arxiv: v1 [q-fin.pm] 29 May 2013

Transcription

1 arxiv: v q-fin.pm 29 May 203 Optimal portfolios of a long term investor with floor or drawdown constraints Vladimir Cherny Jan Ob lój University of Oxford May 203 Abstract We study the portfolio selection problem of a long-run investor who is maximising the asymptotic growth rate of her expected utility. We show that, somewhat surprisingly, it is essentially not affected by introduction of a floor constraint which requires the wealth process to dominate a given benchmark at all times. We further study the notion of long-run optimality of wealth processes via convergence of finite horizon value functions to the asymptotic optimal value. We characterise long-run optimality under floor and drawdown constraints. Introduction his paper considers a dynamic asset allocation problem of a risk-sensitive investor focusing on problems related to long-run optimality and presence of pathwise constraints on investor s wealth process. More specifically, we consider drawdown constraints and floor constraints and are interested in long-run investor choosing her investment strategy V according to R U V, V where R U V := lim logeu V. he idea to look at the maximisation of the growth rate of expected utility R U V goes back to Dumas and Luciano 7, Grossmanand Vila 2 and Grossman and Zhou 3. he criterion is designed to capture the long-horizon optimality and is often more tractable than the fixed-horizon utility maximisation Mathematical Institute and the Oxford-Man Institute of Quantitative Finance, University of Oxford, OX 3LB, UK. address: Vladimir.Cherny@maths.ox.ac.uk. Research ported by the Clarendon scholarship at the University of Oxford. Mathematical Institute, St John s College and the Oxford-Man Institute of Quantitative Finance, University of Oxford, OX 3LB, UK. address: jan.obloj@maths.ox.ac.uk

2 of terminal wealth, cf. Guasoni and Robertson 5. he optimal rate is called the Certainty Equivalent Rate CER and has the interpretation of a critical incentive rate if the investor was offered such or higher rate of growth via other investment opportunities she would be happy to abandon the market and move to the alternative investment opportunities. he above criterion has also natural links with the risk-sensitive control, see e.g. Bielecki and Pliska or Fleming and Sheu. Indeed, considering the power utility Ux = x p /p, F = logv and expanding around p = 0 we obtain p loge e pf = EF + p 2 VarF +Op 2, where Var denotes the variance and we expanded first exp and then log+. Of special interest is the case p < 0 which captures the tradeoff between maximisation of the growth rate of returns F and controlling their variance. he first problem considered in this paper corresponds to with V spanning admissible wealth processes which further satisfy V t G t, t 0, where G is a given floor process. Such a floor constraint is also referred to in the literature as an American capital guarantee, see El Karoui and Meziou 9, 0. It is motivated by different insurance products available in a real-world financial markets which guarantee a pre-specified minimum wealth for the investor s portfolio. In particular, the popular CPPI Constant Proportion Portfolio Insurance strategies guarantee that discounted value of the wealth dominates a pre-specified floor, see Black and Jones 2 and Perold and Sharpe 23. Our main result states that for any reasonable floor process there exists a wealth which is optimal for the unconstrained problem and dominates any given fraction of this floor process. In consequence, the floor constraint does not affect the optimal value of the long-term optimisation problem. his underlines the simplifying nature of growth rate maximisation criterion. It clearly does not distinguish between two wealth processes which agree from some point in time onwards. As it turns out, it also washes away more subtle features of finite horizon problems. Our results are obtained in a general semimartingale setup andextend 2 Sekine24whodealtwiththepowerutilityfunctionandconsidered diffusion driven market. We note also that our results do not contradict Davis and Lleo 6 who applied risk-sensitive control tools but with F = logv /G and hence had a different objective. he second question we consider in this paper relates to the asymptotic optimality of solutions to finite horizon utility maximisation problems as defined in. he long-term behaviour of an investor whose preferences are characterised via a utility function was studied in many influential papers. In particular, the so called turnpike theorems establish necessary and sufficient conditions for the optimal strategy for finite horizon to converge as the horizon tends to infinity, see 22, 2, 7 for discrete market setting and 5, 8, 8, 6 for continuous market setting. More recently, Guasoni and Robertson 5 described the concept Also Equivalent Safe Rate, see Guasoni and Ob lój 4. 2 his research was conducted as part of the first author s Ph.D. thesis and was in fact done independently of 24. 2

3 of long-run optimality of the wealth process. he wealth process V is called long-run optimal if the rate of growth of value functions for finite horizon problems converges to the CER, i.e. the optimal asymptotic growth rate of expected utility of V in. We consider this notion in the framework of constrained optimisation. Namely, we provide conditions for the wealth which solves constrained long-term optimisation problem to be long-run optimal. he paper is organised as follows. Below, we introduce a general market setup used throughout. In Section 2 we solve the long-term investor problem under floor constraint. And in Section 3 the long-run property is studied in the constrained framework.. Market setup We consider a frictionless market defined on the filtered probability space Ω, F, F t,p satisfying the usual hypothesis. All considered processes are implicitly taken right-continuous with left-limits càdlàg. he underlying assets are represented as a vector of strictly positive semimartingales S t = S t 0,.., S t n. We fix S t 0 = N t to be the baseline asset or our numeraire. We stress that here N is arbitrary and could be the riskless asset, a stock, but also a portfolio process. he underlying assets in units of N are expressed as S :=,S,..,S d with St i := S t/n i t. All assets and portoflios will be expressed in units of N. he investor is assumed to trade in the usual self-financing way. he set of all admissible investment strategies is given as : Definition.. An adapted semimartingale V t is called a wealth process if it is strictly positive and there exists an F t predictable process π = πt,...,π t d such that V t = V 0 + d t i= 0 πi udsu, i where the vector integral is assumed to be well-defined. he set of wealth processes with V 0 = v 0 is denoted Av 0..2 Azéma Yor processes We recall briefly Azéma Yor processes which will be of use later in the paper. hey were studied recently by Carraro, El Karoui and Ob lój 3 and we refer the reader to 3 for further details. Proposition.2 Carraro,ElKarouiandOb lój3. Let F be a locally bounded function, Fx = Fx 0 + x x 0 F udu, and X t amax-continuousf t semimartingale. he associated Azéma Yor process is given via M F t X := FX t F X t X t X t = FX 0 + where X t := u t X u. Further i if F 0 then M F t X = FX t, t 0 F X u dx u, 2 ii if F > 0 then M K t MF t X = X t with K = F the inverse of F, 3

4 iii if F is concave then M F t X FX t, iv if V t t 0 Av 0 and Fv 0 = v 0 > 0, F 0, then X t := M F t V Av 0 and X t > wx t where wx = x Kx/K x, K = F. he results follows directly from Section 2 in 3 and only the last property requires an extra argument. Using 2 one obtains that X t 0 and it satisfies Definition. with π X t = F V t π V t, where π X t and π V t are vectors. 2 Optimal long-term investment subject to floor constraint We consider now the infinite horizon problem of an investor who aims to maximise her asymptotic growth rate of expected utility of terminal wealth but is subject to a floor constraint. Our main theorem provides the connection between constrained and unconstrained problems. We are able to show that the floor constraint does not decrease the value function for a wide class of floor processes considered. More precisely, for any floor process which admits at least one wealth process dominating it, there exists an optimal solution to the unconstrained problem which dominates any given fraction of this floor process. For a given adapted non-negative semimartingale process G t t 0 we consider a subclass of all wealth processes defined as follows A G v 0 := {V t Av 0 : V t G t, t 0}. We consider function U which satisfies the following Assumption 2.. Function U is non-decreasing, concave and it is either strictly positive, or it is strictly negative. It satisfies lim x xu +x Ux <. 3 We now state our main result, which generalises the observations in Sekine 24. Below when using R U from, and throughout, we extend log to R\{0} via logx = log x. heorem 2.2. Let U satisfy Assumption 2. and v 0 > 0 be an initial wealth. Consider a floor process G t t 0 such that G t X t Av 0 ε for a wealth process X and some 0 < ε <. hen R U V = R U V. 4 V Av 0 V A Gv 0 Further, if the left hand side in 4 is finite and achieved by some wealth process ˆξ then we can assume that ˆξ t c > 0 a.s. for some c R + and all t 0. he right hand side in 4 is then maximised by ˆV t := εˆξ t +X t. 4

5 Proof. Suppose that the LHS in 4 is finite and achieved by an optimal wealth processˆη t t 0 Av 0. Foranyδ 0,weconsider ˆξ t := δv 0 + δˆη t δv 0 which belongs to Av 0. 3 Using Lemma A.3 from 4 for function U which satisfies Assumption 2., we obtain that for any x 0 > 0 there exists γ R such that Ux Uλx λ γ Ux for any λ >,x x 0. Applying the above with x 0 = δv 0 we obtain δ Uˆξ t δ γ U δ v 0 + ˆη t δ γ Uˆη t. hus, R U ˆξ R U ˆη, which concludes the optimality of ˆξ. Consider now the process ˆV t := εˆξ t + X t. It is a wealth process from the class Av 0 4. From nonnegativity of ˆξ we deduce ˆV t X t G t. herefore, ˆV t t 0 A G v 0. Now, weneedtoshowtheoptimalityofthewealthprocess ˆV. Notethatifwe have two wealth processes such that θ t θ2 t for all t 0 then Rθ Rθ 2. his is due to the fact that U is non-decreasing. And as ˆV t εˆξ t we deduce that RˆV Rεˆξ. As ˆξ t c for some c > 0, we deduce that Uεˆξ t ε γ Uˆξ t again by Lemma A.3 from 4 with x 0 = cε. hus, Rεˆξ = Rˆξ and we conclude the proof of optimality of ˆV. he same arguments, possibly applied to a sequence of wealth processes, show that 4 holds in all generality. Remark 2.3. From the proof of heorem 2.2 we obtain that EUˆV < and R U ˆV < if and only if the same holds for ˆξ and then lim logeuˆξ logeuˆv = 0. Proof. he first assertion is clear by 4 and since UˆV Uεˆξ ε γ Uˆξ. Further lim logeuˆξ logeuˆv lim logeuˆξ lim logeuˆv = 0, and lim logeuˆξ logeuˆv lim lim logeuˆξ logε γ EUˆξ γlogε = 0. 3 Note that in fact ˆξ = M F η with Fx = δv 0 + δx which corresponds to wx δv 0 in iv in Proposition.2. 4 his turns out to be the same strategy as used by Sekine in 24. 5

6 Remark 2.4. Combining this result and heorem 4.2 from 4 we are able to connect in an explicit manner three problems: the unconstrained problem, the problem with a drawdown constraint and the problem with a floor constraint. More precisely, for a continuous stock process S t t 0 and under assumptions of heorem 4.2 from 4 the solution to the drawdown constrained problem is an explicit Azèma-Yor transformation of the solution to floor constrained problem, since the latter also solves the unconstrained problem. 3 Long-run properties We turnnowtostudying thebehaviourofthe valuefunction ofthe finite horizon problem when the horizon becomes distant. As discussed in the Introduction, such topics have been studied primarily in the context of turnpike theorem. Here we look at long-run optimality in the sense of Guasoni and Robertson 5. We establish long-run optimality results in the constrained framework, when there is either a floor constraint, or a drawdown constraint imposed on the wealth processes. 3. Definition of long-run optimality An investment strategy is called long-run optimal if the rate of growth of the value function for finite horizon problem converges to the certainty equivalent rate CER in. Specifically, let us first define classes of admissible wealth processes up to time horizon. For a given floor process G t 0 t we define a subclass of Av 0 as A G v 0 := {V Av 0 s.t. V t G t, 0 t }. For a given function w we define A w v 0 := {V Av 0 s.t. min{v t,v t } > wv t 0 t }, where V t := s t V s. We simply write A w v 0 and A G v 0 when =. Definition 3.. Consider U satisfying Assumption 2.. A wealth process ˆV B is called B-long-run optimal if V B EUV is finite and lim log EUV V B logeuˆv = 0, 5 where B = Av 0, A G v 0 or A w v 0, and B = Av 0, A G v 0 or A w v 0, respectively. For a financial interpretation of this definition and intuition behind we refer to 5 where the authors define the certainty equivalent loss l : 0, R of a wealth process V t t 0 by EUe l V = EUY. Y Av 0 6

7 Similar ideas were used by Grossman and Villa 2 to measure the so-called cost of myopia. One can see that for a process V Av 0 such that V c > 0: if l V 0 as then V is Av 0 -long-run optimal. Indeed, as V c > 0 we are able to use Lemma A.3 from 4 to derive for some γ R that Ue l V e γl UV. hus, 0 lim log EUY Y Av 0 logeuv limγl = 0 In other words, vanishing certainty equivalent loss is a sufficient condition for long-run optimality. 3.2 Floor constraint In this subsection we construct the long-run optimal portfolio satisfying a floor constraint using the long-run optimal portfolio for an unconstrained problem. he main result for this section is the following: Proposition 3.2. Let ˆX t t 0 be Av 0 -long-run optimal for some utility function U which satisfies Assumption 2.. hen, for any floor process G t t 0 such that G t X t for some 0 < ε < and some X Av 0 ε, the process ˆV t := ε ˆX t +X t is A G v 0 -long-run optimal. Proof. By Remark 2.3 one obtains 0 lim lim lim log V A Gv 0 EUV logeuˆv log EUV V A Gv 0 logeu ˆX log EUV V Av 0 logeu ˆX. where we used A G v 0 Av 0. he right hand side is equal to zero as ˆX is Av 0 -long-run optimal. We conclude that ˆV is A G v 0 -long-run optimal. 3.3 Drawdown constraint We now turn to the long-run optimality of the solution to the drawdown constrainedproblem. We assumethat alls i arecontinuous 5 and hence all processes in Av 0 are also continuous. We first recall the necessary definitions following closely 4. 5 We restrict our attention to continuous assets to avoid notational technicalities but the results naturally hold in the setup of max-continuous assets and wealth processes as in 4. 7

8 Definition 3.3. We say that w is a drawdown function if it is non-decreasing and α : 0 wx/x α <, x 0. 6 Define x K w x := v 0 exp v 0 u wu du,x v 0, 7 which is continuous and strictly increasing and has a well defined inverse F w := Kw : v 0, v 0,. It follows fromii and iv in Proposition.2, ormore generally from Proposition 3.2 in 4, that if X Av 0 then V = M F X A w v 0 and X = M K V establishing a bijection between Av 0 and A w v 0 or A w v 0. We shall exploit this relation on several occasionsin the sequel. Assumption 3.4. Assume that, for some ε > 0, U satisfies either or Ux x ε, and U is strictly positive on 0,, x Uxx ε 0, and U is strictly negative on 0,. x heorem 3.5. Let w be a drawdown function and U satisfy Assumptions 2. and 3.4. Assume that lim log V Av 0EU F w V +δ < for some δ > 0. hen i If ˆξ t t 0 is Av 0 -long-run optimal with utility function U F w then M Fw t ˆξ is A w v 0 -long-run optimal with utility function U. ii Suppose ˆξ t t 0 solves among all V Av 0 and lim logeu F wˆξ = liminf logeu F wˆξ. Recall that, by heorem 4. from 4, ˆX := M F w ˆξ A w v 0 solves among all X A w v 0. If ˆX is A w v 0 -long-run optimal with utility function U then ˆξ is Av 0 - long-run optimal with utility function U F w. Proof. Recall that by Lemma A.3 in 4 for any Ũ which satisfies Assumption 2. and any x 0 > 0 there exists γ R such that for all y x 0 and all c > : Ũy Ũcy cγ Ũy. 8 We will use this several times below, in particular for Ũ = U or U F w. his fact also implies that see Lemma A. in 4 we may and will assume that ˆξ t v 0 /2 for all t 0. We recall the properties of Azéma Yor processes given in Proposition.2 and their use to obtain a bijection between A w v 0 and Av 0. Also, introduce 8

9 w ε x = εx, the associated K wε x = v ε/ ε 0 x / ε and its inverse F wε. It follows that EUV EU F w Y = EU F w Kwǫ Y V A w v 0 Y Av 0 Y A wεv0 Y A wεv0:y εv0 EU F w Y Av 0:Y εv 0 EU F w c γ ε Y Av 0:Y εv 0 EU F w K wǫ ε Y c ε Y ε Y ε, where c ε = v ε ε 0 ε where we took ε < 2 small enough so that c ε > and applied 8 to Ũ = U F w with x 0 = εv 0. On the other hand, using the property of Azéma Yor processes for the concave function F w, we get EUM Fw ˆξ EU F w ˆξ. Combining the two inequalities we deduce that 0 lim log EUV logeum Fw ˆξ lim +lim V A w v 0 log EU F w Y logeu F w ˆξ Y Av 0:Y εv 0 logc γ ε EU F w Y ε log Y Av 0:Y εv 0 + EU F w Y Y Av 0:Y εv 0 where the first lim is zero by long-run optimality of ˆξ and the second one is non-negative this can be seen using the restriction Y εv 0 and applying 8. We will now argue that it is bounded by a constant times ε/ ε and hence goes to zero as ε does. o this end, we will show that there exists K > 0 such that for all Ũ such that Ũx κu F wx +δ for a constant κ and all x, where δ > 0 is given in the statement, we have c := lim log EŨV log EŨV V K = 0 V Av 0:V εv 0 V Av 0V εv 0 0 isequaltozero. Indeed,letVt t 0 achievetheremumin V Av0EŨV if such process does not exist then choose such Vt t 0 that EUV differs from the remum by less than /, then logeũv logeũv V K. 0 c lim 9 9,

10 he argument then follows the lines of the proof of Lemma A.2 from 4, where we set ξ := V and we set C G = lim log V EU F w V +δ where V Av 0 with V εv 0. hus, using 0 for Ũ = U F wx ε by 8 and taking ε small enough and for Ũ = U F wx we continue 9 to obtain 0 lim log EUV logeum Fw ˆξ lim logc γ ε V A w v 0 EU F w Y ε Y K Y Av 0:Y εv 0 log EU F w Y Y K Y Av 0:Y εv 0 ε γ logk ε whereweusedthat U F w y ε U Fw yy/εv 0 ε/ ε y/εv 0 γε/ ε U F w y for y εv 0 by 8. Finally, letting ε 0 we obtain lim log V A w v 0 EUV logeum Fw ˆξ which establishes i. For ii it suffices to write 0 lim log EU F w Y logeu F w ˆξ lim log Y Av 0 ζ A w v 0 +lim = 0+CER w U v 0 CER U Fw v 0 = 0, = 0 EUζ logeum Fw ˆξ logeum Fw ˆξ logeu F w ˆξ where in last equation we used the fact that lima B lima liminfb = lima limb when limb = liminfb. 3.4 Example: complete market model with deterministic coefficients We consider now the classical complete financial market model with deterministic coefficients. W t = W t,...,w d t is a standard d-dimensional Brownian 0

11 motion and F t t 0 is the right-continuous augmentation of its natural filtration. Here denotes vector transpose. Each asset follows dynamics given by ds i t S i t = µ i tdt+ d j= σ ij t dw j t, S i 0 = s i 0 > 0 whereµ i t andσ ij t arebounded deterministicfunctionsandσ t isinvertible. Recall Definition.ofwealthprocessandlet π t i := πi t Si t /V t betheproportionofwealth invested in the i th asset so that dv t = d i= πi ds tv i t t. he market price of risk St i is given as θ t := σ µ t. We assume θ t is also bounded and that θ 2 := lim log θ u 2 du is well defined and finite. 0 We consider the problem of maximising the expected utility of discounted wealth at a given horizon. he solution is obtained using, by now standard, convex duality arguments, see Karatzas, Lehoczky and Shreve 9 or Karatzas and Shreve 20, pp It involves the state price density { Z t := exp t 0 θ udw u 2 t 0 } θ u 2 du, t 0, which is a P martingale and defines the unique risk neutral measure Q on F via dq dp F = Z. he value function for the utility function U p x = p xp equals Vv 0,,p = EU p V = U p v 0 EZ p p V Av 0 { } p = U p v 0 exp θ u 2 du. 2 p 0 p Moreover, the optimal wealth process V which is characterised via π t = p θ tσt is independent of the horizon and, therefore, is long-run optimal for the unconstrained problem. Considering the linear drawdown constraint, wx = αx, we check that the assumptions of the first part in heorem 3.5 hold and hence we deduce long-run optimality of the wealth process X t = Mt Fw V for w-drawdown constrained problems, since V solves the unconstrained problem. Moreover, the following asymptotics of the finite horizon problem with drawdown constraint is obtained using heorem 3.5 p α log EU p V = 2 p α θ 2 +o V A w v 0 his asymptotic result can be sharpened as follows:

12 Proposition 3.6. log V A w v 0 EU p V = p α θ t 2 dt+olog. 2 p α 0 Proof. With no loss of generality we put v 0 =. By property of the Azéma Yor processes for a concave function F w, we obtain EU p V EU p F w X = αv,,p α. V A w X A o obtain a reverse inequality we need to perturb the drawdown constraint. We write F α = F w and for a small ε > 0 consider K ε x = x ε and its inverse F ε y = y ε which correspond to the drawdown function w ε x = εx. Naturally, since A wε A, we have EU p F α K ε X EU p F α K ε X, X A X A wε and the right hand side can be rewritten as EU p F α K ε X = EU p F α K ε M Fε Y. X A wε Y A Using the drawdown constraint property of M Fε Y we deduce EU p F α K ε X ε p α ε EU p F α Y X A Y A hus, we obtain inequality αv,,p α aking logarithm we obtain log p + log p + ε p α ε EU p V. V A w EU p V α p α V A w ε ε ε V p α 2 p α 0 p α 2 p α ε θ t 2 dt log 0 V A w θ t 2 dt p α ε,, p α ε EU p V logε. Now, taking ε = we obtain the required asymptotics. 2

13 References Bielecki,., and Pliska, S. Risk-sensitive dynamic asset management. Appl. Math. Optimizat , Black, F., and Jones, R. Simplifying portfolio insurance. he Journal of Portfolio Management 4 987, Carraro, L., El Karoui, N., and Ob lój, J. On Azéma-Yor processes, their optimal properties and the Bachelier-Drawdown equation. Ann. Probab. 40, 202, Cherny, V., and Ob lój, J. Portfolio optimisation under non-linear drawdown constraints in a semimartingale financial model. to appear in Finance & Stochastics Cox, J., and Huang, C. A continuous-time portfolio turnpike theorem. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 6 992, Davis, M., and Lleo, S. Risk-sensitive benchmarked asset management. Quantitative Finance 8, , Dumas, B., and Luciano, E. An exact solution to a dynamic portfolio choice problem under transactions costs. Journal of Finance 46, 2 99, Dybvig, P., Rogers, L., and Back, K. Portfolio turnpikes. Review of Financial Studies 2, 999, El Karoui, N., and Meziou, A. Constrained optimization with respect to stochastic dominance: Application to portfolio insurance. Mathematical Finance 6, 2006, El Karoui, N., and Meziou, A. On Azéma-Yor processes, their optimal properties and the Bachelier-Drawdown equation. Ann. Probab. 36, , Fleming, W. H., and Sheu, S. J. Risk-sensitive control and an optimal investment model. Mathematical Finance 0, , Grossman, S., and Vila, J. Optimal dynamic trading with leverage constraints. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 27, 2 992, Grossman, S. J., and Zhou, Z. Optimal investment strategies for controlling drawdowns. Mathematical Finance 3, 3 993, Guasoni, P., and Ob lój, J. he incentives of hedge fund fees and highwater marks. 3

14 5 Guasoni, P., and Robertson, S. Portfolios and risk premia for the long run. Ann. Appl. Probab. 22, 202, Guasoni, P., and Robertson, S. Static fund separation of long term investments. Mathematical Finance 202. DOI: 0./mafi Hakansson, N. H. Convergence to isoelastic utility and policy in multiperiod portfolio choice. Journal of Financial Economics, 3 974, Huang, C.-f., and Zariphopoulou,. urnpike behavior of long-term investments. Finance and Stochastics 3 999, Karatzas, I., Lehoczky, J. P., and Shreve, S. E. Optimal portfolio and consumption decisions for a small investor on a finite horizon. SIAM J. of Control and Optimization , Karatzas, I., and Shreve, S. E. Methods of mathematical finance, vol. 39 of Applications of Mathematics New York. Springer-Verlag, New York, Leland, H. On turnpike portfolios. In Mathematical Methods in Investment and Finance, G. Szego and K. Shell, Eds. Amsterdam: North- Holland, Mossin, J. Optimal multiperiod portfolio policies. Journal of Business 4, 2 968, Perold, A. F., and Sharpe, W. F. Dynamic strategies for asset allocation. Financial Analysts Journal 44, 988, Sekine, J. Long-term optimal portfolios with floor. Finance and Stochastics 6, 3 202,