arxiv: v1 [math.pr] 28 Jul 2017

Transcription

1 NASH EQUILIBRIA FOR GAME CONINGEN CLAIMS WIH UILIY-BASED HEDGING KLEBER KENIA AND CHRISOPH KÜHN arxiv: v1 [mah.pr] 28 Jul 2017 Absrac. Game coningen claims GCCs) generalize American coningen claims by allowing he wrier o recall he opion as long as i is no exercised, a he price of paying some penaly. In incomplee markes, an appealing approach is o analyze GCCs like heir European and American counerpars by solving opion holder s and wrier s opimal invesmen problems in he underlying securiies. By his, parial hedging opporuniies are aken ino accoun. We exend resuls in he lieraure by solving he sochasic game corresponding o GCCs wih boh coninuous ime sopping and rading. Namely, we consruc Nash equilibria by rewriing he game as a non-zero-sum sopping game in which players compare payoffs in erms of heir exponenial uiliy indifference values. As a by-produc, we also obain an exisence resul for he opimal exercise ime of an American claim under uiliy indifference valuaion by relaing i o he corresponding nonlinear Snell envelope. 1. Inroducion A game coningen claim GCC) as inroduced in Kifer [25], is a conrac beween a buyer/holder and a seller/wrier which can be exercised by he buyer and recalled by he seller a any ime up o a mauriy dae when he conrac is erminaed anyway. he conrac can be modeled by wo sochasic processes X ) [0, ] and Y ) [0, ], where R + is he mauriy: If he buyer chooses a [0, ]-valued sopping ime τ and he seller a [0, ]-valued sopping ime σ, he payoff o he buyer a ime min{τ, σ} is given by X τ 1 {τ σ} + Y σ 1 {σ<τ}. A sanding assumpion is X Y, meaning ha sopping is penalized. In he las wo decades, such conracs have been exensively sudied in he lieraure. We refer o Kifer [26] for a recen review. he saring poin was he aricle by Kifer [25] who showed ha in a complee marke, he opion has a unique no-arbirage price and can be perfecly hedged by he wrier. Here, a hedge consiss of a dynamic rading sraegy in he underlyings and a recalling ime. In incomplee markes, however, perfec hedges may fail o exis and here are essenially hree differen approaches generalizing [25]. Firs here is super-hedging see, e.g., Secion of [19]), which has he drawback ha i is ofen oo expensive and in many siuaions only leads o rivial bounds for arbirage-free prices. Anoher approach consiss in considering GCCs as liquid securiies which can be dynamically raded simulaneously wih he underlyings, wih he only difference ha heir prices are no exogenously given. he exercise and recall feaures of a GCC are implicily modeled by shor selling and long buying consrains, respecively. I urns ou ha boh a no-arbirage crierion and a uiliy maximizaion crierion for a represenaive invesor lead o he dynamic value of a zero-sum sopping game as a price process for a GCC. In he firs case, expecaions are aken under an arbirary maringale measure and in he second under he maringale measure induced by he marginal uiliy a he opimal erminal wealh when only rading in he underlyings is possible see [19] and [18], respecively). In he presen aricle, we follow he hird approach which is in he spiri of uiliy-based hedging of European claims as inroduced by Hodges and Neuberger [16], see he survey aricle Becherer [4] and he references herein. For an analysis of he uiliy-based hedging problem for American coningen claims, we refer o Leung and Sircar [28] and Leung e al. [29]. Here, we consider as in [27] a game beween he buyer and he seller of a GCC who boh aim o maximize heir expeced uiliy from erminal wealh by exercising/recalling he GCC and rading, in addiion, arbirary 2010 Mahemaics Subjec Classificaion. 91A10, 91A15, 60G40, 91B16, 91G10, 91G20. Key words and phrases. Game coningen claims, Incomplee markes, Exponenial uiliy indifference valuaion, Non-zero-sum Dynkin games, Nash equilibria, Opimal sopping under nonlinear expecaion. 1

2 2 KLEBER KENIA AND CHRISOPH KÜHN amouns in he underlyings. his means ha as in [25], bu in conras o [18] and [19], he GCC is no liquid asse. Applied o he special case of a complee marke, he game leads o he same sopping imes as in [25], i.e., he buyer ries o maximize, whereas he seller ries o minimize he expeced opion s payoff under he unique equivalen maringale measure. Especially, his means ha he equilibrium sopping imes do no depend on agens preferences, and equilibrium values are unique. In [27], i is furhermore shown ha Nash equilibria exis also in a general incomplee marke if he uiliy funcions are exponenial, i.e., he absolue risk aversion does no depend on wealh. However, while rading in he underlying is coninuous, sopping he conrac is only discree in [27]. his allows o consruc equilibrium sopping regions by a backward recursion in ime. Laer on, in he seminal paper of Hamadène and Zhang [14], equilibria of non-zero-sum coninuous ime sopping games have been derived under minimal condiions on he payoff processes. his can be applied o he above game for arbirary uiliy funcions of he holder and he wrier, bu only in he special case ha hey do no have access o a financial marke, i.e., parial) hedging opporuniies are no aken ino accoun see Secion 4 of [14]). Since he uiliy funcions are ypically nonlinear, i is a non-zero-sum game and equilibria are in general no unique. An observaion in [27] is ha Nash equilibrium poins may fail o exis for players uiliy funcions oher han exponenial. Namely, by he non-consancy of he absolue risk aversion, equilibria canno be consruced backwards in ime since he pas rading gains in he underlyings maer cf. Remarks 2.4 and 2.5 herein for a counerexample and a deailed explanaion, respecively). his also shows ha he resul of [14], which is no resriced o exponenial uiliy, canno be applied o he problem if here are parial) hedging opporuniies. In he curren aricle, we close he above menioned gap and exend [27] for exponenial uiliy funcions o coninuous ime sopping see heorem 2.3). For his, we combine he echniques of derivaion of he above menioned resul of [14], who consider games under linear expecaions, wih new resuls on opimal sopping when payoffs are valued by uiliy indifference ha is in general nonlinear in he payoff. We noe ha he resuls of [14] have recenly been parly exended by Grigorova and Quenez [13] o a non-zero-sum game wih players evaluaing heir payoffs in erms of nonlinear) g-expecaions for Lipschiz generaor funcions g. However, alhough in a coninuous ime seup, he laer aricle resrics he equilibrium analysis of he game o discree ime sopping sraegies. Furhermore since he dynamic exponenial indifference valuaion ypically is a g-expecaion wih g of quadraic growh cf. e.g. heorem 13 in Mania and Schweizer [30]), he resuls of [13] are no direcly applicable o our non-zero-sum game. Given a recalling ime of he opion wrier, for an exponenial uiliy funcion, he uiliy maximizaion and imely exercise problem of he opion holder can be reduced o an opimal sopping problem in which he random payoff of he American claim is no evaluaed by is linear) expecaion, bu by is buyer s) indifference price ha is no homogeneous. his means ha one has o solve sup τ π 0 L τ ), where L is he payoff process, π 0 is he iniial indifference valuaion, and τ runs hrough all [0, ]-valued sopping imes he holder can choose. Le π be he condiional indifference valuaion a ime. By he ime-consisency of he indifference valuaion operaor π = π ) [0, ], i seems o be self-eviden ha here should be a smalles π-supermaringale ha dominaes L and, if L has no negaive jumps, he opimal sopping ime is given by he firs ime his supermaringale his L. However, in coninuous ime, i seems very difficul o provide rigorous proofs o his conjecure. Our resul on opimal sopping under indifference valuaion is heorem 3.5, which characerizes he opimal exercise ime of an American claim as he firs ime he payoff process his he corresponding nonlinear Snell envelope associaed o he American exponenial uiliy indifference value. o he bes of our knowledge his is a new resul, and i is also of independen ineres. For is proof, we exend properies of he dynamic European indifference valuaion derived by Mania and Schweizer [30] o he American one and esablish a reverse coninuiy resul Proposiion 3.2) for he indifference valuaion. Before describing his proof in more deails, le us discuss he relaion o exising conribuions on opimal sopping wih nonlinear expecaions. Beyond he classical heory of opimal sopping under linear expecaions surveyed in he seminal aricle El Karoui [9], he heory of opimal sopping under nonlinear expecaion is in general also quie well-developed. Sudies in he laer direcion have mosly concenraed on sublinear expecaions ha are posiively homogeneous, and hence can as well be associaed o dynamic coheren risk measures; cf. among ohers [22, 32, 8, 31]. Bu hese do no include he European

3 NASH EQUILIBRIA FOR GAME CONINGEN CLAIMS 3 uiliy indifference valuaion, which in general is neiher subaddiive nor posiively homogeneous. he closes aricle o our work on he American indifference value is Bayrakar e al. [1], which solves he problem of opimal sopping under convex risk measures in a Brownian filraion seing. By making use of a represenaion of convex risky measures from Delbaen e al. [7], hey consider risk measures ha can be wrien as a wors case expecaion of he payoff plus a proper convex penaly funcion in which he Girsanov kernels of equivalen probabiliy measures are plugged. By his represenaion, which in urn relies on he predicable represenaion propery of Brownian maringales as sochasic inegrals, he problem can be solved by similar mehods as for problems of robus wors-case) combined sochasic conrol and opimal sopping, see, e.g., Karazas and Zamfirescu [23]. In one aspec, our assumpions are slighly weaker han hose of [1] since we only assume ha he filraion is coninuous insead of Brownian. Bu, more imporanly, our mehods are compleely differen from heirs. In [28], i is already saed ha he opimal exercise ime of an American claim is given by he firs ime he nonlinear Snell envelope his he payoff process. We hink ha Proposiion 2.13 herein holds rue, bu we do no hink ha in is proof, heorem 2.10 from Karazas and Zamfirescu [22], which deals wih a bes case opimal sopping problem ha is posiively homogeneous in he payoff, can be applied. On he oher hand, Bayrakar and Yao [2, 3] solve he opimal sopping problem for convex expecaions by arguing wih an up-crossing heorem for nonlinear expecaions. Since he buyer s indifference value is concave in he random payoff, we canno apply heir resuls. Recenly, Grigorova e al. [12] have obained resuls on opimal sopping under g-expecaions for Lipschiz generaors g and for payoff processes only required o be opional raher han càdlàg) wih respec o a usual filraion generaed by a Brownian moion and an independen Poisson random measure. We also canno apply heir resuls because he indifference valuaion corresponds o a g-expecaion wih g of quadraic growh. We esablish in heorem 3.5 he exisence of a righ-coninuous Snell envelope corresponding o he American exponenial uiliy indifference valuaion. Crucial for he proof is boh a coninuiy resul from [30] cf. propery 7 in Proposiion 3.1) and is reverse, which we newly derive in he presen aricle, cf. Proposiion 3.2. he argumens in he proof of heorem 3.5 do no use an up-crossing heorem and hence could also be applied o more general nonlinear expecaions. Recall ha he classical up-crossing heorem saes ha every supermaringale under a linear expecaion) admis finie lef and righ limis over raionals cf. e.g. Proposiion 3.14 i) in Chaper 1 of Karazas and Shreve [20]). Our echniques are similar o he ones in he classical heory of opimal sopping under linear expecaions wih càdlàg payoff processes and filraions saisfying he usual condiions see e.g. Appendix D of Karazas and Shreve [21]). Bu, since we do no rely on he up-crossing heorem, ha guaranees he exisence of a righ-limi process, we argue wih a righ-liminf process of he Snell envelope values a raional ime poins. I is no a priori clear ha his process is righ-coninuous, so a criical par of our analysis is dedicaed o verify his. Firs, we show ha he process is progressively measurable and righ coninuous along sopping imes. hen, an opional projecion argumen combined wih he secion heorem yields righ-coninuiy up o evanescence. Our argumens rely on he coninuiy of he filraion a wo places: firs o idenify hrough he reverse coninuiy of he indifference operaor, Proposiion 3.2) he opimal sopping ime as he firs ime he payoff process mees he Snell envelope, and second o show ha he defined righ-liminf process is righ-coninuous along sopping imes relying on he fac ha every sopping ime is predicable. For supermaringales under nonlinear expecaions, he up-crossing heorem holds if he nonlinear) expecaion of a sequence of non-negaive random variables explodes when he sequence ends poinwise o infiniy on a se wih posiive probabiliy cf. hypohesis H0) in [2] and is use in he proof of he nonlinear up-crossing heorem 2.3 herein). For a European claim, he buyer s indifference value is a submaringale under he enropy minimizing maringale measure EMMM) and hus he usual up-crossing heorem guaranees a càdlàg version see Proposiion 12 in [30] and also heorem 3 in Bion-Nadal [5]). For an American claim his is more delicae, as he price can decrease if he opimal execuion ime is missed. Indeed, in general, he American indifference price is neiher a sub- nor a supermaringale under he EMMM. In addiion, alhough he American indifference price saisfies he supermaringale propery wih respec o he family of indifference valuaion operaors π ) [0, ], he nonlinear expecaion π 0 ) violaes hypohesis H0) of [2] see Noe 3.3 for a counerexample), hence hindering a sraighforward applicaion of he nonlinear) up-crossing heorem. However, hough righ coninuiy of he American indifference

4 4 KLEBER KENIA AND CHRISOPH KÜHN value is sufficien for our purpose in he proof of exisence of a Nash equilibrium poin for he GCC in heorem 2.3, we complemen heorem 3.5 by showing in Remark 3.6 ha he American indifference value is indeed càdlàg. his is achieved by wriing he laer as a coninuous funcion of he quoien of wo supermaringales o which he up-crossing heorem for linear expecaions can be applied. he paper is organized as follows. In Secion 2, we specify he mahemaical framework and sae he main resul, heorem 2.3, abou he exisence of Nash equilibria. By relaing he problem o uiliy-indifference valuaion, Secion 3 prepares he proof of heorem 2.3 which is hen compleed in Secion 4. Plus, Secion 3 saes he key heorem 3.5 on opimal sopping under uiliy indifference valuaion. Finally he appendix Secion 5 gahers proofs of resuls ha are omied hroughou he main ex. 2. Problem formulaion and main resul We sar wih a filered probabiliy space Ω, F, F = F ) [0, ], P ) wih ime horizon R + and a filraion F saisfying he usual condiions of righ-coninuiy and compleeness. For a [0, ]-valued sopping ime τ, we denoe by τ he family of sopping imes σ such ha τ σ P -almos-surely. We denoe by Z Q he densiy process of an equivalen measure Q wih respec o P and by E Q τ [ ] he condiional expecaion under Q given he informaion F τ up o a sopping ime τ 0. In paricular for Q = P, we simply wrie E τ [ ]. If no saed oherwise, inequaliies beween random variables are undersood in he P -almos-surely sense. For a generic σ-algebra A and a probabiliy measure Q, we denoe by L A, Q) he space of A-measurable random variables ha are Q-essenially bounded and by S Q) he space of F-adaped processes Y wih càdlàg pahs saisfying Y S Q) := sup [0, ] Y L F,Q) <. In paricular, we simply wrie L, S for L F, P ), S P ), and for L. We consider a general, possibly incomplee, financial marke consising of d underlying risky asses wih discouned price process S = S i ) i=1,...,d being a semimaringale, and a riskless asse wih uni discouned price. hroughou, we assume ha he risky asse price process 2.1) S is locally bounded for he main resul of he aricle, i has o be even coninuous). Denoing M e := M e S, P ) he se of equivalen local maringale [ measures ] for S, we assume here exiss a leas one elemen Q of M e ha has finie enropy E Z Q log ZQ wih respec o P in he sense ha { 2.2) M e f := M e f P ) := Q M e [ ] } P ) E P Z Q log ZQ <. In paricular, here exiss a unique measure Q E M e f, he so-called enropy minimizing maringale measure EMMM), ha saisfies 2.3) E QE [ log Z QE ] = inf E Q[ ] log Z Q Q M e, f cf. heorem 2.1 in Frielli [10], which beyond boundedness of S also exends o locally bounded S. We denoe by LS) he space of F-predicable S-inegrable R d -valued processes. For ϑ LS), he sochasic inegral of ϑ wih respec o S is denoed s ds s. We work as in [30] wih a space of admissible rading sraegies { 2.4) Θ = ϑ LS) 0 ϑr 0 ϑr s ds s is a Q-maringale for all Q M e f Noe ha such admissible rading sraegies clearly exclude arbirage opporuniies. Consider wo agens, A and B, who are he seller and buyer of a GCC, respecively. We assume ha A and B in addiion o enering he conrac, have access o he financial marke. he agens preferences are modeled by exponenial uiliy funcions U A, U B, wih consan absolue risk-aversion parameers α A, α B > 0, i.e., U A x) = exp α A x) and U B x) = exp α B x), x R. Le X, Y S and define 2.5) Rτ, σ) := X τ 1 {τ σ} + Y σ 1 {σ<τ} he GCC payoff of agen B paid by agen A a ime τ σ, when A and B choose sopping sraegies σ and τ, respecively, for τ, σ 0. Agens A and B have exogenous endowmens given by he coningen claims C A, C B L, which are in general no replicable by rading in he financial }.

5 NASH EQUILIBRIA FOR GAME CONINGEN CLAIMS 5 marke. By he randomness of C A and C B, indifference valuaions of he agens may also depend on heir respecive endowmens. We are ineresed in Nash equilibrium poins see Definiion 2.1) in he sopping ime sraegies for he buyer and seller whose objecives are as follows. he seller A wans o maximize her expeced uiliy from erminal wealh C A Rτ, σ) + 0 ϑr s ds s afer enering he conrac a ime = 0 and rading in he financial marke according o a self-financing sraegy ϑ = ϑ i ) d i=1 in Θ, wih ϑi denoing he number of shares of asse i held a ime, [0, ]. he corresponding maximizaion problem for he seller is [ α A 2.6) u A τ, σ) := sup E exp C A Rτ, σ) ϑ r s ds s ))]. Similarly, he buyer of he conrac wans o maximize her expeced uiliy from erminal wealh C B + Rτ, σ) + 0 ϑr s ds s and her maximizaion problem is [ ))] 2.7) u B τ, σ) := sup E exp α B C B + Rτ, σ) + ϑ r s ds s. Definiion 2.1. We say ha a pair τ, σ ) 0 0 is a Nash equilibrium poin NEP) for he non-zero-sum game associaed o 2.6)/2.7) if 2.8) u A τ, σ ) u A τ, σ) and u B τ, σ ) u B τ, σ ) τ, σ) 0 0. Remark 2.2. Alernaively, one may model he problem as a so-called exensive game in which players decisions are sequenial, and each player makes a decision depending on he naure given by he filraion) and he pas acions of her couner-pary. he sequenial decisions consis, a each sep, of sopping he conrac or no, and choosing he amoun of underlyings held in he porfolio. We refer o González-Díaz e al. [11] for an inroducion o exensive games and relaed conceps. A leas in finie discree ime and finie Ω, one can easily prove ha a NEP in he sense of 2.8) induces a sochasic feedback Nash equilibrium in he exensive game described above. Namely, given a NEP 2.8), one akes τ, σ ogeher wih he invesmen sraegies which aain he suprema 2.6)/2.7) for τ = τ and σ = σ, and consider hem as feedback sraegies where he response funcion is degeneraed, i.e., each player simply ignores pas acions of her couner-pary. Only pas acions of he naure are used because he quaniies are in general sochasic. Noe ha given τ, σ ), he suprema 2.6)/2.7) can be deermined separaely since he invesmen sraegy of one player has no effec on he wealh of he oher player rading has, e.g., no impac on he underlying s price). Since, in addiion, he opion s payoff canno be influenced anymore afer he firs player sops he conrac, and, consequenly, τ, σ are sopping sraegies ha implicily condiion ha he oher player has no sopped ye, he feedback sraegies consruced above wih degeneraed response funcions are also opimal in he se of all feedback sraegies wih arbirary response funcions. Furhermore, he same holds a foriori when looking a a varian of his exended game in which each player only observes he sopping ime bu no he invesmen sraegy of he oher player. Finally, since he NEPs are consruced backwards in ime see he consrucion 2.3)-2.7) in [27] for he special case ha sopping is discree), here exiss a subgame perfec equilibrium. We leave i as an easy exercise for he reader o wrie down he finie exensive game and prove he above asserions since he players may sop simulaneously, one has o work wih a nonrivial informaion pariion in Definiion of [11]). Since he finie exensive game boils down o he game 2.6)/2.7), for he coninuous ime modeling, we prefer o sar direcly wih 2.6)/2.7). he main resul of he aricle is he following heorem, and he proof is deferred o Secion 4. heorem 2.3. Assume ha 2.9) he filraion F is coninuous, i.e., any local F-maringale is a.s. coninuous, and he payoff processes saisfy 2.10) X, Y S wih X Y, [0, ], P -a.s., and 2.11) X and Y have only non-negaive and non-posiive jumps, respecively. hen, he non-zero-sum game associaed o u A, u B given in 2.6)/2.7) wih α A, α B 0, ), C A, C B L admis a NEP τ, σ ) 0 2.

6 6 KLEBER KENIA AND CHRISOPH KÜHN Remark 2.4. he difference Y X 0 can be inerpreed as he penaly he wrier of he GCC has o pay if recalling he opion before i is exercised. Consequenly, here is a negaive aiude owards sopping as for boh players i appears more advanageous ha her couner-pary erminaes he game in her sead. Condiion 2.11) guaranees ha opimal sopping imes are aained, and we need no deal wih almos opimal sopping imes. 3. Indifference value In his secion, we firs sae old and new facs on exponenial uiliy indifference valuaion. hen, we characerize a NEP in erms of indifference values for he payoffs 2.5). Finally, we characerize he opimal sopping ime when payoffs are evaluaed a heir indifference prices. his prepares he proof of our main resul heorem 2.3 concerning exisence of a NEP for he game 2.6)/2.7), ha we provide in Secion 4. he game problem 2.8) can be reformulaed in erms of he uiliy indifference valuaion of suiable claims, in a way ha one obains a non-zero-sum Dynkin game in which players evaluae payoffs direcly by uiliy indifference. Before making his relaion precise, we recall briefly he definiion and some dynamic properies of he exponenial indifference valuaion for bounded claims. A relaively general sudy of his was performed by [30] in a seup analogous o he one of Secion 2, wih Θ corresponding exacly o he space Θ 2 of rading sraegies in Delbaen e al. [6], where oher possible spaces of rading sraegies are also compared. As we have adoped an analogous seup, we are able o use some resuls of [30] when he need arises. Le H be a coningen claim in L F ) and consider an agen who is willing o buy he claim H a some ime [0, ], and whose preferences are described by an exponenial uiliy funcion U for some risk-aversion parameer α 0, ), i.e. Ux) = e αx, x R. In addiion, he agen has he random endowmen C L F ). he buyer s indifference value π α,c H) a ime [0, ] is he amoun ha he agen needs o pay a ime o receive he claim H a erminal ime so ha he agen s maximal expeced uiliy from addiionally rading beween and wih zero iniial capial coincides wih his maximal expeced uiliy from solely rading wih zero iniial capial. In oher words, π α,c H) is he amoun ha makes he buyer indifferen beween buying or no buying H and rading in he financial marke. More precisely for H L and [0, ], he indifference value π α,c H) of H a ime is implicily given by [ 3.1) esssup E e αc+ dss)] [ ϑr s = esssup E e αc+h πα,c H)+ dss)] ϑr s. Under 2.1) and 2.2), heorem 2.2 in [6] whose condiion 2.13) was shown by Kabanov and Sricker [17] o be unneeded) and a dynamic programming principle imply ha he lef-hand side of 3.1) almos surely does no vanish, and hence a direc reformulaion of 3.1) yields [ esssup E e α C+H+ )] ϑr s dss 3.2) π α,c H) = 1 α log [ esssup E e α C+ ϑr s dss ) ] In general, he indifference value depends on he exogenous random endowmen C, bu by replacing he measure P by P C defined via dp C /dp := exp αc)/e[exp αc)], one can reduce i o he case wihou a random endowmen. In paricular Θ and M e f remain he same when changing from P o P C. By allowing for non-replicable C, one can model he impac of illiquid porfolio posiions on he indifference value. Also noe ha π α,c H) = π α,0 C + H) π α,0 C), which immediaely follows from 3.2). In addiion by [30, Proposiion 2], one also has a dual represenaion π α,0 H) = essinf E Q Q M e [H] + 1 [ ] [ E Q log ZQ f α Z Q α essinf E Q 1 ] )) Q M e f α log ZQ Z Q. In he following proposiion, we sae some dynamic properies of he exponenial indifference value. Proposiion 3.1. For α 0, ) and C L, π α,c ) [0, ] defines mappings π α,c : L F ) H π α,c H) L F ) saisfying.

7 1) Càdlàg version : For H L, π α,c process Γ H wih Γ H = π α,c Γ H τ = 1 α NASH EQUILIBRIA FOR GAME CONINGEN CLAIMS 7 log essinf H) H, [0, ], and here exiss a càdlàg H) P -a.s. for every [0, ] and E QE,C τ [e αh+ τ ϑr s dss)] =: π α,c τ H), for τ 0, where Q E,C is EMMM from 2.3) afer replacing P by P C. 2) Sric) monooniciy : If H 1 H 2 hen πτ α,c H 1 ) πτ α,c H 2 ) for all τ 0. If in addiion π α,c 0 H 1 ) = π α,c 0 H 2 ), hen H 1 = H 2. 3) ranslaion invariance : πτ α,c H + x τ ) = πτ α,c H) + x τ, for H L, x τ L F τ ), τ 0. 4) Consan preservaion : πτ α,c x τ ) = x τ, for any x τ L F τ ), τ 0. 5) Local propery : πτ α,c H 1 1 Λ + H 2 1 Λ c) = 1 Λ πτ α,c H 1 ) + 1 Λ cπτ α,c H 2 ), for any H 1, H 2 L, Λ F τ, τ 0. 6) Sopping) ime consisency : πτ α,c H) = πτ α,c πσ α,c H)), for any H L, τ 0 wih σ τ. 7) Coninuiy : If F is coninuous, hen for any sequence H n ) n N bounded in L ha converges in probabiliy o some H L as n, one has sup [0, ] π α,c H n ) π α,c H) 0 in probabiliy as n. he proofs of hese properies can be eiher found in Mania and Schweizer [30, Proposiions 4, 12, 14, and 15] or are sraighforward generalizaions. Noe ha only he case C = 0 has o be considered, since he exension o general C L is sraighforward by replacing P by P C. For he sric monooniciy in 2., one uses ha he supremum in he numeraor of 3.2) is aained, see [6, heorem 2.2]. he following resul can be seen as a reverse of par 7. above. Proposiion 3.2. Le F be coninuous, α 0, ) and C L. Le H n ) n N and η n ) n N be bounded sequences in L such ha η n 0 a.s. for all n N and π α,c 0 H n + η n ) π α,c 0 H n ) 0, as n. hen η n 0 in probabiliy, as n. he resul in Proposiion 3.2 is new o he bes of our knowledge, and consiues a crucial ingredien in he proofs of boh heorem 3.5 and Lemma 4.5, needed for achieving our main resul heorem 2.3. We include he proof in appendix Secion 5. Noe 3.3. Le α > 0. here exiss a marke model wih a sequence of non-negaive bounded claims H n ) n N such ha P [lim inf n H n = ] > 0, bu he sequence π α,0 0 H n ) of indifference values is uniformly bounded. Proof of Noe 3.3. Consider a marke model wih S = 1, i.e., here are no hedging insrumens and ake some A F wih P [A] 0, 1). For he nondecreasing sequence of European claims H n := n1 A, n N, he indifference values π α,0 0 H n ) saisfy exp α π α,0 0 H n )) = exp αn)p [A] + 1 P [A], and hus π α,0 0 H n ) increases o he finie consan ln1 P [A])/α, as n ends o infiniy. In he sequel, we denoe by 3.3) π A := π α A,C A and π B := π α B,C B he exponenial uiliy indifference valuaion operaors for agens A and B, respecively. In erms of indifference values, a NEP for he game 2.6)/2.7) can be characerized as follows. Proposiion 3.4. Le X, Y S. A pair τ, σ ) 0 0 is a NEP for he non-zero-sum game 2.6)/2.7) if and only if for all τ, σ 0, π0 A Rτ, σ ) ) π0 A Rτ, σ) ) and π0 B Rτ, σ ) ) π0 B Rτ, σ ) ). Proof. Firs noe ha by 3.2), he indifference value for claim C L and risk-aversion parameer α 0, ) saisfies [ C+H+ e α )] 0 ϑr s dss = e απα,c 3.4) sup E 0 H) sup E [ e α C+ 0 ϑr s dss ) ] < 0. Hence one obains he required equivalence by subsiuing 3.4) ino 2.6)/2.7) for risk-aversion parameers α A, α B, exogenous endowmens C A, C B, and for claims Rτ, σ ), Rτ, σ), Rτ, σ ).

8 8 KLEBER KENIA AND CHRISOPH KÜHN he game is ypically of non-zero-sum ype since under marke incompleeness, he implicaion 3.5) π A 0 H 1 ) π A 0 H 2 ) = π B 0 H 1 ) π B 0 H 2 ) does no hold in general, for H 1, H 2 L. On he oher hand, in a complee marke, he indifference valuaions of boh players are he replicaion cos which yields 3.5). he following heorem is key in he consrucion of a NEP in heorem 2.3. I provides exisence and uniqueness of a righ-coninuous adaped process ha dominaes a given payoff process and firsly his i a an opimal sopping ime. In addiion, his unique process only depends on he fuure payoff process resriced o all evens from which i is already known ha hey occur. hese are he properies ha are needed for dynamic programming, and i is naural o call he process he nonlinear Snell envelope wih respec o he nonlinear expecaion given by he European indifference valuaion. he proof of he heorem is relegaed o appendix Secion 5. heorem 3.5 Snell envelope and opimal sopping). Le F be coninuous, α 0, ), C L, and le L be a payoff process in S. hen, here exiss a righ-coninuous adaped process V wih 3.6) V = esssup τ π α,c L τ ), P -a.s. for all [0, ]. he process V is unique up o evanescence i.e., unique up o a global P -null se no depending on ime) and possesses he following properies: i) π α,c V τ ) V, P -a.s. for all [0, ], τ. ii) If L has no negaive jumps, hen ˆτ := inf{u V u = L u } is a [, ]-valued sopping ime wih Vˆτ = Lˆτ P -a.s. and π α,c 0 Lˆτ ) = sup τ π α,c 0 L τ ) for all [0, ]. iii) For wo payoff processes L 1, L 2 wih L 1 = L 2 on [σ, ], where σ 0, one has V 1 = V 2 on [σ, ] up o evanescence, for he associaed processes V 1, V 2. iv) If L = L σ on [σ, ], where σ 0, hen V σ = L σ, P -a.s.. Remark 3.6. In he proof of heorem 3.5, he up-crossing heorem is no required. hus, he argumens hold for quie general nonlinear expecaions. However, for he American indifference value, which is in general neiher a super- nor a submaringale w.r.. P or Q E ), we show in he following ha he up-crossing heorem can neverheless be used o prove ha he dynamic value admis finie lef and righ limis over raionals. he indifference value can be wrien as 3.7) esssup τ π α,c L τ ) = esssup 1 τ α log = 1 α log esssup ϑ,τ) Θ E [ esssup E e α C+L τ + ϑr esssup s dss )] [ E e α C+ )] ϑr s dss [ e α C+L τ + ϑr s dss )] [ esssup E e α C+ )] ϑr s dss. [ Le us show ha A := esssup ϑ,τ) Θ E e α C+L τ + )] ϑr s dss saisfies he supermaringale propery A E [A +h ], P -a.s. for all, h R +. Indeed, by he choice of Θ in 2.4) he se [ {E +h e α C+L τ + )] } +h ϑr s dss ϑ, τ) Θ +h is maximum-sable and hus E [A +h ] = E [ esssup ϑ,τ) Θ +h E +h = esssup ϑ,τ) Θ +h E [ e α C+L τ + )] ] +h ϑr s dss [E +h [ e α C+L τ + +h ϑr s dss )]] A, P -a.s.. Since he denominaor in he las line of 3.7) coincides wih A for L = 0, i also saisfies he supermaringale propery. We conclude ha here exiss an even wih full probabiliy on which for all R + he limis 3.8) lim esssup πs α,c L τ ) and lim s s<, s Q τ s s s>, s Q esssup τ s πs α,c L τ ) exis and are finie.

9 NASH EQUILIBRIA FOR GAME CONINGEN CLAIMS 9 his is because by he up-crossing heorem see e.g. Proposiion 3.14 i) in Chaper 1 of [20]) we have his propery for boh he numeraor and he denominaor in he las line of 3.7), and he quoien being bigger han exp α L ) is hus bounded away from zero. By 3.8), i is immediae ha he process 5.4) in he proof of heorem 3.5 possesses finie lef limis up o evanescence. ogeher wih 5.8), 3.8) also implies ha 5.4) is righ-coninuous up o evanescence. hus, we even have ha he Snell envelope process V of heorem 3.5 is càdlàg. 4. Proof of heorem 2.3 For π A and π B from 3.3), define he funcionals J A, J B : 0 0 R by J B τ, σ) := π0 B ) Rτ, σ) and J A τ, σ) := π0 A ) Rτ, σ). By Proposiion 3.4, a NEP of he game 2.6)/2.7) is a pair τ, σ ) 2 0 saisfying 4.1) J B τ, σ ) J B τ, σ ) and J A τ, σ ) J A τ, σ), for all τ, σ 0. o prove he exisence of a pair τ, σ ) saisfying 4.1), we follow he ideas of Hamadène and Zhang [14]. Bu, o deal wih he nonlineariy of he indifference valuaion, we have o adjus he proof for linear expecaions a various places, mainly by applying Proposiion 3.2 and heorem 3.5. o receive readabiliy, we repea he main proof of [14] while omiing only he pars which are one-o-one ranslaions. One firs consrucs opimal response sraegies hrough wo sequences of sopping imes τ 2n+1 ) n N0, τ 2n+2 ) n N0 for he buyer and he seller, resp., and shows ha boh sequences are nonincreasing. Finally, one shows ha he limis τ 1 of τ 2n+1 and τ 2 of τ 2n+2 as n ends o infiniy define a NEP τ 1, τ 2 ) = τ, σ ) saisfying 4.1). Of course, he monooniciy of he sequences of sopping imes is key, since oherwise he opimal response sraegies may oscillae. Le τ 1 := τ 2 :=. Given τ 2n 1, τ 2n for some n N, we wan o consruc τ 2n+1 as follows: Consider he payoff process L 2n+1 S defined for [0, ] by 4.2) L 2n+1 := X 1 {<τ2n} + X 1 {τ2n= } + Y τ2n 1 {τ2n< }) 1{ τ2n}. Under 2.9), 2.10) and 2.11), heorem 3.5 can be applied o L 2n+1, and an opimal sopping ime of sup τ 0 π0 B L 2n+1 τ ) is given by 4.3) τ 2n+1 := inf{ 0 : V 2n+1 = L 2n+1 } = inf{ 0 : V 2n+1 = X } τ 2n, where he π B -Snell envelope V 2n+1 is he unique righ-coninuous adaped process saisfying 4.4) V 2n+1 = esssup τ π B L 2n+1 τ ), P -a.s. [0, ] he second equaliy in 4.3) follows from heorem 3.5iv)). Furhermore, we define 4.5) τ 2n+1 := τ 2n+1 1 { τ2n+1<τ 2n} + τ 2n 1 1 { τ2n+1=τ 2n}. Remark 4.1. he payoff process L 2n+1 is chosen o be càdlàg. his comes a he price ha L 2n+1 τ differs from Rτ, τ 2n ) on he se {τ = τ 2n < }. hus, i is no ye clear ha τ 2n+1 is an opimal response sraegy o τ 2n. In addiion, one akes τ 2n+1 insead of τ 2n+1. Ye, i is no even clear ha τ 2n+1 is a sopping ime, and, a foriori, ha i is also an opimal response sraegy o τ 2n. Given τ 2n, τ 2n+1, he response τ 2n+2 of he seller A is defined in he same way by τ 2n+2 := τ 2n+2 1 { τ2n+2<τ 2n+1} + τ 2n 1 { τ2n+2=τ 2n+1}, where τ 2n+2 := inf{ 0 : V 2n+2 = L 2n+2 } = inf{ 0 : V 2n+2 = Y } τ 2n+1 wih payoff process L 2n+2 and π A -Snell envelope V 2n+2 saisfying V 2n+2 := X τ2n+1 1 { τ2n+1} Y 1 {<τ2n+1} = esssup τ π A L 2n+2 τ ), P -a.s. [0, ]. Lemma 4.2. Assume 2.9), 2.10) and 2.11). hen 1) For any n N, τ n is a sopping ime and τ n+2 τ n. 2) On he even {τ n+1 = τ n }, n N, one has τ m = for all m n. 3) For any n N, {τ n < τ n+1 } { τ n+2 τ n }.

10 10 KLEBER KENIA AND CHRISOPH KÜHN Proof. he asserions are he same as in Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2 in [14], and he proof is one-o-one. Only in 3.8) of [14], he linear Snell envelope has o be replaced by he nonlinear Snell envelope from heorem 3.5. Here, we need properies iii) and, again, ii) of heorem 3.5. he following lemma shows ha τ 2n+1, τ 2n+2 are indeed opimal responses. hough is proof is analogous o ha of Lemma 3.3 in [14], we provide i in he appendix Secion 5 for he reader s convenience since adjusmens are required a many places. Lemma 4.3. Assume 2.9), 2.10) and 2.11). hen for any τ 0 and n N, i holds ha 4.6) J B τ, τ 2n ) J B τ 2n+1, τ 2n ) and J A τ 2n+1, τ) J A τ 2n+1, τ 2n+2 ). By he monooniciy from Lemma 4.2i), he opimal response sraegies possess poinwise limis τ 1 := lim n τ 2n+1 and τ 2 := lim n τ 2n ha are of course again sopping imes. o prove ha τ 1, τ 2 ) is a NEP, i only remains o show ha he operaions of aking limis and applying he indifference value operaor can be inerchanged. he laer is done in he following wo lemmas, which are proven in he appendix Secion 5, and used in he proof of heorem 2.3 ha we provide direcly hereafer. Lemma 4.4. Assume 2.9), 2.10) and 2.11). hen for any τ 0, i holds ha 1) J B τ, τ 2n ) J B τ, τ 2 ), as n. 2) P [τ = τ 1 < ] = 0 implies J A τ 2n+1, τ) J A τ 1, τ), as n. Lemma 4.5. Assume 2.9), 2.10) and 2.11). hen, 1) J B τ 2n+1, τ 2n ) J B τ 1, τ 2 ), as n. 2) J A τ 2n+1, τ 2n+2 ) J A τ 1, τ 2 ), as n. We are now ready o give a proof o heorem 2.3. Proof of heorem 2.3. By Lemmaa 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 we have J B τ, τ 2 ) J B τ 1, τ 2 ), for all τ 0 and 4.7) J A τ 1, τ) J A τ 1, τ 2 ), for all τ 0 saisfying P [τ = τ 1 < ] = 0. o obain ha τ 1, τ 2 ) indeed is a NEP, i remains o show ha 4.7) holds for arbirary τ 0. o his end, le τ 0 and define he sequence ˆτ n ) n N 0 by ˆτ n := τ + n 1 ) ) 1 {τ=τ 1 < } + τ1 Ω\{τ=τ 1 < }, n N. hen {ˆτ n = τ 1 < } = for any n N so ha 4.7) gives J A τ 1, ˆτ n ) J A τ 1, τ 2 ) for all n N. Furhermore ˆτ n τ almos surely as n. Wih he righ-coninuiy of he bounded process Rτ1, ) and he coninuiy of π0 A ), his implies J A τ1, τ) J A τ1, τ2 ). Overall, we have shown ha τ1, τ2 ) 0 2 is a NEP and he proof is compleed. 5. Appendix his secion conains he proofs of Proposiion 3.2, heorem 3.5, and Lemmaa 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5. Proof of Proposiion 3.2. Wihou loss of generaliy le C = 0. By heorem 13 in Mania and Schweizer [30] and following he proof of Proposiion 14 herein, we know ha for any n N 5.1) π α,0 0 H n + η n ) π α,0 0 H n ) = E Qn [η n ], for Q n P given by dq n α = E 2 Ln α) + L ) n α) dq E =: Z ndqe, wih L n α) and L n α) being BMO Q E) -maringales saisfying 5.2) sup α L n α) + n N 2 L ) n α) BMOQE) α ) 2 2 sup e Hn+ηn + e Hn <, n N where Q E denoes he EMMM, and we refer o Kazamaki [24] for some essenials on BMO heory. In he proof of [24, heorem 2.4], implicaion a) = b), he parameer p > 1 only has o saisfy

11 NASH EQUILIBRIA FOR GAME CONINGEN CLAIMS 11 M BMO < 2 p 1). hus, applied o M := α 2 uniformly in n and one ges L n α) + L ) n α), by 5.2), p can be chosen [ ] sup E QE Z n ) 1 p 1 c p, n N where c p > 0 is a universal consan. hen, Hölder s inequaliy gives for all n N, 5.3) E QE [ η n 1 p ]) p E Q E [ η n Z n ] E QE [ Z n ) 1 p 1 ]) p 1 E Q n [ η n ]c p 1 p. Since he RHS of 5.1) ends o 0, 5.3) implies ha η n converges o 0 in Q E -probabiliy. By Q E P, he asserion follows. Proof of heorem 3.5. For noaional simpliciy, we denoe π := π α,c. For all s Q [0, ], fix hroughou he proof a version V s := esssup τ s π s L τ ) saisfying V s L s and for echnical convenience se V := L for >. Define 5.4) Ṽ := lim inf s,s Q,s V s := sup m N inf V s, [0, ]. s [,+1/m] Q By righ-coninuiy of L we have Ṽ L. Furhermore le 0 [0, ]. he real-valued mapping Ṽ Ω [0,0] can be wrien as Ṽ ω) = 1 {0})Ṽ 0 ω) + 1 <0) sup inf V s ω) m N s [,+ 1 m ) 0] Q ) = 1 {0})Ṽ 0 ω) + 1 <0) sup inf 1 [s 1 m,s] )V s ω) + 1 [s 1,s]c). m m N s Q, s 0 By he usual condiions, Ṽ 0 is F 0 -measurable. hus, Ṽ Ω [0, 0] is F 0 B[0, 0 ])-measurable, i.e., Ṽ is obviously progressively measurable. Sep 1: One has 5.5) π 0 V s ) = sup τ s π 0 L τ ) for all s Q [0, ] and 5.6) π V s ) V, P -a.s. for all, s Q, 0 s. Indeed, π is ime consisen, sricly monoone, coninuous and by he local propery of π s ), he se {π s L τ ) τ s } is maximum-sable. Consequenly, he asserions follow one-o-one from he sandard argumens for he linear expecaion, see, e.g., Lemma D.1 and Proposiion D.2 in [21], where D.3) is only evaluaed a deerminisic and raional-valued sopping imes. Sep 2: Le us show ha here exiss a se Ω 1 F wih P [Ω 1 ] = 1 s.. 5.7) Ṽ ω) = lim inf Ṽ s ω), [0, ], ω Ω 1. s>,s For R \ Q, a momen s reflecion reveals ha 5.7) is saisfied for all ω Ω. Now le Q. One has P -almos surely, ) 5.8) sup inf V s = π sup inf V s sup inf π V s ) V, s,+ 1 m ] Q s,+ 1 m ] Q s,+ 1 m ] Q m N m N where he las inequaliy uses 5.6). On he pahs where 5.8) holds, follows Ṽ = lim inf s>,s Ṽ s by he same reasons as for irraional poins. his implies 5.7). Sep 3: Le us show ha Ṽ saisfies i). We sar wih deerminisic sopping imes, i.e.,, s R, 0 s and τ s. Since he case = s is rivial, assume ha < s. Using monoone convergence and 5.6), yields for any u [, s] Q ha ) π u Ṽs) = π u sup inf V v sup inf π uv v ) V u, P -a.s.. v [s,s+1/m] Q v [s,s+1/m] Q m N By he righ-coninuiy of π Ṽ), his leads o m N 5.9) π Ṽs) Ṽ, P -a.s.. We now show ha 5.9) exends o sopping imes, i.e., π Ṽτ ) Ṽ also holds for any sopping ime τ. We firs show ha his holds for sopping imes wih finiely many values in [, ]. Le m N

12 12 KLEBER KENIA AND CHRISOPH KÜHN τ be such a sopping ime, valued in { 0,..., N }, wih = 0 < 1 <... < N. hen by ranslaion invariance, one has N ) π N 1 Ṽτ ) = π N 1 1 {τ=k }Ṽ k k=1 N 1 ) = π N 1 1{τ=N }Ṽ N + Since {τ = N } = {τ > N 1 } F N 1, he local propery and 5.9) give k=1 1 {τ=k }Ṽ k. N 1 N 2 π N 1 Ṽτ ) 1 {τ=n }Ṽ N {τ=k }Ṽ k = 1 {τ N 1 }Ṽ N {τ=k }Ṽ k. k=1 Using a backward inducion in k = N 1, N 2,..., we obain by ime-consisency ha π 0 Ṽτ ) 1 {τ 0}Ṽ 0, for 0 =, i.e., π Ṽτ ) Ṽ. Now for an arbirary τ in, here exiss a sequence τ n ) n of finiely-valued sopping imes τ n decreasing o τ. By 5.7), his implies Ṽτ lim inf n Ṽ τn. hen, from monooniciy and coninuiy of π ) noe ha his holds under he coninuiy assumpion on he filraion, see, Proposiion 3.1), we have ) 5.10) π Ṽτ ) π lim inf Ṽ τn lim inf π Ṽτ n ) Ṽ, P -a.s.. n n his means ha Ṽ saisfies i). Sep 4: Le us show ha 5.11) π 0 Ṽ) = sup τ π 0 L τ ) for all [0, ]. Indeed, by 5.10), holds Ṽ π Ṽτ ) π L τ ) P -a.s. for all τ which implies by imeconsisency and monooniciy of π. On he oher hand: by 5.5) and u for all u, i follows ha π 0 Ṽ) lim inf π 0V u ) sup π 0 L τ ). u Q,u, u τ Sep 5: Define τ ε := inf{u [, ] Q L u V u ε}. hen τ ε. By 5.11), here exis [, ] Q-valued sopping imes σ n wih π 0 L σn ) π 0 Ṽ) 1/n. We have L Ṽ and L Ṽ ε on [, τ ε ). hus, ) π 0 L σn ) π 0 Ṽσn ε1 {σn<τ ε}. By Sep 3, we have π 0 Ṽσ n ) π 0 Ṽ). Puing ogeher: π 0 Ṽσ n ) π 0 Ṽσn ε1 {σn<τ ε } ) 0, as n. By Proposiion 3.2, we obain 5.12) P [σ n < τ ε ] 0, n. In addiion one has 5.13) π 0 Ṽσ n τ ε ) π 0L σn 1 {σn τ ε } + Ṽτ ε 1 {τ ε <σn} ) π 0 π σn τ ε L σ n )) = π 0 L σn ) π 0 Ṽ) 1 n, where he second inequaliy holds because Ṽτ ε = sup m N inf s [τ ε,τ ε+ 1 m ) σn] Q V s on {τ ε < σ n }, P [V s π s L σn ) on {σ n s}, s [0, ] Q] = 1 and π L σn ) is righ-coninuous. By 5.12), follows Ṽσ n τ ε Ṽτ ε in probabiliy as n. ogeher wih 5.13) and coninuiy of π 0 ), his yields π 0 Ṽτ ε) π 0Ṽ). On he oher hand L τ ε Ṽτ ε ε and we arrive a π 0 L τ ε ) π 0 Ṽ) ε. Le τ := sup ε>0 τ ε. Since L has no negaive jumps, L τ lim ε 0 L τ ε and τ is an opimal sopping sraegy for, i.e. π 0 L τ ) = π 0 Ṽ). One has Ṽτ L τ and by Sep 3, π 0 Ṽτ ) π 0Ṽ). hus, P [ Ṽ τ = L τ ] = 1 by he sric monooniciy of π 0 ). Since L u = Ṽu for some u [, τ ) would lead o a conradicion, we conclude P [ τ = inf{u R u, L u = Ṽu} ] = 1 and by he usual condiions inf{u R u, L u = Ṽu} is a sopping ime. Propery i) and he opimaliy of τ yield ha Ṽ coincides wih he RHS of 3.6) P -a.s.. k=1

13 NASH EQUILIBRIA FOR GAME CONINGEN CLAIMS 13 Sep 6: Puing ogeher, we have shown ha Ṽ is progressively measurable and saisfies 3.6) and he properies i) and ii). Now, we proceed o righ-coninuiy. Firs, we show ha Ṽ iself) is righ-coninuous a.s. along sopping imes. Le τ 0 and τ n ) n N 0 wih τ n τ for n. Le us show ha P [Ṽτ n Ṽτ ] = 1. By 5.7), i remains o show ha P [lim sup n Ṽ τn Ṽτ ] = 1. By he coninuiy of he filraion, every sopping ime possesses an announcing sequence. hus, ogeher wih he righ-coninuiy of L and he usual condiions, for every m N, here exiss δ m R + \ {0}, a Q-valued σ m 0, σ m τ wih L v L τ 1/m, v [τ, σ m ] and P [A m ] 1 1/m, where A m := {σ m τ + δ m } consider announcing sopping imes of he firs ime a which L exis he inerval L τ 1/m, L τ + 1/m) afer ime τ). Le u Q. One has almos surely on {τ u σ m }, ) V u π u sup L v V σm π u V σm + 2/m) = π u V σm ) + 2/m, τ v σ m where he firs inequaliy uses he fac ha for all σ u and on {σ m u} holds ) π u L σ ) = π u 1 {σ σm}l σ + 1 {σ>σm}π σm L σ )) π u sup L v V σm P -a.s.. u v σ m From he definiion of Ṽ i follows for all δ 0, δ m], Ṽ τn sup π u V σm ) + 2/m u Q,τ u τ+δ a.s. on A m {τ n < τ + δ}. On he oher hand, he European indifference price is righ-coninuous so ha almos surely, π V σm ) π τ V σm ) a.s. for τ, and π τ V σm ) Ṽτ a.s.. We conclude [ ] P lim sup Ṽ τn Ṽτ + 2/m P [A m ] 1 1/m, m N, n which implies he asserion. Sep 7: Le V be he P -opional projecion of he bounded process Ṽ, i.e., V is opional and V τ = E τ [Ṽτ ] P -a.s. for all τ 0 see, e.g., heorem 5.1 of He e al. [15]). Since Ṽ is progressively measurable, Ṽτ is F τ -measurable, and we arrive a V τ = Ṽτ P -a.s. for all τ 0. I follows from a secion heorem see, e.g., heorem 4.7 in [15]) ha for every [0, ], he firs ime V his L afer ime is a sopping ime. hen clearly V, Ṽ and L coincide a.s. a he minimum of his sopping ime and τ from Sep 5. his implies he a.s. equaliy of he wo sopping imes. Since he opional process V is a.s. righ-coninuous along sopping imes, i follows again by a secion heorem ha i is righ-coninuous up o evanescence. Wih he usual condiions, one can choose V o be righ-coninuous everywhere. Uniqueness is obvious. Sep 8: Le us show ha he opional projecions of 5.4) saisfy iii). Le σ 0 and L 1, L 2 be wo payoff processes saisfying L 1 = L 2 on [σ, ], o which we associae V 1, V 2 and Ṽ 1, Ṽ 2 as above. Le τ 0, s Q, m N. By {τ σ, τ [s 1/m, s]} F s, he local propery of π s ) implies for i {1, 2}, 1 {τ σ, τ [s 1 m,s]} esssup π s L i ν) = esssup π s 1 {τ σ, τ [s 1 m ν s ν,s]}li ν) s where, by assumpion, he RHS does no depend on i. Hence we obain 5.14) 1 {τ σ, τ [s 1,s]}V s 1 = 1 m {τ σ, τ [s 1,s]}V s 2 m On he oher hand, he definiion of Ṽ yields for i {1, 2}, 5.15) 1 {τ σ} Ṽ i τ = sup inf m N s Q P -a.s.. P -a.s, ) 1 {τ σ} 1 {τ [s 1,s]}V s i + 1 {τ σ} 1 m {τ [s 1,s]}. m Puing 5.14), 5.15) ogeher, one obains 1 {τ σ} Ṽ 1 τ = 1 {τ σ} Ṽ 2 τ P -a.s.. By Sep 7, one can replace Ṽ 1 and Ṽ 2 by heir opional projecions. hen, asserion iii) follows again by a secion heorem.

14 14 KLEBER KENIA AND CHRISOPH KÜHN Sep 9: Asserion iv) follows wih he same argumens as in Sep 8 using he fac ha L = L σ on [σ, ] implies 1 {τ σ, τ [s 1 m,s]}l ν = 1 {τ σ, τ [s 1 m,s]}l σ, τ 0, s Q, m N, ν s and, by F s -measurabiliy, he RHS coincides wih is π s -indifference value. Proof of Lemma 4.3. We show his using he nonlinear Snell envelope of heorem 3.5. Consider he consrucion 4.2), 4.3), 4.4) and 4.5). By heorem 3.5iv), one has Vτ 2n+1 2n = L 2n+1 τ 2n = X 1 {τ2n= } + Y τ2n 1 {τ2n< }. Since X Y and V 2n+1 dominaes L 2n+1, we conclude ha he inequaliy X τ 1 {τ τ2n} + Y τ2n 1 {τ>τ2n} Vτ τ 2n+1 2n holds for any τ 0. By monooniciy of π0 B ) and π B -supermaringale propery of V 2n+1 see heorem 3.5i)), his gives J B τ, τ 2n ) = π0 B Xτ 1 {τ τ2n} + Y 1 ) τ2n {τ>τ 2n}) π B 0 V 2n+1 τ τ 2n V 2n ) 0. On he oher hand, as already observed in 4.3), π0 B L τ2n+1 ) = sup π0 B L 2n+1 τ ) = V0 2n+1. τ 0 Using he definiion of τ 2n+1, par 3. of Lemma 4.2 implies ha { τ 2n+1 = τ 2n } {τ 2n 1 τ 2n }. his gives ha L 2n+1 τ 2n+1 = L 2n+1 τ 2n+1, i.e., τ 2n+1 is also he maximizer of sup τ 0 π0 B L 2n+1 τ ). In addiion, by par 2. of Lemma 4.2, {τ 2n+1 = τ 2n } = {τ 2n+1 = τ 2n = }, which implies ha L 2n+1 τ 2n+1 = X τ2n+1 1 {τ2n+1<τ 2n} + X 1 {τ2n+1=τ 2n= } + Y τ2n 1 {τ2n+1>τ 2n} = X τ2n+1 1 {τ2n+1 τ 2n} + Y τ2n 1 {τ2n+1>τ 2n}. Puing ogeher, one obains J B τ 2n+1, τ 2n ) = π0 B Xτ2n+1 1 {τ 2n+1 τ 2n} + Y 1 τ2n {τ 2n+1>τ 2n}) 5.17) = π0 B ) L 2n+1 τ 2n+1 = V 2n+1 0. Combining 5.16) and 5.17) yields he firs inequaliy in 4.6). he second inequaliy of 4.6) is obained similarly bu simpler, since Rτ 2n+1, ) is already càdlàg and L 2n+2 = Rτ 2n+1, ) for all [0, ]. Proof of Lemma 4.4. Le τ 0. Par 1: By τ 2n τ2 for all n N, he righ-coninuiy of Rτ, ), and he coninuiy of π0 B ), i follows for J B τ, τ 2n ) := π0 B Rτ, τ2n ) ) ha lim J Bτ, τ 2n ) = J B τ, τ2 ). n Par 2: Since R, τ) may no be righ-coninuous, we canno argue as in Par 1. Insead, we apply he argumens of Par 1 o he righ limi R+, τ) and obain lim J Aτ 2n+1, τ) = π A 0 Xτ 1 n 1 {τ>τ1 } Y τ 1 {τ τ 1 }). Bu, under he assumpion ha P [τ = τ1 < ] = 0, he RHS coincides wih J A τ1, τ), and we are done. Proof of Lemma 4.5. We firs show par 2. By definiion, one has J A τ 2n 1, τ 2n ) = π A 0 G n ), One can wrie G n = H n + η n, where and 5.18) where G n := X τ2n 1 1 {τ2n τ 2n 1} Y τ2n 1 {τ2n<τ 2n 1}. η n := X τ 1 Y τ 1 )1 {τ2n<τ 2n 1, τ 1 =τ 2 } H n = X τ2n 1 1 {τ2n τ 2n 1, τ 1 <τ 2 } Y τ2n 1 {τ2n<τ 2n 1, τ 1 <τ 2 } X τ2n 1 1 {τ2n τ 2n 1, τ 1 >τ 2 } Y τ2n 1 {τ2n<τ 2n 1, τ 1 >τ 2 } X τ2n 1 1 {τ 1 =τ 2 } + X τ2n 1 X τ 1 + Y τ 2 Y τ2n )1 {τ2n<τ 2n 1, τ 1 =τ 2 }. By 2.10), η n is nonposiive. I is he negaive of he hypoheical limiing penaly on he even ha for he approximaing sopping imes, he seller sops before he buyer hence, has o pay he penaly), whereas he limiing sopping imes coincide i.e., acually no penaly has o be paid in

15 NASH EQUILIBRIA FOR GAME CONINGEN CLAIMS 15 he limi). Afer correcing for his erm, which poenially produces a disconinuiy, i is easy o see from 5.18) ha by he righ-coninuiy of X and Y, H n = G n η n converges poinwise o H := X τ 1 1 {τ 1 τ 2 } Y τ 2 1 {τ 1 >τ 2 }. For his, noe in addiion ha 1 {τ2n<τ 2n 1, τ1 >τ 2 } 1 {τ 1 >τ2 }, 1 {τ2n τ 2n 1, τ1 <τ 2 } 1 {τ 1 <τ2 }, 1 {τ2n<τ 2n 1, τ1 <τ 2 } 0 and 1 {τ2n τ 2n 1, τ1 >τ 2 } 0, as n. hen, he coninuiy of π0 A ) and he uniform boundedness of X, Y give π0 A H n ) π0 A ) H = JA τ1, τ2 ) as n. his already implies ha 5.19) lim sup J A τ 2n 1, τ 2n ) J A τ1, τ2 ). n On he oher hand, Lemma 4.3 gives 5.20) J A τ 2n 1, τ) J A τ 2n 1, τ 2n ) for any τ 0. Le ˆτ be defined by ˆτ := τ 2 1 {τ 2 <τ 1 } + 1 {τ 2 τ 1 }. hen, ˆτ is a sopping ime saisfying P [ˆτ = τ 1 < ] = 0, and par 2. of Lemma 4.4 implies 5.21) lim n J Aτ 2n 1, ˆτ) = J A τ 1, ˆτ) = J A τ 1, τ 2 ). Puing 5.19), 5.20) for τ = ˆτ, and 5.21) ogeher yields lim J Aτ 2n 1, τ 2n ) = J A τ1, τ2 ). n We now urn o he proof of par. 1 of he lemma. Firs noe ha i is already shown ha lim n πa 0 H n + η n ) = π0 A H) = lim n πa 0 H n ). Hence, Proposiion 3.2 implies ha 5.22) η n 0 in probabiliy as n. his means ha if he hypoheical limiing penaly does no vanish, hen he probabiliy ha he seller sops shorly before he buyer ends o zero. he inuiion behind his is ha on he even ha he limiing sopping imes coincide, such an acion by he seller canno be an opimal response since he buyer sops shorly aferwards wihou receiving he penaly. Par 1. of Lemma 4.2 yields {τ 2n < τ 2n+1 } {τ 2n < τ 2n 1 }, leading by 5.22) o η n := Y τ 1 X τ 1 )1 {τ2n<τ 2n+1, τ 1 =τ 2 } 0 in probabiliy as n. Now, he proof follows as in par 2, wih an analogue decomposiion of X τ2n+1 1 {τ2n τ 2n+1} + Y τ2n 1 {τ2n<τ 2n+1} and indifference valuaion π B 0 insead of π A 0. References [1] E. Bayrakar, I. Karazas, and S. Yao. Opimal sopping for dynamic convex risk measures. Illinois J. Mah., 543): , [2] E. Bayrakar and S. Yao. Opimal sopping for non-linear expecaions - Par I. Sochasic Process. Appl., 1212): , [3] E. Bayrakar and S. Yao. Opimal sopping for non-linear expecaions - Par II. Sochasic Process. Appl., 1212): , [4] D. Becherer. Uiliy indifference valuaion. In R. Con, edior, Encyclopedia of Quaniaive Finance. Wiley, Chicheser, [5] J. Bion-Nadal. ime consisen dynamic risk processes. Sochasic Process. Appl., 1192): , [6] F. Delbaen, P. Grandis,. Rheinländer, D. Samperi, M. Schweizer, and C. Sricker. Exponenial hedging and enropic penalies. Mah. Finance, 122):99 123, [7] F. Delbaen, S. Peng, and E. Rosazza Gianin. Represenaion of he penaly erm of dynamic concave uiliies. Finance Soch., 143): , [8] I. Ekren, N. ouzi, and J. Zhang. Opimal sopping under nonlinear expecaion. Sochasic Process. Appl., 12410): , [9] N. El Karoui. Les aspecs probabilises du conrôle sochasique. In P. L. Hennequin, edior, Éc. Éé Probab. S.-Flour IX-1979, pages Springer Berlin Heidelberg, [10] M. Frielli. he minimal enropy maringale measure and he valuaion problem in incomplee markes. Mah. Finance, 101):39 52, [11] J. González-Díaz, I. García-Jurado, and M.G. Fiesras-Janeiro. An Inroducory Course on Mahemaical Game heory. Grad. Sud. Mah., Volume 115, Amer. Mah. Soc., 2010.