Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A note on the worst case approach for a market with a stochastic interest rate

A note on the worst case approach for a market with a stochastic interest rate A NOTE ON THE WORST CASE APPROACH FOR A MARKET WITH A STOCHASTIC INTEREST RATE DARIUSZ ZAWISZA Abstract. We solve robust optimization problem and show the ex- ample of the market model for which the worst case measure is not a martingale measure. In our model the instantaneous interest rate is determined by the Hull-White model and the investor employs the HARA utility to measure his satisfaction.To protect against the model uncertainty he uses the worst case measure approach. The problem is formulated as a stochastic game between the investor and the market from the other side. PDE methods are used to find the saddle point and the precise verification argument is provided. Published in Appl. Math. (Warsaw), 45 (2018) 151–160, https://doi.org/10.4064/am2348-2-2018 1. Introduction We consider a portfolio problem embedded into a game theoretic prob- lem. We assume that the investor does not trust his model much and be- lieves it is only the best guess based on existing data. In such situation we say that the investor faces the model uncertainty (or the model ambiguity). In this work we would like to put more light into the portfolio optimization problem under the assumption that the short term interest rate exhibits some stochastic nature. We consider a financial market consisting of n as- sets and a bank account. The interest rate on the bank account follows the Hull–White model, which is extended version of the Vasicek model. The investor chooses between holding cash in a bank account and holding risky assets. The same model has been considered first by Korn and Kraft [4] but without the model uncertainty assumption. Instead of supposing that we have the exact model, we assume here the whole family of equivalent mod- els, which will be described later. To determine robust investment controls the investor maximizes the total expected HARA utility of the final wealth after taking the infimum over all possible models. The robust optimization in the diffusion setting has been popularized especially by A. Schied and his coauthors (e.g. Schied [10] and references therein). The model ambigu- ity in the Vasicek model and its extensions has been considered already by Flor and Larsen [2], Sun et al. [11], Munk and Rubtsov [6], Wang and Li [12]. However, their objective function is different, because it includes the expression (along the lines of Maenhout [5]) which penalize the expected Date: January 8, 2020. 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 91G80; 91G10; 91A15; 91A25; 49N90; 49N60 . Key words and phrases. Robust optimization, stochastic differential games, model un- certainty, portfolio optimization, martingale measure, Vasicek model, Hull-White model. arXiv:2001.01998v1 [q-fin.MF] 7 Jan 2020 2 D.ZAWISZA utility for divergence from the reference probability measure. Our model is in fact their limiting model, when their ambiguity coefficients are passing to +∞ (0 respectively). In the current paper the problem is formulated as a theoretic stochastic game between the market and the investor and the saddle point of this game is determined, despite of the fact we do not include the penalizing term into the objective function. Moreover, in addition to aferomentioned papers we provide correct and precise verification reason- ing. First, we consider the full problem, without any constraints on the set of uncertainty measures. Further, we investigate what are the properties of the restricted model. To solve the game, we use the Hamilton-Jacobi- Bellman-Isaacs equation. After several substitutions we are able to solve the equation and use suitable version of the verification theorem to justify the method. Previously the same method has been used by Zawisza [13], [14], but in the model with a deterministic interest rate and with a differ- ent objective function. The major motivation for considering such model is to provide an example in which results of Oksendal and Sulem [7],[8] do not hold. In the papers they have considered the jump diffusion model but without assuming the stochastic nature of the interest rate, and have discovered that in that game the investor should always choose to invest only in the bank account and at the same time optimal market strategy is to choose a martingale measure. It is interesting because the martingale measure plays prominent role in derivative pricing. Our paper proves that in our framework the worst case measure is different from the martingale measure. 2. Model description Let (Ω,F, P ) be a probability space with filtration (F , 0 ≤ t ≤ T ) (possibly enlarged to satisfy usual assumptions) spanned by n-dimensional 1 2 n T Brownian motion (W = (W , W , . . . W ) , 0 ≤ t ≤ T ). We have the t t t initial measure P , but our investor concerns model uncertainty, so the mea- sure should be treated only as a proxy for the real life measure. Further, we will consider a whole class of equivalent measures, which will describe the model uncertainty. Our agent has an access to the market with a bank 1 2 n account (B , 0 ≤ t ≤ T ) and risky assets (S = (S , S , . . . , S ), 0 ≤ t ≤ T ). t t t t t Under the measure P the system is given by dB = r B dt, t t t (2.1) dS = diag(S )[(r e + Σ λ )dt + Σ dW ], t t t t t t dr = (b − κ r )dt + a dW . t t t t t t 1 2 n We assume that e = (1, 1, . . . , 1), coefficients κ , b , λ = (λ , λ , . . . , λ ), t t t t t t i,j 1 2 n a = (a , a , . . . , a ), Σ = [σ ] are continuous deterministic func- t t i,j=1...n t t t t tions, and in addition Σ is invertible. For notational convenience we omit the term a λ dt in the dynamics for r, and we assume it is already included in b dt term. The representative example for the process (S , t ∈ [0,T ]) is t t A NOTE ON THE WORST CASE APPROACH 3 the mixed stock-bond model (e.g. Korn and Kraft [4, Section 2.2]): 1,1 1,2 1,1 1,2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 dS = (r + λ σ + λ σ )S dt + σ S dW + σ S dW ,  t t t t t t t t t t t t 2,2 2,2 2 2 2 2 2 dS = (r + λ σ )S dt + σ S dW , t t t t t t t dr = (b − κr )dt + a dW . t t t t Here S is the price of the bond in the Vasicek model with the maturity 2,2 ′ a −κ(T −t) T > T , which means that σ = − (1 − e ). The portfolio process evolves according to π π T π π dX = r X dt + π Σ λ X dt + X π Σ dW . t t t t t t t t t t t The symbol A denotes the class of progressively measurable processes π = 1 2 n (π , π , . . . , π ) such that |π | ds < +∞ a.s. To describe the model uncertainty or model ambiguity issues we assume that the probability measure is not precisely known and the investor considers a whole class of possible measures. We follow the approach of Oksendal and Sulem [7] or Schied [10] in defining the set dQ (2.2) Q := Q ∼ P | = E η dW , η ∈ M , T t t dP where E(·) denotes the Doleans-Dade exponential and M denotes the set 1 2 n of all, progressively measurable processes η = (η , η , . . . , η ), such that η 2 dQ E < +∞. dP In the latter part of the paper we assume that the process η takes his values in a fixed compact and convex set Γ. It is convenient to use the Q dynamics of the stochastic system (X , r ) i.e. t t π π T T π π dX = r X dt + π Σ (λ + η )X dt + π Σ X dW , t t t t t t t t t t t t (2.3) dr = [(b − κ r ) + a η ]dt + a dW . t t t t t t t t Our investor takes into account the model ambiguity and has worst case preferences (Gilboa and Schmeidler [3] ), i.e. his aim is to maximize π,η π (2.4) J (x, r, t) = inf E U(X ). x,r,t T η∈M The symbol E is used to denote the expected value under the measure x,r,t Q when system starts at (x, r, t). Here we assume that U(x) = with 0 < γ < 1. The solution for γ < 0 will be the same but due to the fact that U has negative values, it is needed to use few more restrictions and technicalities to complete the proof. Here we are interested not only in the optimal portfolio π , but also in the measure Q for which the infimum is attained. Therefore, we are ∗ ∗ looking for a saddle point (π , η ) i.e. ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ π,η π ,η π ,η J (x, r, t) ≤ J (x, r, t) ≤ J (x, r, t). 4 D.ZAWISZA 3. The solution To solve the problem we will use the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman-Isaacs operator given by π,η 2 T T 2 (3.1) L V (x, r, t) :=V + a V + πΣ Σ π x V + πΣ a xV t rr t xx t t xr t t 2 2 T T T + πΣ (λ + η )xV + ηa V + (b − κ r)V + rxV . t x r t t r x t t It should be considered together with the verification theorem. The reasoning behind its proof is of standard type (see for instance Zawisza [13, Theorem 3.1]). Here we present only short sketch, just to emphasis some minor differences. Theorem 3.1 (Verification Theorem). Suppose there exists a positive func- tion 2,2,1 V ∈ C ((0, +∞) × R × [0,T )) ∩ C([0, +∞) × R × [0,T ]) and a Markov control ∗ ∗ (π (x, r, t), η (x, r, t)) ∈ A × M, such that π (x,r,t),η (3.2) L V (x, r, t) ≥ 0, π,η (x,r,t) (3.3) L V (x, r, t) ≤ 0, ∗ ∗ π (x,r,t),η (x,r,t) (3.4) L V (x, r, t) = 0, (3.5) V (x, r, T ) = for all η ∈ R, π ∈ R, (x, r, t) ∈ (0, +∞) × R × [0,T ), and η π (3.6) E sup V (X , r , s) < +∞ x,r,t s t≤s≤T for all (x, r, t) ∈ [0, +∞) × R × [0,T ], π ∈ A , η ∈ M. Then ∗ ∗ π,η π ,η J (x, r, t) ≤ V (x, r, t) ≤ J (x, r, t) for all π ∈ A , η ∈ M, and ∗ ∗ π ,η V (x, r, t) = J (x, r, t). Proof. Let us fix first π ∈ A . Consider Q - dynamics of the system (X , r ) t t t and apply the Itˆo formula using the function V . By using inequality (3.3) and taking the expectation from both sides, we obtain V (x, r, t) ≥ E V (X , r , (T − ε) ∧ τ ), (T −ε)∧τ (T −ε)∧τ n n where (τ , n ≥ 0) is a localizing sequence of stopping times. The function V is positive, thus the Fatou Lemma implies ∗ ∗ ∗ η η π π π,η V (x, r, t) ≥ E V (X , r ,T ) = E U(X ) = J (x, r, t). x,r,t T x,r,t T A NOTE ON THE WORST CASE APPROACH 5 To prove the reverse inequality we fix η ∈ M and consider Q - dynamics of the system (X , r ). After applying the Itˆo rule we get t t V (x, r, t) ≤ E V (X , r , (T − ε) ∧ τ ) (T −ε)∧τ n x,r,t (T −ε)∧τ n and the same is true with the equality V (x, r, t) = E V (X , r , (T − ε) ∧ τ ). x,r,t (T −ε)∧τ n (T −ε)∧τ n Property (3.6) and the dominated convergence theorem finish the proof. Following Korn and Kraft [4] we predict that conditions (3.2) – (3.6) are satisfied by the function of the form f(t)r+g(t) V (x, r, t) = e , f(T ) = 0, g(T ) = 0. x f(t)r+g(t) Substituting it into (3.2)-(3.4) and dividing the expression by e , we get ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ (π,η ) (π ,η ) (π ,η) n H (r, t) ≤ H (r, t) = 0 ≤ H (r, t), π, η ∈ R . where 1 1 (π,η) ′ ′ 2 2 T T T H (r, t) := f (t)r +g (t)+ a f (t)+ γ(γ −1)πΣ Σ π +πΣ a γf(t) t t t t t 2 2 T T T + γπΣ (λ + η ) + ηa f(t) + (b − κ r)f(t) + γr. t t t t t Now, it is possible to determine the saddle point. Suppose first that we ∗ ∗ already have the saddle point (π , η ). Therefore, ∗ ∗ ∗ (π,η ) (π ,η ) n H (r, t) ≤ H (r, t), π, η ∈ R and consequently ∗ ∗ −1 π = (λ + η + a f(t))Σ . t t t t (1 − γ) On the other hand, ∗ ∗ ∗ (π ,η ) (π ,η) n H (r, t) ≤ H (r, t), η ∈ R . We should notice first that H forms a linear function in η. In that case, the only chance to find η is to delete the expression with η i.e. γπ Σ + a f(t) = 0. t t This means that f(t) ∗ −1 π = − a Σ . So, we should have f(t) λ + η a f(t) t t −1 t −1 −1 a Σ + Σ = − Σ , t t t (1 − γ) (1 − γ) γ which yields f(t) η = −λ − a . t t γ 6 D.ZAWISZA ∗ ∗ Substituting π and η into the equation and using the fact that the expres- sion with η is equal to 0, we get 1 1 (γ − 1) ′ ′ 2 2 2 2 2 f (t)r + g (t) + |a | f (t) + |a | f (t) − |a | f(t) t t t 2 2 γ − λ a f(t) + (b − κ r)f(t) + γr = 0. t t t Thus, f (t) − κ f(t) + γ = 0, 1 1 (γ − 1) ′ 2 2 2 2 2 T g (t) + |a | f (t) + |a | f (t) − |a | f(t) − λ a f(t) + b f(t) = 0. t t t t t 2 2 γ More explicit forms are: R R T T − κ ds κ ds s s t k f(t) = γe e dk, 1 1 (γ − 1) 2 2 2 2 2 T g(t) = f (s)|a | + |a | f (s) − |a | f(s) − λ a f(s) + b f(s) ds. s s s s s 2 2 γ We can now summarize our preparatory calculations. ∗ ∗ Proposition 3.2. The pair (π , η ) given by f(t) f(t) ∗ −1 ∗ π = − a Σ , η = −λ − a t t t t t t γ γ is a saddle point for problem (2.4). Proof. Note that π and Σ are deterministic functions. To complete the proof we need only to verify that E sup V (X , r , s) < +∞, η ∈ M. x,r,t s t≤s≤T We have dQ ∗ ∗ π π E sup V (X , r , s) = E sup V (X , r , s) . s x,r,t s x,r,t s s dP t≤s≤T t≤s≤T By the Cauchy - Schwarz inequality dQ ∗ E sup V (X , r , s) x,r,t s dP t≤s≤T " # 1 dQ ∗ 2 π ≤ E E sup V (X , r , s) . x,r,t s dP t≤s≤T The explicit formula for the function V leads to ∗ 1 ∗ π π f(s)r +g(s) V (X , r , s) = X e . s s The portfolio process X is a solution to the linear equation, so R R s s ∗ ∗ T 1 ∗ T T ∗ ∗ π [r +π Σ λ − (π Σ Σ π )]dl+ π Σ dW l l l l l t l l 2 l l l t l X = xe . s A NOTE ON THE WORST CASE APPROACH 7 κ dl Note that the process ζ = e r has the dynamics s s R R s s κ dl κ dl l l t t dζ = e b ds + e a dW . s s s s We have Z Z s s − κ dl r = e r + b dl + a dW . s l l l t t 2 π By the stochastic Fubini theorem, the expression V (X , r , s) can be rewritten in the form 2 π β(s)r +ξ(s) V (X , r , s) = xZ e , s s where the process Z is a square integrable martingale, β, ξ are bounded and deterministic functions. After repeating the Cauchy - Schwarz inequality once more it is now sufficient to prove that for any bounded deterministic function β we have β(s)ζ (3.7) E sup e < +∞. r,t t≤s≤T Note that the following inequality is true ˆ ˆ ˆ β(s)ζ β ζ β ζ s max s min s e ≤ e + e , where ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ β = max β(s), β = min β(s). max min t≤s≤T t≤s≤T ˆ ˆ β ζ β ζ max s s min Both processes e , e are solutions to linear equations with bounded coefficients and thus usual Lipschitz and linear growth conditions are satis- fied. Property (3.7) follows from standard estimates for stochastic differen- tial equations (see Pham [9, Theorem 1.3.16]). Concluding remarks To conclude the result we show that the measure Q is not a martingale t ∗ − r ds measure i.e. the process S e is not a Q - martingale. To see this, it is sufficient to write Q dynamics of S : f(t) dS = diag(S ) r e − Σ a dt + Σ dW . t t t t t t At the end, it is worth to compare the robust investment strategy 1 f(t) ∗ ∗ −1 ∗ π = (λ + η + f(t)a )Σ , η = −λ − a t t t t t t t t (1 − γ) γ with the solution to the traditional utility maximization problem ∗ −1 π = (λ + f(t)a )Σ . t t t t (1 − γ) It is worth noticing as well that π can be rewritten as R R T T f(t) ∗ −1 − κ ds κ ds −1 s s t k π = − a Σ = −e e dk a Σ . t t t t t and it does not depend on the risk aversion coefficient γ. The same property is true for η . 8 D.ZAWISZA 4. Model uncertainty with restrictions From the practitioner’s point of view, it might be interesting to solve the problem with restrictions imposed on the uncertainty set M. In this section we assume that the class M consists of all progressively measurable processes taking values in a compact and convex fixed set Γ ⊂ R . We can use the same function H 1 1 (π,η) ′ ′ 2 2 T T T H (r, t) = f (t)r + g (t) + a f (t) + γ(γ − 1)πΣ Σ π + πΣ a γf(t) t t t t t 2 2 T T T + γπΣ (λ + η ) + ηa f(t) + (b − κ r)f(t) + γr. t t t t t To find the explicit saddle point for the function H, we start with solving the upper Isaacs equation (π,η) (4.1) min max H (r, t) = 0. η∈Γ π∈R Furthermore, we use known results on max-min theorems (Fan [1, Theorem 2]) to verify (π,η) (π,η) min max H (r, t) = max min H (r, t). n n η∈Γ π∈R π∈R η∈Γ ∗ ∗ We can determine a saddle point candidate (π , η ) by finding a Borel mea- surable function η , such that (π,η) (π,η ) min max H (r, t) = max H (r, t) η∈Γ π∈R π∈R and a Borel measurable function π , such that (π,η) (π ,η) min max H (r, t) = min H (r, t). η∈Γ π∈R η∈Γ Because the variable η is separated from r, equation (4.1) can be split into two equations (the first one has already been solved): R R T T − κ ds κ ds s s t k f(t) = γe e dk, and ′ 2 2 g (t) + |a | f (t) + b f(t) t t 1 γ γ 2 T T + min − |λ + η + f(t)a | + (λ + η + f(t)a )(λ + η) + f(t)a η = 0. t t t t t t η∈Γ 2 1 − γ 1 − γ Therefore, to find η , it is sufficient to determine any Borel measurable minimizer to the expression 1 γ γ 2 T T (4.2) − |λ +η+f(t)a | + (λ +η+f(t)a )(λ +η) +f(t)a η . t t t t t t 2 1 − γ 1 − γ Now, let π be a Borel measurable maximizer of the function (π,η) min H (r, t). η∈Γ A NOTE ON THE WORST CASE APPROACH 9 ∗ ∗ (π,η) Then, (π , η ) is a saddle point for the function H (r, t). In particular, ∗ ∗ ∗ (π,η ) (π ,η ) n H (r, t) ≤ H (r, t), π ∈ R . The unique function π which satisfy the above condition is given by ∗ ∗ −1 π = (λ + η + f(t)a )Σ . t t t t t (1 − γ) Proposition 4.1. Suppose that η is a minimizer of (4.2) and ∗ ∗ −1 π = (λ + η + f(t)a )Σ . t t t t t (1 − γ) ∗ ∗ Then the pair (π , η ) is a saddle point for problem (2.4) with the restrictions imposed by the set Γ. The proof is omitted because it is the repetition of the steps from the proof of Proposition 3.2. Acknowledgements: I would like to express my gratitude to the Ref- eree for helping me to improve the first version of the paper. References [1] K. Fan, Minimax theorems, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 39 (1953), 42 – 47. [2] C. Flor, L. Larsen, Robust Portfolio Choice with Stochastic Interest Rates, Ann. Finance 10 (2014), 243 – 265. [3] I. Gilboa, D. Schmeidler, Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior, J. Math. Econ. 18 (1989), 141 – 153. [4] R. Korn, H. Kraft, A stochastic control approach to portfolio problems with stochastic iterest rates, SIAM J. Control Optim. 40 (2001), 1250 – 1269. [5] P. J. Maenhout, Robust portfolio rules and asset pricing, Rev. Financ. Stud. 17 (2004), 951 – 983. [6] C. Munk, B. Rubtsov, Portfolio management with stochastic interest rates and inflation ambiguity, Ann. Finance 10 (2014), 419 – 455. [7] B. Øksendal, A. Sulem, A game theoretic approach to martingale mea- sures in incomplete markets, Survey of Applied and Industrial Mathe- matics (TVP Publishers, Moscow) 15 (2008), 18–24. [8] B. Øksendal, A. Sulem. Robust stochastic control and equivalent mar- tingale measures, in: Stochastic Analysis with Financial Applications, Progr. Probab. 65, Birkhuser/ Springer Basel, Basel, 2011, 179 – 189 [9] H. Pham, Continuous-time Stochastic Control and Optimization with Financial Applications, Stochastic Modelling and Applied Probability, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009. 10 D.ZAWISZA [10] A. Schied, Robust optimal control for a consumption-investment prob- lem, Math. Methods. Oper. Res. 67 (2008), 1– 20. [11] J. Sun, Y. Li, L. Zhang, Robust portfolio choice for a defined contri- bution pension plan with stochastic income and interest rate, Comm. Statist. Theory Methods 47 (2018), 4106 – 4130. [12] P. Wang, Z. Li Robust optimal investment strategy for an AAM of DC pension plans with stochastic interest rate and stochastic volatility, Insur. Math. Econ. 80 (2018), 67 – 83. [13] D. Zawisza, Robust portfolio selection under exponential preferences, Appl. Math. (Warsaw) 37 (2010), 215 – 230. [14] D. Zawisza, Target achieving portfolio under model misspecification: quadratic optimization framework , Appl. Math. (Warsaw) 39, 425 – 443 (2012). Dariusz Zawisza, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Jagiellonian University in Krakow L ojasiewicza 6 30-348 Krakow, Poland E-mail address: dariusz.zawisza@im.uj.edu.pl http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Mathematics arXiv (Cornell University)

A note on the worst case approach for a market with a stochastic interest rate

Zawisza, Dariusz
Mathematics , Volume 2021 (2001) – Jan 7, 2020
Download PDF
10 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/arxiv-cornell-university/a-note-on-the-worst-case-approach-for-a-market-with-a-stochastic-ZbUlU9etn3

References (14)

ISSN
1233-7234
eISSN
ARCH-3343
DOI
10.4064/am2348-2-2018
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

A NOTE ON THE WORST CASE APPROACH FOR A MARKET WITH A STOCHASTIC INTEREST RATE DARIUSZ ZAWISZA Abstract. We solve robust optimization problem and show the ex- ample of the market model for which the worst case measure is not a martingale measure. In our model the instantaneous interest rate is determined by the Hull-White model and the investor employs the HARA utility to measure his satisfaction.To protect against the model uncertainty he uses the worst case measure approach. The problem is formulated as a stochastic game between the investor and the market from the other side. PDE methods are used to find the saddle point and the precise verification argument is provided. Published in Appl. Math. (Warsaw), 45 (2018) 151–160, https://doi.org/10.4064/am2348-2-2018 1. Introduction We consider a portfolio problem embedded into a game theoretic prob- lem. We assume that the investor does not trust his model much and be- lieves it is only the best guess based on existing data. In such situation we say that the investor faces the model uncertainty (or the model ambiguity). In this work we would like to put more light into the portfolio optimization problem under the assumption that the short term interest rate exhibits some stochastic nature. We consider a financial market consisting of n as- sets and a bank account. The interest rate on the bank account follows the Hull–White model, which is extended version of the Vasicek model. The investor chooses between holding cash in a bank account and holding risky assets. The same model has been considered first by Korn and Kraft [4] but without the model uncertainty assumption. Instead of supposing that we have the exact model, we assume here the whole family of equivalent mod- els, which will be described later. To determine robust investment controls the investor maximizes the total expected HARA utility of the final wealth after taking the infimum over all possible models. The robust optimization in the diffusion setting has been popularized especially by A. Schied and his coauthors (e.g. Schied [10] and references therein). The model ambigu- ity in the Vasicek model and its extensions has been considered already by Flor and Larsen [2], Sun et al. [11], Munk and Rubtsov [6], Wang and Li [12]. However, their objective function is different, because it includes the expression (along the lines of Maenhout [5]) which penalize the expected Date: January 8, 2020. 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 91G80; 91G10; 91A15; 91A25; 49N90; 49N60 . Key words and phrases. Robust optimization, stochastic differential games, model un- certainty, portfolio optimization, martingale measure, Vasicek model, Hull-White model. arXiv:2001.01998v1 [q-fin.MF] 7 Jan 2020 2 D.ZAWISZA utility for divergence from the reference probability measure. Our model is in fact their limiting model, when their ambiguity coefficients are passing to +∞ (0 respectively). In the current paper the problem is formulated as a theoretic stochastic game between the market and the investor and the saddle point of this game is determined, despite of the fact we do not include the penalizing term into the objective function. Moreover, in addition to aferomentioned papers we provide correct and precise verification reason- ing. First, we consider the full problem, without any constraints on the set of uncertainty measures. Further, we investigate what are the properties of the restricted model. To solve the game, we use the Hamilton-Jacobi- Bellman-Isaacs equation. After several substitutions we are able to solve the equation and use suitable version of the verification theorem to justify the method. Previously the same method has been used by Zawisza [13], [14], but in the model with a deterministic interest rate and with a differ- ent objective function. The major motivation for considering such model is to provide an example in which results of Oksendal and Sulem [7],[8] do not hold. In the papers they have considered the jump diffusion model but without assuming the stochastic nature of the interest rate, and have discovered that in that game the investor should always choose to invest only in the bank account and at the same time optimal market strategy is to choose a martingale measure. It is interesting because the martingale measure plays prominent role in derivative pricing. Our paper proves that in our framework the worst case measure is different from the martingale measure. 2. Model description Let (Ω,F, P ) be a probability space with filtration (F , 0 ≤ t ≤ T ) (possibly enlarged to satisfy usual assumptions) spanned by n-dimensional 1 2 n T Brownian motion (W = (W , W , . . . W ) , 0 ≤ t ≤ T ). We have the t t t initial measure P , but our investor concerns model uncertainty, so the mea- sure should be treated only as a proxy for the real life measure. Further, we will consider a whole class of equivalent measures, which will describe the model uncertainty. Our agent has an access to the market with a bank 1 2 n account (B , 0 ≤ t ≤ T ) and risky assets (S = (S , S , . . . , S ), 0 ≤ t ≤ T ). t t t t t Under the measure P the system is given by dB = r B dt, t t t (2.1) dS = diag(S )[(r e + Σ λ )dt + Σ dW ], t t t t t t dr = (b − κ r )dt + a dW . t t t t t t 1 2 n We assume that e = (1, 1, . . . , 1), coefficients κ , b , λ = (λ , λ , . . . , λ ), t t t t t t i,j 1 2 n a = (a , a , . . . , a ), Σ = [σ ] are continuous deterministic func- t t i,j=1...n t t t t tions, and in addition Σ is invertible. For notational convenience we omit the term a λ dt in the dynamics for r, and we assume it is already included in b dt term. The representative example for the process (S , t ∈ [0,T ]) is t t A NOTE ON THE WORST CASE APPROACH 3 the mixed stock-bond model (e.g. Korn and Kraft [4, Section 2.2]): 1,1 1,2 1,1 1,2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 dS = (r + λ σ + λ σ )S dt + σ S dW + σ S dW ,  t t t t t t t t t t t t 2,2 2,2 2 2 2 2 2 dS = (r + λ σ )S dt + σ S dW , t t t t t t t dr = (b − κr )dt + a dW . t t t t Here S is the price of the bond in the Vasicek model with the maturity 2,2 ′ a −κ(T −t) T > T , which means that σ = − (1 − e ). The portfolio process evolves according to π π T π π dX = r X dt + π Σ λ X dt + X π Σ dW . t t t t t t t t t t t The symbol A denotes the class of progressively measurable processes π = 1 2 n (π , π , . . . , π ) such that |π | ds < +∞ a.s. To describe the model uncertainty or model ambiguity issues we assume that the probability measure is not precisely known and the investor considers a whole class of possible measures. We follow the approach of Oksendal and Sulem [7] or Schied [10] in defining the set dQ (2.2) Q := Q ∼ P | = E η dW , η ∈ M , T t t dP where E(·) denotes the Doleans-Dade exponential and M denotes the set 1 2 n of all, progressively measurable processes η = (η , η , . . . , η ), such that η 2 dQ E < +∞. dP In the latter part of the paper we assume that the process η takes his values in a fixed compact and convex set Γ. It is convenient to use the Q dynamics of the stochastic system (X , r ) i.e. t t π π T T π π dX = r X dt + π Σ (λ + η )X dt + π Σ X dW , t t t t t t t t t t t t (2.3) dr = [(b − κ r ) + a η ]dt + a dW . t t t t t t t t Our investor takes into account the model ambiguity and has worst case preferences (Gilboa and Schmeidler [3] ), i.e. his aim is to maximize π,η π (2.4) J (x, r, t) = inf E U(X ). x,r,t T η∈M The symbol E is used to denote the expected value under the measure x,r,t Q when system starts at (x, r, t). Here we assume that U(x) = with 0 < γ < 1. The solution for γ < 0 will be the same but due to the fact that U has negative values, it is needed to use few more restrictions and technicalities to complete the proof. Here we are interested not only in the optimal portfolio π , but also in the measure Q for which the infimum is attained. Therefore, we are ∗ ∗ looking for a saddle point (π , η ) i.e. ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ π,η π ,η π ,η J (x, r, t) ≤ J (x, r, t) ≤ J (x, r, t). 4 D.ZAWISZA 3. The solution To solve the problem we will use the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman-Isaacs operator given by π,η 2 T T 2 (3.1) L V (x, r, t) :=V + a V + πΣ Σ π x V + πΣ a xV t rr t xx t t xr t t 2 2 T T T + πΣ (λ + η )xV + ηa V + (b − κ r)V + rxV . t x r t t r x t t It should be considered together with the verification theorem. The reasoning behind its proof is of standard type (see for instance Zawisza [13, Theorem 3.1]). Here we present only short sketch, just to emphasis some minor differences. Theorem 3.1 (Verification Theorem). Suppose there exists a positive func- tion 2,2,1 V ∈ C ((0, +∞) × R × [0,T )) ∩ C([0, +∞) × R × [0,T ]) and a Markov control ∗ ∗ (π (x, r, t), η (x, r, t)) ∈ A × M, such that π (x,r,t),η (3.2) L V (x, r, t) ≥ 0, π,η (x,r,t) (3.3) L V (x, r, t) ≤ 0, ∗ ∗ π (x,r,t),η (x,r,t) (3.4) L V (x, r, t) = 0, (3.5) V (x, r, T ) = for all η ∈ R, π ∈ R, (x, r, t) ∈ (0, +∞) × R × [0,T ), and η π (3.6) E sup V (X , r , s) < +∞ x,r,t s t≤s≤T for all (x, r, t) ∈ [0, +∞) × R × [0,T ], π ∈ A , η ∈ M. Then ∗ ∗ π,η π ,η J (x, r, t) ≤ V (x, r, t) ≤ J (x, r, t) for all π ∈ A , η ∈ M, and ∗ ∗ π ,η V (x, r, t) = J (x, r, t). Proof. Let us fix first π ∈ A . Consider Q - dynamics of the system (X , r ) t t t and apply the Itˆo formula using the function V . By using inequality (3.3) and taking the expectation from both sides, we obtain V (x, r, t) ≥ E V (X , r , (T − ε) ∧ τ ), (T −ε)∧τ (T −ε)∧τ n n where (τ , n ≥ 0) is a localizing sequence of stopping times. The function V is positive, thus the Fatou Lemma implies ∗ ∗ ∗ η η π π π,η V (x, r, t) ≥ E V (X , r ,T ) = E U(X ) = J (x, r, t). x,r,t T x,r,t T A NOTE ON THE WORST CASE APPROACH 5 To prove the reverse inequality we fix η ∈ M and consider Q - dynamics of the system (X , r ). After applying the Itˆo rule we get t t V (x, r, t) ≤ E V (X , r , (T − ε) ∧ τ ) (T −ε)∧τ n x,r,t (T −ε)∧τ n and the same is true with the equality V (x, r, t) = E V (X , r , (T − ε) ∧ τ ). x,r,t (T −ε)∧τ n (T −ε)∧τ n Property (3.6) and the dominated convergence theorem finish the proof. Following Korn and Kraft [4] we predict that conditions (3.2) – (3.6) are satisfied by the function of the form f(t)r+g(t) V (x, r, t) = e , f(T ) = 0, g(T ) = 0. x f(t)r+g(t) Substituting it into (3.2)-(3.4) and dividing the expression by e , we get ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ (π,η ) (π ,η ) (π ,η) n H (r, t) ≤ H (r, t) = 0 ≤ H (r, t), π, η ∈ R . where 1 1 (π,η) ′ ′ 2 2 T T T H (r, t) := f (t)r +g (t)+ a f (t)+ γ(γ −1)πΣ Σ π +πΣ a γf(t) t t t t t 2 2 T T T + γπΣ (λ + η ) + ηa f(t) + (b − κ r)f(t) + γr. t t t t t Now, it is possible to determine the saddle point. Suppose first that we ∗ ∗ already have the saddle point (π , η ). Therefore, ∗ ∗ ∗ (π,η ) (π ,η ) n H (r, t) ≤ H (r, t), π, η ∈ R and consequently ∗ ∗ −1 π = (λ + η + a f(t))Σ . t t t t (1 − γ) On the other hand, ∗ ∗ ∗ (π ,η ) (π ,η) n H (r, t) ≤ H (r, t), η ∈ R . We should notice first that H forms a linear function in η. In that case, the only chance to find η is to delete the expression with η i.e. γπ Σ + a f(t) = 0. t t This means that f(t) ∗ −1 π = − a Σ . So, we should have f(t) λ + η a f(t) t t −1 t −1 −1 a Σ + Σ = − Σ , t t t (1 − γ) (1 − γ) γ which yields f(t) η = −λ − a . t t γ 6 D.ZAWISZA ∗ ∗ Substituting π and η into the equation and using the fact that the expres- sion with η is equal to 0, we get 1 1 (γ − 1) ′ ′ 2 2 2 2 2 f (t)r + g (t) + |a | f (t) + |a | f (t) − |a | f(t) t t t 2 2 γ − λ a f(t) + (b − κ r)f(t) + γr = 0. t t t Thus, f (t) − κ f(t) + γ = 0, 1 1 (γ − 1) ′ 2 2 2 2 2 T g (t) + |a | f (t) + |a | f (t) − |a | f(t) − λ a f(t) + b f(t) = 0. t t t t t 2 2 γ More explicit forms are: R R T T − κ ds κ ds s s t k f(t) = γe e dk, 1 1 (γ − 1) 2 2 2 2 2 T g(t) = f (s)|a | + |a | f (s) − |a | f(s) − λ a f(s) + b f(s) ds. s s s s s 2 2 γ We can now summarize our preparatory calculations. ∗ ∗ Proposition 3.2. The pair (π , η ) given by f(t) f(t) ∗ −1 ∗ π = − a Σ , η = −λ − a t t t t t t γ γ is a saddle point for problem (2.4). Proof. Note that π and Σ are deterministic functions. To complete the proof we need only to verify that E sup V (X , r , s) < +∞, η ∈ M. x,r,t s t≤s≤T We have dQ ∗ ∗ π π E sup V (X , r , s) = E sup V (X , r , s) . s x,r,t s x,r,t s s dP t≤s≤T t≤s≤T By the Cauchy - Schwarz inequality dQ ∗ E sup V (X , r , s) x,r,t s dP t≤s≤T " # 1 dQ ∗ 2 π ≤ E E sup V (X , r , s) . x,r,t s dP t≤s≤T The explicit formula for the function V leads to ∗ 1 ∗ π π f(s)r +g(s) V (X , r , s) = X e . s s The portfolio process X is a solution to the linear equation, so R R s s ∗ ∗ T 1 ∗ T T ∗ ∗ π [r +π Σ λ − (π Σ Σ π )]dl+ π Σ dW l l l l l t l l 2 l l l t l X = xe . s A NOTE ON THE WORST CASE APPROACH 7 κ dl Note that the process ζ = e r has the dynamics s s R R s s κ dl κ dl l l t t dζ = e b ds + e a dW . s s s s We have Z Z s s − κ dl r = e r + b dl + a dW . s l l l t t 2 π By the stochastic Fubini theorem, the expression V (X , r , s) can be rewritten in the form 2 π β(s)r +ξ(s) V (X , r , s) = xZ e , s s where the process Z is a square integrable martingale, β, ξ are bounded and deterministic functions. After repeating the Cauchy - Schwarz inequality once more it is now sufficient to prove that for any bounded deterministic function β we have β(s)ζ (3.7) E sup e < +∞. r,t t≤s≤T Note that the following inequality is true ˆ ˆ ˆ β(s)ζ β ζ β ζ s max s min s e ≤ e + e , where ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ β = max β(s), β = min β(s). max min t≤s≤T t≤s≤T ˆ ˆ β ζ β ζ max s s min Both processes e , e are solutions to linear equations with bounded coefficients and thus usual Lipschitz and linear growth conditions are satis- fied. Property (3.7) follows from standard estimates for stochastic differen- tial equations (see Pham [9, Theorem 1.3.16]). Concluding remarks To conclude the result we show that the measure Q is not a martingale t ∗ − r ds measure i.e. the process S e is not a Q - martingale. To see this, it is sufficient to write Q dynamics of S : f(t) dS = diag(S ) r e − Σ a dt + Σ dW . t t t t t t At the end, it is worth to compare the robust investment strategy 1 f(t) ∗ ∗ −1 ∗ π = (λ + η + f(t)a )Σ , η = −λ − a t t t t t t t t (1 − γ) γ with the solution to the traditional utility maximization problem ∗ −1 π = (λ + f(t)a )Σ . t t t t (1 − γ) It is worth noticing as well that π can be rewritten as R R T T f(t) ∗ −1 − κ ds κ ds −1 s s t k π = − a Σ = −e e dk a Σ . t t t t t and it does not depend on the risk aversion coefficient γ. The same property is true for η . 8 D.ZAWISZA 4. Model uncertainty with restrictions From the practitioner’s point of view, it might be interesting to solve the problem with restrictions imposed on the uncertainty set M. In this section we assume that the class M consists of all progressively measurable processes taking values in a compact and convex fixed set Γ ⊂ R . We can use the same function H 1 1 (π,η) ′ ′ 2 2 T T T H (r, t) = f (t)r + g (t) + a f (t) + γ(γ − 1)πΣ Σ π + πΣ a γf(t) t t t t t 2 2 T T T + γπΣ (λ + η ) + ηa f(t) + (b − κ r)f(t) + γr. t t t t t To find the explicit saddle point for the function H, we start with solving the upper Isaacs equation (π,η) (4.1) min max H (r, t) = 0. η∈Γ π∈R Furthermore, we use known results on max-min theorems (Fan [1, Theorem 2]) to verify (π,η) (π,η) min max H (r, t) = max min H (r, t). n n η∈Γ π∈R π∈R η∈Γ ∗ ∗ We can determine a saddle point candidate (π , η ) by finding a Borel mea- surable function η , such that (π,η) (π,η ) min max H (r, t) = max H (r, t) η∈Γ π∈R π∈R and a Borel measurable function π , such that (π,η) (π ,η) min max H (r, t) = min H (r, t). η∈Γ π∈R η∈Γ Because the variable η is separated from r, equation (4.1) can be split into two equations (the first one has already been solved): R R T T − κ ds κ ds s s t k f(t) = γe e dk, and ′ 2 2 g (t) + |a | f (t) + b f(t) t t 1 γ γ 2 T T + min − |λ + η + f(t)a | + (λ + η + f(t)a )(λ + η) + f(t)a η = 0. t t t t t t η∈Γ 2 1 − γ 1 − γ Therefore, to find η , it is sufficient to determine any Borel measurable minimizer to the expression 1 γ γ 2 T T (4.2) − |λ +η+f(t)a | + (λ +η+f(t)a )(λ +η) +f(t)a η . t t t t t t 2 1 − γ 1 − γ Now, let π be a Borel measurable maximizer of the function (π,η) min H (r, t). η∈Γ A NOTE ON THE WORST CASE APPROACH 9 ∗ ∗ (π,η) Then, (π , η ) is a saddle point for the function H (r, t). In particular, ∗ ∗ ∗ (π,η ) (π ,η ) n H (r, t) ≤ H (r, t), π ∈ R . The unique function π which satisfy the above condition is given by ∗ ∗ −1 π = (λ + η + f(t)a )Σ . t t t t t (1 − γ) Proposition 4.1. Suppose that η is a minimizer of (4.2) and ∗ ∗ −1 π = (λ + η + f(t)a )Σ . t t t t t (1 − γ) ∗ ∗ Then the pair (π , η ) is a saddle point for problem (2.4) with the restrictions imposed by the set Γ. The proof is omitted because it is the repetition of the steps from the proof of Proposition 3.2. Acknowledgements: I would like to express my gratitude to the Ref- eree for helping me to improve the first version of the paper. References [1] K. Fan, Minimax theorems, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 39 (1953), 42 – 47. [2] C. Flor, L. Larsen, Robust Portfolio Choice with Stochastic Interest Rates, Ann. Finance 10 (2014), 243 – 265. [3] I. Gilboa, D. Schmeidler, Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior, J. Math. Econ. 18 (1989), 141 – 153. [4] R. Korn, H. Kraft, A stochastic control approach to portfolio problems with stochastic iterest rates, SIAM J. Control Optim. 40 (2001), 1250 – 1269. [5] P. J. Maenhout, Robust portfolio rules and asset pricing, Rev. Financ. Stud. 17 (2004), 951 – 983. [6] C. Munk, B. Rubtsov, Portfolio management with stochastic interest rates and inflation ambiguity, Ann. Finance 10 (2014), 419 – 455. [7] B. Øksendal, A. Sulem, A game theoretic approach to martingale mea- sures in incomplete markets, Survey of Applied and Industrial Mathe- matics (TVP Publishers, Moscow) 15 (2008), 18–24. [8] B. Øksendal, A. Sulem. Robust stochastic control and equivalent mar- tingale measures, in: Stochastic Analysis with Financial Applications, Progr. Probab. 65, Birkhuser/ Springer Basel, Basel, 2011, 179 – 189 [9] H. Pham, Continuous-time Stochastic Control and Optimization with Financial Applications, Stochastic Modelling and Applied Probability, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009. 10 D.ZAWISZA [10] A. Schied, Robust optimal control for a consumption-investment prob- lem, Math. Methods. Oper. Res. 67 (2008), 1– 20. [11] J. Sun, Y. Li, L. Zhang, Robust portfolio choice for a defined contri- bution pension plan with stochastic income and interest rate, Comm. Statist. Theory Methods 47 (2018), 4106 – 4130. [12] P. Wang, Z. Li Robust optimal investment strategy for an AAM of DC pension plans with stochastic interest rate and stochastic volatility, Insur. Math. Econ. 80 (2018), 67 – 83. [13] D. Zawisza, Robust portfolio selection under exponential preferences, Appl. Math. (Warsaw) 37 (2010), 215 – 230. [14] D. Zawisza, Target achieving portfolio under model misspecification: quadratic optimization framework , Appl. Math. (Warsaw) 39, 425 – 443 (2012). Dariusz Zawisza, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Jagiellonian University in Krakow L ojasiewicza 6 30-348 Krakow, Poland E-mail address: dariusz.zawisza@im.uj.edu.pl

Journal

Mathematics – arXiv (Cornell University)

Published: Jan 7, 2020

There are no references for this article.