriction requires. The bond price has proportional volatility 0.080.08 per square root year, with Brownian loading −0.08-0.08, so a positive Brownian increment raises every forward rate and lowers the bond price.

  1. A student differentiates ln⁡P(t,T)=−∫tTf(t,u) du\ln P(t,T) = -\int_t^T f(t,u)\,du by moving the differential inside the integral and obtains dln⁡P(t,T)=−A(t,T) dt−Σ(t,T)⋅dWtQd \ln P(t,T) = -A(t,T)\,dt - \Sigma(t,T) \cdot dW^{\mathbb{Q}}_t. Which term is missing, which restriction would the student derive from driftless discounted bonds, and what does it give with rt=0.03r_t = 0.03 in the setting of the first question? Check the correct version in a model with zero volatility.
Show the answer

The student ignores the moving lower limit. As tt advances, the front of the interval [t,T][t,T] drops out of the integral, which contributes +f(t,t) dt=+rt dt+f(t,t)\,dt = +r_t\,dt. Without that term the student’s bond has relative drift −A+12∥Σ∥2-A + \tfrac12 \lVert \Sigma \rVert^2, the discounted bond has drift −rt−A+12∥Σ∥2-r_t - A + \tfrac12 \lVert \Sigma \rVert^2, and setting it to zero gives the wrong restriction A=12∥Σ∥2−rtA = \tfrac12 \lVert \Sigma \rVert^2 - r_t. In the setting of the first question this would give A=0.0032−0.03=−0.0268A = 0.0032 - 0.03 = -0.0268 instead of the correct 0.00320.0032. The wrong condition cannot even hold for every maturity, because at T=tT = t both AA and Σ\Sigma vanish and it would force rt=0r_t = 0. With zero volatility the correct restriction gives α=0\alpha = 0, so the forward curve stays at f(0,⋅)f(0,\cdot), and

P(t,T)=e−∫tTf(0,u) du=P(0,T)P(0,t).\begin{aligned} P(t,T) &= e^{-\int_t^T f(0,u)\,du} \\[0.4em] &= \frac{P(0,T)}{P(0,t)} . \end{aligned}

Its logarithm has the time derivative f(0,t)=rtf(0,t) = r_t, so the bond grows at the short rate, as a riskless bond must. For this frozen curve the student’s formula would instead say that the bond price never changes.

  1. Using the density convention of Numeraires and forward measures, the TT-forward measure has WtT=WtQ−∫0tσP(s,T) dsW^T_t = W^{\mathbb{Q}}_t - \int_0^t \sigma_P(s,T)\,ds, where σP(t,T)\sigma_P(t,T) is the Brownian loading of the bond price under Q\mathbb{Q}. Show that under the HJM drift restriction the forward rate f(⋅,T)f(\cdot,T) has no drift under QT\mathbb{Q}^T. Then, for the exponential kernel with η=0.01\eta = 0.01 and a=0.2a = 0.2, find the drift of the forward rate with three years remaining under QT\mathbb{Q}^T and under the forward measure QS\mathbb{Q}^S of a later maturity with five years remaining, and compare with its drift under Q\mathbb{Q}.
Show the answer

The bond loading is σP(t,T)=−Σ(t,T)\sigma_P(t,T) = -\Sigma(t,T), so WtT=WtQ+∫0tΣ(s,T) dsW^T_t = W^{\mathbb{Q}}_t + \int_0^t \Sigma(s,T)\,ds and dWtQ=dWtT−Σ(t,T) dtdW^{\mathbb{Q}}_t = dW^T_t - \Sigma(t,T)\,dt. Substituting into the forward-rate equation with α=σ⋅Σ\alpha = \sigma \cdot \Sigma, where σ=σ(t,T)\sigma = \sigma(t,T) and Σ=Σ(t,T)\Sigma = \Sigma(t,T), gives

df(t,T)=σ⋅Σ dt+σ⋅(dWtT−Σ dt)=σ(t,T)⋅dWtT.\begin{aligned} &df(t,T) = \sigma \cdot \Sigma\,dt \\[0.4em] &\quad + \sigma \cdot \bigl(dW^T_t - \Sigma\,dt\bigr) \\[0.4em] &= \sigma(t,T) \cdot dW^T_t . \end{aligned}

For the exponential kernel σ\sigma is deterministic and bounded, so f(⋅,T)f(\cdot,T) is a Gaussian martingale under QT\mathbb{Q}^T, and f(t,T)=EQT[rT∣Ft]f(t,T) = \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^T}[r_T \mid \mathcal{F}_t]. The forward rate is the TT-forward expectation of the future short rate, not its Q\mathbb{Q} expectation. Under QS\mathbb{Q}^S the same steps with Σ(t,S)\Sigma(t,S) give the drift

σ(t,T)⋅(Σ(t,T)−Σ(t,S))=−σ(t,T)⋅∫TSσ(t,u) du,\begin{aligned} &\sigma(t,T) \cdot \bigl(\Sigma(t,T) - \Sigma(t,S)\bigr) \\[0.4em] &= -\sigma(t,T) \cdot \int_T^S \sigma(t,u)\,du , \end{aligned}

which is negative here because the kernel is positive and S>TS > T. With three and five years remaining, ∫TSσ(t,u) du=0.01 (e−0.6−e−1)/0.2≈0.0090466\int_T^S \sigma(t,u)\,du = 0.01\,(e^{-0.6} - e^{-1})/0.2 \approx 0.0090466 and σ(t,T)≈0.0054881\sigma(t,T) \approx 0.0054881, so the drift under QS\mathbb{Q}^S is about −0.0000496-0.0000496 per year. The same forward rate drifts by about +0.000124+0.000124 per year under Q\mathbb{Q} and by 00 under QT\mathbb{Q}^T. The sign of a drift depends on the measure, and tracking the bond loading first keeps it right.

How this lesson connects