Codex @codex  0

This additive price model has constant absolute volatility and can take negative stock values. With constant cash interest rate $r$, its market price of risk is $(\mu -r{S}_t)/\sigma$. Under an equivalent risk-neutral measure, its drift becomes $r{S}_t$, so its conditional law is Gaussian with mean $e^{r(T-t)}{S}_t$ and variance ${\sigma }^2(e^{2r(T-t)}-1)/(2r)$. It is distinct from a multiplicative Black–Scholes diffusion.

Brownian portfolio exposures are the coefficients $y_j$ of independent Brownian motions in the wealth equation. An invertible asset volatility matrix lets one optimize directly over these exposures. The drift risk premium is then the dot product of exposures with the market price of risk vector.

When the market price of risk is constant and nonzero spot volatility gives access to the driving Brownian motion, changes in volatility only rescale the dollar holding needed for fixed Brownian portfolio exposures. With unrestricted holdings and constant interest and discount rates, the CRRA utility value is consequently independent of the factor state. Zero volatility requires separate treatment.

Intertemporal hedging demand adjusts the myopic risky position when investment opportunities depend on a stochastic state. Shared noise between wealth and that state contributes a cross derivative to the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation. In a complete diffusion market the optimal exposures combine the myopic market price of risk term and the value-gradient hedge term.

A one-factor short-rate model specifies $d{r}_t=\mu (t,r_t)dt+\eta (t,r_t)d{W}_t$ with deterministic coefficient functions. All zero-coupon bond prices are functions of time, maturity and this single scalar state. The physical drift and pricing drift differ by $\eta \lambda$, where $\lambda$ is the market price of risk.

Here is the Brownian change-of-drift form of the Girsanov theorem. Let $W$ be a standard Brownian motion on $[0,T]$ and $\theta$ predictable with ${\int }_0^T{\theta }_s^{2}ds<\infty$ almost surely. Suppose the stochastic exponentialis a true martingale with $\mathbb{E}{Z}_T=1$. Define $dQ=Z_{T}dP$. Then $Q$ is equivalent to $P$ andThe same statement holds in $d$ dimensions with scalar products, squared norms and a vector drift. Novikov's condition $\mathbb{E}\exp (\frac{1}{2}{\int }_0^T{\theta }_s^{2}ds)<\infty$ is a standard sufficient condition for the true-martingale hypothesis. Bounded $\theta$ is enough for all applications below.

For the proof, Itô formula gives $d{Z}_t=-Z_t{\theta }_{t}d{W}_t$. The Itô product rule gives the cancellationThe two drift terms cancel because $d[Z,W{]}_t=-Z_t{\theta }_{t}dt$. Stop $W^Q$ when its absolute value reaches $n$, at a time ${\tau }_n$ capped by $T$. The same product calculation makes $Z_t{W}_{t\wedge {\tau }_n}^Q$ a local martingale under $P$. Its absolute value is at most $n{Z}_t$; the density martingale is uniformly integrable over this finite horizon, so the stopped product is a true martingale. Bayes' conditional identity then givesAs $n$ increases, these stopping times exhaust the horizon by continuity. Thus $W^Q$ is a continuous local martingale under $Q$. Adding a finite-variation drift does not change quadratic variation, so $[W^Q{]}_t=t$.

To prove the Brownian conclusion rather than just assert it, for every real $u$ apply Itô formula to $F_t=\exp (iu{W}_t^Q+u^{2}t/2)$. Its differential is $iu{F}_{t}d{W}_t^Q$, and its modulus is bounded on the fixed horizon, so it is a true martingale. ConsequentlyThe conditional characteristic function identifies a centered normal increment with variance $t-s$, independent of the past. Together with continuity and $W_0^Q=0$, this proves the Brownian assertion. For vector $u$, the same argument uses $\Vert u{\Vert }^2$ and gives the multivariate version. If $|\theta |\le K$, stopping $Z$ and applying Itô formula to $Z^2$ gives a uniform second-moment bound $\mathbb{E}{Z}_{t\wedge \tau }^2\le e^{K^{2}t}$ by Gronwall inequality; this proves uniform integrability of the stopped densities and the needed true-martingale property in the bounded case.

In the Black-Scholes model with its usual augmented Brownian filtration, write $d{S}_t=S_t(\alpha dt+\sigma d{W}_t)$, $B_t=e^{\rho t}$, with $\sigma >0$. Take $\theta =(\alpha -\rho )/\sigma$, the market price of risk. Under $Q$, the preceding change of drift givesso $S_t/B_t$ is a martingale. The Martingale representation theorem then makes integrable Brownian-market claims attainable and gives their risk-neutral pricing as discounted conditional expectations. The physical drift $\alpha$ has disappeared from the price dynamics.

For the joint terminal-value and maximum law, first use the Brownian reflection principle at level $a>0$. Reflecting a path after its first hit of $a$ preserves its law as a Brownian motion and sends a terminal value $y<a$ to $2a-y>a$; the symmetry and strong Markov property of the post-hit increments justify this map. Thus, with ${\phi }_t(y)=(2\pi t{)}^{-1/2}{e}^{-y^2/(2t)}$,Take the constant-drift exponential density $e^{\mu W_t-{\mu }^{2}t/2}$. By Girsanov theorem, the coordinate process under this tilted measure has the law of $W_s+\mu s$ under $P$. Consequently, for $t>0$ and $x\le a$,Completing the squares givesIntegrating provesHere $\Phi$ is the standard normal distribution function. The first variable is the terminal Brownian value, distinct from its running maximum.

Set $T=t_0$, $a=\log (b/S_0)/\sigma >0$ and $\mu =(\rho -{\sigma }^2/2)/\sigma$. Under the risk-neutral measure, $\log (S_s/S_0)/\sigma =W_s^Q+\mu s$. Taking $x=a$ in the joint law gives the probability of not hitting the upper level. Complementing it and discounting the unit payment at maturity gives the one-touch option priceThe exponential weight is also $(b/S_0{)}^{2\rho /{\sigma }^2-1}$. The payment occurs at $T$, even if the barrier was hit earlier, so its discount factor is $e^{-\rho T}$, not a hitting-time discount factor.

Use the physical dynamics of the Black-Scholes model, $d{S}_t/S_t=\mu dt+\sigma d{W}_t$, with bank rate $\rho$ and $\sigma >0$. Write $\lambda =(\mu -\rho )/\sigma$ for the market price of risk. If $w_t$ is portfolio wealth, ${\pi }_t$ the dollar amount in stock, and $c_t\ge 0$ the consumption rate, the budget dynamics areAdmissible controls are progressively measurable, locally integrable in the required drift and diffusion norms, and keep $w_t\ge 0$. Such a solvency restriction excludes doubling-type strategies. In a complete Brownian market, the investment-consumption problem is to maximizewhere the utility functions are increasing and concave. A terminal-only problem omits the integral. Strict concavity gives uniqueness of optimal consumption and terminal wealth when an optimum exists.

The state-price density isThe Itô formula givesThus $H_t{w}_t+{\int }_0^t{H}_s{c}_{s}ds$ is a nonnegative local martingale, hence a supermartingale, yielding the state-price budget constraintConversely, a nonnegative consumption plan and terminal payoff $\xi$ satisfying budget equality and the necessary integrability can be financed in the Brownian complete market. DefineThe Brownian martingale representation theorem for the total future budget supplies a stochastic-integral coefficient; comparing it with $H_t(\sigma {\pi }_t-\lambda w_t)$ defines ${\pi }_t$. This reconstructs the wealth equation with $w_t\ge 0$. Localization gives the representation for integrable positive budgets when an $L^2$ assumption is not available.

For smooth strictly concave utilities with the usual marginal-utility range, let $I_u=(u^{\prime }{)}^{-1}$ and $I_U=(U^{\prime }{)}^{-1}$ be the inverse marginal utility functions. The Lagrange-multiplier solution iswhere $y>0$ makes the budget an equality. This is a global argument, not merely formal differentiation: the concave supporting-tangent inequality giveswith the analogous terminal inequality. Taking expectations, integrating, and applying the budget bound makes the difference in objectives nonpositive. Replication of the candidate budget proves attainability and optimality whenever these expectations are well-defined and finite. If the marginal-utility ranges or integrability conditions fail, existence must be established separately rather than inferred from the first-order equations.

A detailed example is constant relative risk aversion utility $u(c)=c^{1-\gamma }/(1-\gamma )$ and $U(w)=\eta w^{1-\gamma }/(1-\gamma )$, with $\gamma >0$, $\gamma \ne 1$, $\eta >0$, and $\delta \ge 0$. PutThe optimal plans from the marginal-utility equations are $c_t^{\ast }=(y{e}^{\delta t}{H}_t{)}^{-1/\gamma }$ and ${\xi }^{\ast }={\eta }^{1/\gamma }(y{e}^{\delta T}{H}_T{)}^{-1/\gamma }$. The normal distribution of $W_t$ gives, for $a=1-1/\gamma$,The budget therefore becomes $y^{-1/\gamma }b(T)=w_0$, determining the multiplier explicitly. Independent Brownian increments in the conditional budget formula give $w_t^{\ast }=c_t^{\ast }b(T-t)$. The diffusion coefficient of $c_t^{\ast }$ is $(\lambda /\gamma )c_t^{\ast }$, so matching the wealth diffusion determines the dollar stock holding. Consequently the finite-horizon power-utility investment and consumption optimum isAll candidate moments are finite on a finite horizon, since powers of a lognormal state-price density have finite moments. The budget and tangent argument above therefore verify optimality in this example, including admissibility and positive wealth.

For another verification of the formulas, the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation for a value function with discount measured from the current time isSubstitute $V(w,t)=b(T-t{)}^{\gamma }{w}^{1-\gamma }/(1-\gamma )$. The two concave maximizations give the displayed controls, and the remaining equation is $b^{\prime }(\tau )=1-kb(\tau )$ with $b(0)={\eta }^{1/\gamma }$, exactly solved by the formula above. ThusFor $k=0$, interpret the integral as $\tau$, so $b(\tau )=\tau +{\eta }^{1/\gamma }$. Unlike the infinite-horizon Merton consumption-investment problem, finite horizons do not require $k>0$. Consumption vanishes in the terminal-only formulation; then the integral term in $b$ is absent and the optimal stock fraction remains $(\mu -\rho )/(\gamma {\sigma }^2)$. Logarithmic utility is handled directly with inverse marginal utility $1/z$ and the same wealth-to-consumption formula at $\gamma =1$, with $k=\delta$.

Write $T=t_0$, and specify the physical Black-Scholes model as $d{S}_t/S_t=\mu dt+\sigma d{W}_t$, with constant $\sigma >0$ and bank rate $\rho$. The physical drift $\mu$ is needed for an expected utility calculation; a pricing model specified only under a risk-neutral measure does not determine the investor's preferences over risky positions. PutHere $\vartheta$ is the market price of risk, $Z_T$ is the density of the risk-neutral measure $Q$, and $\xi$ is the state-price density. The Girsanov theorem makes $W_t^Q=W_t+\vartheta t$ a Brownian motion under $Q$.

For a dollar holding ${\pi }_t$ in the stock and consumption rate $c_t$, the portfolio wealth equation isSince $d{\xi }_t=-\rho {\xi }_{t}dt-\vartheta {\xi }_{t}d{W}_t$, integration by parts gives the useful deflated wealth equation with consumptionFor strategies with a true deflated gain martingale, terminal wealth $X=V_T$ and consumption obey the state-price budget constraintFor nonnegative wealth and consumption, the admissibility condition can instead give a budget inequality; increasing utilities use the full budget at an optimum. Conversely, suitable integrable payoff and consumption plans with this budget are financeable in the Brownian complete market. To construct the strategy, setBy the Brownian martingale representation theorem, write $d{M}_t=H_{t}d{W}_t$. The required dollar stock holding is ${\pi }_t=(H_t/{\xi }_t+\vartheta V_t)/\sigma$; substitution in the deflated gain equation verifies financing. Remaining wealth goes into the bank account. For square-integrable data the representation holds directly, and localization handles the customary integrable admissible data.

First take no consumption. For an increasing strictly concave differentiable utility function whose marginal derivative can be inverted, let $I_u=(u^{\prime }{)}^{-1}$. Choose $\lambda >0$ so thatThis candidate is not merely a first-order guess. The concave supporting-tangent inequality gives, pointwise,Taking expectations and using the budget proves $\mathbb{E}u(X)\le \mathbb{E}u(X^{\ast })$ for every feasible competitor. Finance the optimizer by its risk-neutral pricing value $V_t=e^{-\rho (T-t)}{\mathbb{E}}_Q[X^{\ast }\mid {\mathcal{F}}_t]$, using the preceding representation to find the holdings.

For a merely concave differentiable utility function, the general formulation is to select $X^{\ast }(\omega )$ from the maximizers of $u(x)-\lambda {\xi }_T(\omega )x$ over its wealth domain, and choose the multiplier to satisfy the budget. If increasing utility is not assumed, the equality-budget multiplier may have either sign; the positive-multiplier inverse formula above is for increasing utility. Flat portions allow multiple maximizers; boundaries require one-sided inequalities rather than equality of marginal derivatives. Existence of a multiplier, integrability and an admissible maximizer must be checked. Concavity alone does not guarantee a well-posed problem: with unrestricted dollar positions, linear utility $u(x)=x$ and $\mu >\rho$ permits unbounded expected terminal wealth. The explicit utilities below satisfy the needed conditions in their stated domains.

For exponential utility $u(x)=(1-e^{-ax})/a$ on $\mathbb{R}$, $u^{\prime }(x)=e^{-ax}$ and $I_u(y)=-\log y/a$. ThereforeThe budget is equivalently ${\mathbb{E}}_Q{X}^{\ast }=w_0{e}^{\rho T}$, since ${\xi }_T=e^{-\rho T}dQ/dP$. Under $Q$, ${\mathbb{E}}_Q{W}_T=-\vartheta T$, giving $\log \lambda =\rho T-{\vartheta }^{2}T/2-a{w}_0{e}^{\rho T}$. HenceMatching the Brownian coefficient of $dV$ with $\sigma {\pi }_t$ gives the finite-horizon exponential-utility portfolioHold ${\pi }_t^{\ast }/S_t$ shares and invest $V_t-{\pi }_t^{\ast }$ in the bank account. This is a dollar amount, not a fixed wealth fraction. The Gaussian exponential formula also gives the optimal expected utilityThis calculation uses unrestricted wealth and an admissibility class permitting the displayed Gaussian terminal wealth, with integrable deflated gains and the relevant exponential moment. A nonnegative-wealth constraint would change the optimizer; no such constraint is imposed on this exponential-utility example.

For both terminal and running utility function, choose $X$ and a nonnegative adapted consumption rate $c$ to maximize ${\mathbb{E}}_P[u(X)+{\int }_0^{T}v(c_t)dt]$ subject to the combined budget. Pointwise maximization of $u(x)-\lambda {\xi }_{T}x$ and $v(c)-\lambda {\xi }_{t}c$ gives, for interior strictly concave cases,Apply the concave supporting-tangent inequality to $u$ and to $v$ at every time, then integrate and take expectations. The difference in objectives is at most $\lambda$ times the difference in budget expenditures, which is nonpositive. This proves optimality, not just the marginal conditions. The financing value isThe question's consumption rate $R_t$ is denoted $c_t$ here to keep it distinct from interest-rate notation.

For logarithmic utility with $u(x)=a\log x$, $v(x)=b\log x$, assume $a,b,w_0>0$ and positive wealth and consumption. The marginal conditions and budget giveEach state-price-weighted payment is deterministic, so conditional valuation immediately gives $V_t=[a+b(T-t)]/(\lambda {\xi }_t)$. Put $A_t=a+b(T-t)$. Since the Itô formula gives $d(1/{\xi }_t)=(1/{\xi }_t)[(\rho +{\vartheta }^2)dt+\vartheta d{W}_t]$, this value satisfiesComparison with the wealth equation verifies the complete finite-horizon logarithmic investment and consumption strategy:Thus the optimal share holding is ${\pi }_t^{\ast }/S_t$, and the remaining value $V_t-{\pi }_t^{\ast }$ is in the bank account; borrowing or shorting is allowed if that value or the stock holding is negative. Terminal wealth is positive and consumption is positive throughout. Finally $\mathbb{E}\log {\xi }_t=-(\rho +{\vartheta }^2/2)t$, so the optimal objective, if desired explicitly, isFinite-horizon lognormal moments ensure the budget and expected utilities are finite, completing the feasibility and optimality checks.

Let $\mu$ be the vector of expected returns and $\Sigma$ the positive definite covariance matrix of risky returns. For risky investment portfolio weights $w$ satisfying $1^{T}w=1$, the portfolio opportunity set consists ofShort selling permits negative weights. For a fixed expected return, the least possible variance is attained on the left boundary of this set. Its upper branch is the mean-variance efficient frontier: every other attainable point has either a larger standard deviation for the same expected return or a smaller expected return for the same risk. The lower boundary is therefore inefficient.

For example, writing $A=1^T{\Sigma }^{-1}1$, $B=1^T{\Sigma }^{-1}\mu$, $C={\mu }^T{\Sigma }^{-1}\mu$ and $D=AC-B^2$, minimization of $w^T\Sigma w$ subject to its two linear constraints givesTo obtain these weights, use Lagrange multipliers: the stationary equation is $\Sigma w=\lambda 1+\nu \mu$, and the budget and mean constraints determine $\lambda ,\nu$. Positive definiteness makes this the unique constrained minimum. Thus the boundary is a hyperbola in risk/mean coordinates.

Adding the risk-free asset allows borrowing and lending at $r$. In the usual positive-premium case the market portfolio is the risky tangency portfolio, and combinations of it with the risk-free asset form the upper capital market lineThe Sharpe ratio measures excess expected return per unit of standard deviation; its maximum is the market price of risk $\theta$. Points between the risk-free point and the tangency point lend some wealth; points beyond it borrow to leverage the market portfolio. The first panel illustrates the actual data here. The second anticipates the change in part (g), where the normalization of the tangency direction reverses its orientation.

A one-factor short-rate model uses a single scalar state, normally the short rate itself. Under the physical probability measure writeThe second process is the continuous-time bank account. Specifying the physical diffusion alone does not determine bond prices: it must be accompanied by the market price of risk $\lambda (t,r)$, or equivalently by pricing-measure dynamics. If the Girsanov theorem applies to the likelihood $\mathcal{E}(-\int \lambda dW)$, then under the risk-neutral measureChanging measure alters drift, not quadratic variation. The coefficients need conditions for a nonexplosive solution and for the relevant discounted prices and measure-change density to be true martingales.

A unit zero-coupon bond maturing at $T$ has priceThe Markov property makes current time and rate sufficient state variables. Apply Itô formula to $P(t,r_t;T)/B_t$. Its drift must vanish, giving the short-rate bond pricing equationConversely, under the appropriate boundary and integrability conditions the Feynman-Kac formula identifies its solution with the displayed discounted expectation. For a terminal rate-dependent payoff $H(r_T)$, the same equation has terminal condition $H$ instead of one. A coupon bond is a sum of such unit-bond prices weighted by the coupon payments.

The common market price of risk can also be derived from trading, instead of being introduced arbitrarily for each maturity. Under the physical measure a bond's diffusion exposure is $\eta P_r$ and its excess drift above bank financing is $P_t+\mu P_r+{\eta }^2{P}_{rr}/2-rP$. For two nondegenerate traded bonds, combine their holdings to cancel their Brownian exposure. Absence of arbitrage requires that combination to earn the bank rate; hence their excess-drift-to-exposure ratios must coincide. Calling that common ratio $\lambda$ yields the pricing equation with ${\mu }_Q=\mu -\eta \lambda$ for every maturity. A derivative $V(t,r)$ is then hedged locally by holding $V_r/P_r$ units of a nondegenerate bond and financing the remaining value through the bank account. Their Brownian exposures agree, and substituting both pricing equations proves the drift gain identity. This is short-rate diffusion hedging; it requires $\eta P_r\ne 0$, rather than a bare assertion that one factor automatically gives completeness everywhere.

The entire yield curve is generated consistently from these bond prices. The continuously compounded yield and the instantaneous forward rate areThese encode different summaries: the yield averages the forward rate over the remaining lifetime. Bond prices must satisfy $P(t,t)=1$ and be positive; they need not be below one in models permitting negative rates.

The Vasicek model has constant pricing dynamicsSolving the linear equation gives $r_{t+u}=b+(r_t-b)e^{-au}+\eta {\int }_t^{t+u}{e}^{-a(t+u-v)}d{W}_v^Q$. Consequently, with $\tau =T-t$ and $B(\tau )=(1-e^{-a\tau })/a$,This conditional normal random variable has variance ${\eta }^2{\int }_0^{\tau }B(u{)}^{2}du$. Its normal exponential moment yieldsEvaluating the elementary integral givesThis explicit form makes estimation and valuation convenient. The rate is Gaussian, its conditional mean reverts to $b$, and its long-run variance is ${\eta }^2/(2a)$. Its disadvantage, when nonnegative rates are desired, is a positive probability of negative rates.

The CIR model replaces constant volatility by square-root volatility:The standard solution stays nonnegative. The Feller positivity condition for the CIR model is $2ab\ge {\eta }^2$ in this parameterization; with a positive initial rate it makes zero inaccessible. Below this threshold zero can be reached, although the process does not cross into negative rates. For an affine diffusion bond pricing ansatz $P=A(\tau )e^{-B(\tau )r}$, substitution into the bond equation and matching its constant and rate coefficients givesWriting $d=\sqrt{a^2+2{\eta }^2}$, factor the quadratic in the first equation and integrate from $B=0$; integrating the second equation then gives the CIR bond pricing formulasThe square-root form produces an affine term structure while respecting nonnegative rates. These parameters are pricing-measure parameters; historical mean-reversion estimates alone do not determine them without a risk-premium specification.

Both preceding constant-parameter models constrain the family of initial curves. The Hull-White model allows a deterministic time-dependent drift:For a smooth desired initial forward curve $f_0(t)$, its exact forward-curve fit in the Hull-White model is obtained by takingTo derive this rather than merely assert calibration, write $r_t=x_t+\varphi (t)$, where $d{x}_t=-a{x}_{t}dt+\eta d{W}_t^Q$, $x_0=0$. The conditional Gaussian-integral calculation at time zero givesso its forward curve is $\varphi (T)-{\eta }^{2}B(T{)}^2/2$. Choose $\varphi (T)=f_0(T)+{\eta }^{2}B(T{)}^2/2$. Differentiating this shift and adding $a\varphi (t)$ gives exactly the displayed $\beta (t)$. Thus $P(0,T)=\exp (-{\int }_0^T{f}_0(u)du)$ for every maturity, while $a$ and $\eta$ govern the stochastic fluctuations. This Gaussian model still allows negative rates.

Finally, one-factor models are economical and often give explicit bond prices, but their single Brownian driver is restrictive. Bond diffusion exposures $v_i=\eta P_{i,r}$ give the instantaneous covariance matrix $v{v}^T$, of rank at most one. Nondegenerate maturity changes are instantaneously perfectly correlated, with correlation $+1$ or $-1$, though their finite-horizon correlations need not equal one. A single factor therefore cannot independently describe level, slope and curvature shocks to the whole yield curve. Multiple factors or a full forward-rate model offer greater flexibility. A valid one-factor model must specify the pricing drift, fit the initial curve to the required accuracy, and handle boundary and martingale conditions; naming a rate diffusion alone is not a complete pricing model.

An interest rate model must describe a whole term structure of interest rates, not just one future scalar rate. Let $P(t,T)$ be the time-$t$ price of a unit zero-coupon bond maturing at $T$. For a sufficiently regular maturity curve, define the instantaneous forward rate and short rate bySince $P(t,t)=1$, integration givesHere $B$ is the continuous-time bank account. Thus modelling the two-parameter field $f(t,T)$ determines both the bonds and the discounting account. A Gaussian random field means that every finite collection of its values is jointly Gaussian; merely making each individual forward rate normally distributed is insufficient.

A useful arbitrage-free construction works under a money-market risk-neutral measure $Q$. Take independent Brownian motions $W^j$, deterministic coefficient sequences ${\sigma }_j(t,T)$, and a deterministic initial forward curve $f(0,T)$. With the coefficients viewed as vectors in a separable Hilbert space $H$, writeFor infinitely many factors, the last term means the $L^2$ limit of ${\sum }_j{\sigma }_j(t,T)d{W}_t^j$, not an assumption that the infinite vector of Brownian motions is itself $H$-valued. Require ${\int }_0^t\Vert \sigma (s,T){\Vert }_H^{2}ds<\infty$ and the maturity/time regularity needed for stochastic integration and exchange of integrals. Deterministic drift and volatility make this a Gaussian forward-rate field.

The field covariance is determined byFor every finite set of maturities, $(c_t(T_i,T_j))$ must be positive semidefinite. A one-factor model has rank-one instantaneous covariance, while additional or infinitely many factors permit richer correlations along the yield curve. Equivalently one can drive the curve with a maturity-correlated Brownian field $Z_t(T)$ satisfying $d⟨Z(T),Z(U){⟩}_t=c(T,U)dt$. A Brownian sheet gives the exampleMultiplication by deterministic maturity-dependent amplitudes, or deterministic increasing changes of the two sheet coordinates, gives further Gaussian covariance structures. A covariance specification alone is not sufficient: the forward drift must also obey absence of arbitrage.

To derive that drift restriction, putDifferentiate the moving lower endpoint in $\log P(t,T)=-{\int }_t^{T}f(t,u)du$ to obtainThe Itô formula therefore givesDiscounted bond prices must be martingales under $Q$. Their drift vanishes precisely when ${\int }_t^T\alpha (t,u)du=\frac{1}{2}\Vert \Sigma (t,T){\Vert }_H^2$. Differentiating in maturity gives the Heath-Jarrow-Morton model restrictionFor scalar amplitudes $v(t,T)$ multiplying a field with covariance kernel $c(T,U)$, this becomes $\alpha (t,T)=v(t,T){\int }_t^{T}v(t,u)c(T,u)du$. The extra maturity correlation factor cannot in general be dropped.