arxiv:submit/ [q-fin.pm] 25 Sep 2011

Transcription

1 arxiv:submit/ [q-fin.pm] 25 Sep 2011 Generalized Hypothesis Testing and Maximizing the Success Probability in Financial Markets Tim Leung Qingshuo Song Jie Yang September 25, 2011 Abstract We study the generalized composite pure and randomized hypothesis testing problems. In addition to characterizing the corresponding optimal tests, we examine the conditions under which these two hypothesis testing problems are equivalent, and provide counterexamples when they are not. This analysis is useful for portfolio optimization problems that maximize some success probability given a fixed initial capital. The corresponding dual is related to a pure hypothesis testing problem which may or may not coincide with the randomized hypothesis testing problem. Our framework is applicable to both complete and incomplete market settings. 1 Introduction In a financial market, suppose the smallest super-hedging price for a contingent claim F of expiration T is given by F 0. Then, given the initial capital x < F 0, how can one construct a strategy π in order to maximize the probability that the terminal wealth X x,π (T) exceeds F? A related question is: what is the minimum initial capital required to ensure a given success probability P{X x,π (T) F}? Furthermore, the claim F can be more generally viewed as a benchmark to beat, then the successful event is based on whether the terminal portfolio value will outperform the given benchmark (see [1]). These problems have been studied in the framework of quantile hedging, dating back to Föllmer and Leukert [4]. As is well known, the quantile hedging problem can be formulated as a pure hypothesis testing problem, and Neyman-Pearson Lemma provides a characterization of the solution. Recently, several generalized problems have been studied in the direction of minimizing the shortfall risk under various convex risk measures. More precisely, with a given initial capital This work is partially supported by NSF grant DMS IEOR Department, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027; leung@ieor.columbia.edu. Department of Mathematics, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; song.qingshuo@cityu.edu.hk. Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607; jyang06@math.uic.edu 1

2 x < F 0 andaconvexmeasureρ( ), theobjectiveistominimizeρ( (F X x,π (T)) + ), see[2,5,9,11]. Under a convex risk measure, the problem can be converted to a randomized hypothesis testing and solved via the Neyman-Pearson Lemma. Although maximizing the success probability P{X x,π (T) F} in this work is equivalent to minimizing the shortfall risk P{X x,π (T) < F} = ρ( (F X x,π (T)) + ) with respect to a risk measure ρ(x) = P{X < 0}, this risk measure ρ( ) does not satisfy either convexity or continuity. Consequently, the value function of such a problem is only equivalent to a pure hypothesis testing problem. In fact, we provide an example (see Example 2) to show that it may be strictly smaller than the randomized hypothesis testing problem. The main contribution of the current paper is the analysis of the generalized composite pure and randomized hypothesis testing problems (see (3) and (15)). The sets of alternative hypotheses G and null hypotheses H are not limited to probability density functions but simply non-negative L 1 -bounded random variables. This is applicable to statistical hypothesis testing with non-constant significance levels. In addition to solving both problems, we investigate when a pure test solves both the randomized and pure testing problems. To this end, we provide sufficient conditions that make the two hypothesis testing problems equivalent. Moreover, we show the convexity and continuity of the value function for the randomized hypothesis testing problem (see Theorem 1). We also apply our analysis to study the portfolio choice to maximize the success probability in a general incomplete market. We show that this problem is equivalent to a composite pure hypothesis testing problem, which may be strictly dominated by the related randomized testing problem (see Example 3 ). We provide the sufficient conditions for these two problems to coincide (see Theorem 8). Finally, we provide examples with explicit solutions for maximizing the success probability in a complete market and in an incomplete stochastic volatility market. 2 Generalized Composite Hypothesis Testing In the background, we fix a complete probability space (Ω,F,P). Denote by E[ ] the expectation under P, and L 1,+ the class of all non-negative F-measurable random variables X satisfying E[X] <. The pure tests and randomized tests are represented by the two collections of random variables, respectively, X = {X : Ω/F [0,1]/B([0,1])} and I = {X : Ω/F {0,1}/2 {0,1} }. In addition, G and H are two given collections of P-integrable non-negative F-measurable random variables. Let us consider the randomized composite hypothesis testing problem: This problem is equivalent to sup X X inf E[GX] (1) G G subject to sup E[HX] x. (2) H H V(x) := sup inf E[GX] (3) X X x G G where X x := {X X : E[HX] x, H H} is the set of all feasible randomized tests. 2

3 This randomized hypothesis testing problem is similar to that studied by Cvitanic and Karatzas [3], except that G and H in (1)-(2) and (3) are not necessarily Radon-Nikodym derivatives. This slight generalization allows H L 1 to be different from each other among H, which is applicable to statistical hypothesis testing with non-constant significance levels; see also Remark 5.2 by Rudloff and Karatzas [10]. Similar to [3], we make the following standing assumption: Assumption 1 Assume that G and H are bounded in L 1,+, and G is convex and closed under P-a.e. convergence. For the upcoming results, we define the set H x := {H L 1,+ : E[HX] x, X X x }. It is straightforward to check that H x is a convex set containing convex hull of H. The following theorem gives the characterization of the solution for (3). Theorem 1 Under Assumption 1, there exists (Ĝ,Ĥ,â, ˆX) G H x [0, ) X x satisfying ˆX = I { Ĝ>âĤ} +BI {Ĝ=âĤ}, for some B : Ω/F [0,1]/B([0,1]), (4) E[Ĥ ˆX] = x, (5) and Then, V(x) of (3) is given by E[Ĝ ˆX] E[G ˆX], G G. (6) V(x) = E[Ĝ ˆX] = inf{xa+ inf a 0 G H E[(G ah)+ ]}, (7) which is continuous, concave, and non-decreasing in x [0, ). Furthermore, (Ĝ,Ĥ) and (Ĝ,Ĥ,â) respectively attain the infimum of E[(G âh) + ], and xa+ inf G H E[(G ah)+ ]. (8) Proof: The proof of (7) and (8), and the existence of the associated (Ĝ,Ĥ,â, ˆX) under Assumption 1 can be completed following the procedures in [3], by replacing their two probability density sets to the L 1,+ -bounded sets G and H here. Monotonicity of V(x) follows from its definition. For arbitrary x 1,x 2 0, the inequality 1 2 (V(x 1)+V(x 2 )) = 1 ( ) inf 2 E[x 1a+(G ah) + ]+ inf E[x 2a+(G ah) + ] a 0,(G,H) G H a 0,(G,H) G H [ 1 inf E a 0,(G,H) G H 2 (x 1 +x 2 )a+(g ah) +] ( x1 +x ) 2 = V 2 3

4 implies the concavity of V(x). The boundedness together with the concavity yields the continuity. Another difference lies in â, which belongs to [0, ) in Theorem 1, as opposed to (0, ) by Proposition 3.1 and Lemma 4.3 in Cvitanic and Karatzas [3]. Here is an example where â indeed takes value zero. Example 1 Let N g := G G {G = 0} and x > 0. (i) If P(N g ) = 1, then E[(G ah) + ] 0 for all G,H,a. Thus â = 0 is the unique minimizer of {xa+inf G H E[(G ah) + ]}. (ii) If 0 < P(N g ) < 1 and x > sup H H E[(HI N c g )], then there also exists a counter-example such that â = 0 minimizes {xa + inf G H E[(G ah) + ]}. Indeed, if we set G = {G} with G = I N c g /P(N c g) and H = {H} with H 1, then xa+ inf G H E[(G ah)+ ] = xa+e[(g zh) + ] (9) { xa, if a 1 P(N = g) ; c 1+a ( x P(Ng c)), if 0 a < 1 P(Ng). (10) c Since x > sup E[HI N c g ] = P(Ng), c â = 0 is the unique minimizer of (9). H H Next, we provide a sufficient condition for the existence of â > 0. Proposition 2 If 0 < x < supe[hi H G G {G>0}], (11) then there exists (Ĝ,Ĥ,â, ˆX) G H x (0, ) X x satisfying (4)-(6). In particular, â = argmin{xa+ inf a 0 G H E[(G ah)+ ]} > 0. Proof: Define the function f x (a) := xa +inf G H E[(G ah) + ], which is Lipschitz continuous (see Lemma 4.1 of [3]). Since f x (0) = inf G E[G] 0 and is finite, and lim a f x (a) =, there exists a finite â 0 that minimizes f x (a). Now, suppose â = 0 is a minimizer of f x (a). Then, it follows that f x (a) f x (0), a > 0, which leads to xa inf G E[G] inf G H E[(G ah) + ] E[ G] inf H E[( G ah) + ] asup H E[HI { G ah} ]. In (12), G minimizes E[G] over G, and its existence follows from convex and closedness of G. Taking the limit a 0 + yields a contradiction to (11): x sup H Hence, we conclude that â > 0. E[HI { G>0} ] supe[hi G {G > 0} ]. H We proceed to give a simple explicit construction of B in (4) of Theorem 1. 4 (12)

5 Corollary 3 Let (Ĝ,Ĥ,â, ˆX) G H x [0, ) X x be given by Theorem 1. Then, B in (4) can be assigned as follows: (i) If E[ĤI {Ĝ>âĤ}] = x, then B = 0. (ii) If E[ĤI {Ĝ âĥ}] = x > E[ĤI {Ĝ>âĤ}], then B = 1. (iii) If E[ĤI {Ĝ âĥ}] > x > E[ĤI {Ĝ>âĤ}], then B = x E[ĤI {Ĝ>âĤ}] E[ĤI {Ĝ=âĤ}] > 0. Proof: By direct computation, we verify that (5) holds for each of these three cases. To summarize, the randomized test ˆX given by (4) in Theorem 1 with the choice of B in Corollary 3 solves the generalized composite hypothesis testing problem (3). In Corollary 3, B is simply a constant in each scenario (i)-(iii), and the resulting ˆX is an indicator under (i) and (ii) but not (iii). However, we emphasize that there may exist alternative ways to specify B as the solution. In particular, if it turns out that B can be assigned as an indicator function (even under scenario (iii)), then ˆX will also be an indicator, and therefore, a pure test! This leads to the interesting question: when does a pure test solve the randomized composite hypothesis testing problem? Motivated by this, we define the pure composite hypothesis testing problem: This is equivalent to solving sup inf X I G G E[GX] (13) subject to sup E[HX] x. (14) H H V 1 (x) = sup inf E[GX], (15) X I x G G where I x := {X I : E[HX] x, H H} consists of all the candidate pure tests. Remark 4 Form both (3) and (15), we observe that enlarging G or H will potentially reduce the values of V(x) and V 1 (x), respectively. From their definitions, we see that V(x) V 1 (x). However, one cannot expect V 1 (x) = V(x) in general, as demonstrated in the next example. Example 2 Fix Ω = {0,1} and F = 2 Ω, with P{0} = P{1} = 1/2. Define the collections G = {G : G(0) = G(1) = 1}, and H = {H : H(0) = 1/2,H(1) = 3/2}. In this simple setup, direct computations yield that 5

6 1. For the randomized hypothesis testing, V(x) is given by E[4xI {0} ] = 2x, if 0 x < 1/4; V(x) = E[I {0} + 4x 1 3 I {1} ] = 2x+1 3, if 1/4 x < 1; E[1] = 1, if x For the pure hypothesis testing, V 1 (x) is given by E[0] = 0, if 0 x < 1/4; V 1 (x) = E[I {0} ] = 1 2, if 1/4 x < 1; E[1] = 1, if x 1. (16) (17) It follows that V 1 (x) < V(x), x 0. In fact, V 1 (x) does not preserve concavity and continuity, while V(x) does. If there is a pure test that solves both the pure and randomized composite hypothesis testing problems, then we must have the equality V 1 (x) = V(x). An important question is when this phenomenon of equivalence occurs. In search of a sufficient condition, we infer from (4) that if P{G = ah} = 0 for all (G,H,a) G H [0, ), then we obtain ˆX = I { Ĝ>âĤ}, which is a pure test. A similar observation has been pointed out in Remark 1 of [7]. The following lemma provides another sufficient condition (see (18) below) for the equivalent between V 1 and V. Lemma 5 Suppose H = {H} is a singleton, and we assume there exists a F-measurable random variable Y, such that the function g(y) = E[HI {Y<y} ], y R (18) is continuous. Then there exists a pure test ˆX that solves both problems (3) and (15). As a result, V 1 (x) = V(x). Proof: Let (Ĝ,Ĥ,â, ˆX) G H [0, ) X x be given by Theorem 1. Since H = {H} is a singleton, then Ĥ = H follows from the definition of the hypothesis testing problem. In this below, we will show the existence of the pure test ˆX under (18). By Corollary 3, we only need to prove the result when E[ĤI {Ĝ âĥ}] > x > E[ĤI {Ĝ>âĤ}]. Define a function g 1 ( ) by g 1 (y) = E[ĤI {Ĝ=âĤ} {Y <y}]. Note that g 1 ( ) is right-continuous since, for any y R, g 1 (y +ε) g 1 (y) = E[ĤI {Ĝ=âĤ} {y Y<y+ε}] E[ĤI {y Y<y+ε}] = g(y +ε) g(y) 0, as ε 0 + 6

7 by the continuity of g( ). Similar arguments show that g 1 ( ) is also left-continuous. Also, observe that lim g 1(y) = 0, and lim g 1(y) = E[ĤI y y {Ĝ=âĤ}] > x E[ĤI {Ĝ>âĤ}]. Therefore, there exists ŷ R satisfying g 1 (ŷ) = x E[ĤI {Ĝ>âĤ}]. Now, we can simply set B = I {Y<ŷ}, which is F-measurable. In turn, this yields ˆX of (4) as an indicator of the form ˆX = I { Ĝ=âĤ} {Y<ŷ} {Ĝ>âĤ}. (19) By the choice of ŷ, one can directly verify that the above ˆX belongs to X x and satisfies (4), (5), and (6). Next, we summarize two sufficient conditions, which are amenable for the verification. Theorem 6 Suppose one of following conditions is satisfied: 1. H = {H} is a singleton and there exists a F-measurable random variable with continuous cumulative distribution function with respect to P. 2. P{G = ah} = 0 for all (G,H,a) G H [0, ). Then V 1 (x) = V(x), and there exists an indicator function ˆX that solves problems (3) and (15) simultaneously. Furthermore, x V 1 (x) is continuous, concave, and non-decreasing. Proof: We only need to prove the result under the first condition. Let (Ĝ,Ĥ,â, ˆX) G H [0, ) X x be given by Theorem 1, and we know Ĥ = H. It is sufficient to show that g(y) of (18) is continuous. Recall that Ĥ L1,+ (P). Then, we have, for any y R, g(y +ε) g(y) = E[ĤI {y Y<y+ε}] 0, as ε 0, implying right-continuity (cf. [8, Exercises ]). Left-continuity can be shown similarly. Hence, we conclude that V 1 (x) = V(x) in view of Lemma 5, and V 1 (x) inherits from V(x) in Theorem 1 to be continuous, concave, and non-decreasing. Note that condition 1 in Theorem 6 is slightly stronger than (18). In the next section, we will be apply our analysis of the generalized composite hypothesis testing to quantile hedging in incomplete financial markets. 3 Maximizing the Success Probability in Financial Markets We now discuss the portfolio optimization problem whose objective is to maximize the probability of outperforming a (random) benchmark. This related to the well-known problem of quantile hedging introduced by Föllmer and Leukert [4]. Apply our preceding analysis and the generalized Neyman-Pearson lemma, we will examine our problem in both complete and incomplete markets. 7

8 3.1 Characterization via Pure Hypothesis Testing We fix T > 0 as the investment horizon and let (Ω,F,(F t ) 0 t T,P) be a filtered complete probability space satisfying the usual conditions. We model a stock price by a F t -adapted non-negative semi-martingale process (S(t)) t 0. For notational simplicity, we assume zero risk-free interest rate. The class of Equivalent Martingale Measures(EMMs), denoted by Q, consists of all probability measures Q P on F T such that the stock price S(t) is Q martingale. The associated set of Radon-Nikodym densities is { dq } Z := dp : Q Q. In the classical no-arbitrage pricing theory, these are the candidate pricing measures used for derivative valuation. We require that Q be non-empty to preclude arbitrage opportunities. Given an initial capital x and a self-financing strategy π, the investor s trading wealth process satisfies t X x,π π(u) (t) = x+ ds(u). (20) 0 S(u) The trading strategy π belongs to the space of all admissible strategies A(x) defined by A(x) = {π : X x,π (t) 0, t [0,T], P a.s.} For any random terminal payoff F F T, the smallest super-hedging price (see, for example, Touzi, [4]) is given by F 0 := sup E[ZF]. (21) Z Z We can interpret F as the benchmark. In quantile hedging, F is the terminal contingent claim In other words, F 0 is the smallest capital needed for P{X x,π (T) F} = 1 for some strategy π A(x). Note that with less initial capital x < F 0 the success probability P{X x,π (T) F} < 1 for all π A(x). Our objective is to maximize over all admissible trading strategies the success probability with x < F 0. Specifically, we solve the optimization problem: Ṽ(x) := sup sup x 1 xπ A(x 1 ) P{X x 1,π (T) F} (22) = sup P{X x,π (T) F}, x 0. (23) π A(x) The second equality (23) follows from the monotonicity of the mapping x sup P{X x,π (T) F}. π A(x) Next, we show that the optimization problem (22) admits a dual representation as a pure hypothesis testing problem. 8

9 Proposition 7 The value function Ṽ(x) of (22) is equal to the solution of a pure hypothesis testing problem, that is, Ṽ(x) = V 1(x) where V 1 (x) = supp(a) A over A F T subject to sup E[ZFI A ] x. (24) Z Z Furthermore, if there exists  F T that solves (24), then Ṽ(x) = P(Â), and the associated optimal strategy π is a super-hedging strategy with X x,π (T) FI P-a.s. Proof: First, if we set H = {ZF : Z Z} and G = {1}, then the right-hand side of (24) resembles the pure hypothesis testing problem in (15). 1. First, we prove that V 1 (x) Ṽ(x). For an arbitrary π A(x), define the success event A x,π := {X x,π (T) F}. Then, sup Z Z E[ZFI A x,π] is the smallest amount needed to superhedge FI A x,π. By the definition of A x,π, we have that X x,π (T) FI A x,π, i.e. the initial capital xis sufficient to super-hedgefi A x,π. Thisimplies that A x,π is acandidate solution to V 1 since the constraint x sup Z Z E[ZFI A x,π] is satisfied. Consequently, for any π A(x), we have V 1 (x) P(A x,π ). Since Ṽ(x) = sup π A(x)P(A x,π ) by (22), we conclude. 2. Now, weshowthereverseinequality V 1 (x) Ṽ(x). LetA F T beanarbitrarysetsatisfying the constraint sup Z Z E[ZFI A ] x. This implies a super-replication by some π A(x) such that P{X x,π (T) FI A } = 1. In turns, this yields P{X x,π F} P(A). Therefore, Ṽ(x) P(A) by (22). Thanks to the arbitrariness of A, Ṽ(x) V 1(x) holds. In conclusion, Ṽ(x) = V 1 (x), and the strategy π super-hedging FI A is the solution of (22), provided that Ṽ(x) = P(A). Next, we give an example where we explicitly compute the maximum success probability. By Proposition 7, this is equivalent to the pure hypothesis testing, but not to the randomized analogue, as shown below. Example 3 Consider Ω = {0,1}, F = 2 {0,1}, and the real probability given by P{0} = P{1} = 1/2. Suppose stock price S(t, ω) follows one-step binomial tree: S(0,0) = S(0,1) = 2; S(T,0) = 5, S(T,1) = 1. The benchmark F = 1 at T. We will determine by direct computation the maximum success probability given initial capital x 0. To this end, we notice that the possible strategy with initial capital x is c shares of stock plus x 2c dollars of cash at t = 0. Then, the terminal wealth X(T) is { 5c+(x 2c) = x+3c ω = 0, X(T) = c+(x 2c) = x c ω = 1. Since X(T) 0 a.s. is required, we have constraint on c, i.e. x 3 c x. 9

10 Now, we can write Ṽ(x) as As a result, we have Ṽ(x) = max x c xp{x(t) 1} = 1 ( 2 max I {x+3c 1} +I {x c 1} ). (25) x 3 3 c x 1. If x < 1/4, then and x+3c x+3x = 4x < 1 x c x+ x 3 = 4x 3 < 1/3, which implies both indicators are zero, i.e. Ṽ(x) = If 1/4 x < 1, then we can take c = 1/4, which leads to x+3c 1, i.e. Ṽ(x) 1/2. On the other hand, Ṽ(x) < 1. From this and (25), we conclude that Ṽ(x) = 1/2. 3. If x 1, then we can take c = 0, and Ṽ(x) = 1. Hence, we conclude that Ṽ(x) = V 1(x) V(x) of Example 2. Theorem 8 Suppose the super-hedging price F 0 in (21) is finite, and either one of two conditions are satisfied 1. Z is a singleton, and F T contains a random variable with continuous cumulative distribution with respect to P; 2. P{ZF = 1} = 0 for all (a,z) (0, ) Z. Then, (i) V(x) of (22) is continuous, concave, and non-decresing in x [0, ), taking values from the minimum V(0) = P{F = 0} to the maximum V(x) = 1 for x F 0. (ii) There exists  F T that solves (24), and V(x) = inf a 0,Z Z E[xa+(1 azf)+ ]. (26) Proof: This is an application of Theorems 1 and 6 where we take H = {FZ : Z Z} and G = {1}. Note that F 0 < implies H is L 1 bounded. Under this setup, Assumption 1 is satisfied. 10

11 3.2 A Complete Market Model Let W be a one dimensional standard Brownian motion on (Ω,F,P,{F u } t u T ). The financial market consists of a liquid risky stock and a riskless money market account (assuming zero interest rate). Under the historical measure, the stock price evolves according to: ds(u) = S(u)σ(u,S(u))[θ(u,S(u))du +dw u ], (27) where θ(, ) is the Sharpe ratio function and σ(, ) is the volatility function. The investor s wealth process associated with strategy π and initial capital x is given by dx x,π (u) = π(u)σ(u,s(u))[θ(u,s(u))du +dw u ]. (28) The investor s objective is to maximize the probability of super-hedging the terminal payoff F = f(s(t)) for some measurable function f. Since perfect replication is possible by trading S and the money market account, the market is complete. Under suitable integrability conditions on θ and σ, there exists a unique EMM Q defined by Z t := dq { dp Ft = exp 1 2 t 0 θ 2 (u,s(u))du t 0 θ(u,s(u))dw u }. Moreover, the super-hedging price is simply the risk-neutral price F 0 = E Q [f(s(t))]. Analogous to (22), the investor, given initial capital x < F 0, faces the optimization problem: Ṽ(x) = sup P{X(T) f(s(t))}. (29) π A(x) Proposition 9 representation: Ṽ(x) is a continuous, non-decreasing, and concave function in x. It admits the Ṽ(x) = inf a 0 {xa+e[(1 az(t)f(s(t)))+ ]}. Proof: First, Proposition 7 implies Ṽ(x) = V 1(x) (the pure hypothesis testing). Also, since Z = {Z} is a singleton, and W(T) has continuous c.d.f. with respect to P, the first condition of Theorem 8 yields the equivalence of pure and randomized hypothesis testings, i.e. Ṽ(x) = V 1 (x) = V(x). Example 4 Let us consider S as the market index, and the investor seeks to beat it with some initial capital x. This amounts to setting f(s(t)) = S(T). Furthermore, we assume that σ and θ are constant. Then, we have We divide it into two cases: Ṽ(x) = inf a 0 {xa+e[(1 asexp{ 1 2 (σ θ)2 T +(σ θ)w(t)}) + ]}. (30) 1. If σ = θ, then (30) simplifies to Ṽ(x) = inf a 0 {xa+(1 as) + } = { 1, if x > s x/s, if x < s. 11

12 2. If σ θ, then Ṽ(x) = 1 if x > s; otherwise, we have where d i are Ṽ(x) = inf a 0 {xa+φ(d 2 (a)) asφ(d 1 (a))}, = xâ+φ(d 2 (â)) âsφ(d 1 (â))}, d 1 (a) = lnas 1 2 (σ θ)2 T σ θ T Note that the infimum is reached at â which solves, d 2 (a) = lnas+ 1 2 (σ θ)2 T σ θ T E[sĤI {âsĥ<1}] = x, (31) where Ĥ = exp{ 1 2 (σ θ)2 T +(σ θ)w(t)}. Let d Q = ĤdP, then (31) implies that Q{Ĥ < 1 âs } = x s,. which is equivalent to Q{(σ θ)(w(t)+(σ θ)t) < lnâs+ 3 2 (σ θ)2 T} = x s. Since W(T)+(θ σ)t N(0,T) under Q, we find that â = d 1 3 Φ 1 (x/s) (32) where d 3 (a) = lnas+ 3 2 (σ θ)2 T σ θ T. 3.3 A Stochastic Volatility Model Let (W 1,W 2 ) be a two-dimensional standard Brownian motion on (Ω,F,P,{F u } t u T ). We consider a liquid stock whose price follows the SDE: ds(u) = S(u)σ(Y(u))(θ(u,S(u))du +dwu 1 ), (33) where θ is the Sharpe ratio function, and the stochastic factor Y follows dy(u) = b(y(u))du+c(y(u))(ρdw 1 u + 1 ρ 2 dw 2 u). (34) With initial capital x and strategy π, the wealth process satisfies dx x,π (u) = π(u)(µ(y(u)du+σ(y(u))dw 1 u). (35) 12

13 Let Λ be the collection of all F t progressively measurable process λ : (0,T) Ω R satisfying T 0 λ2 (u)du < P-a.s., and denote the set of all Radon-Nikodym densities of equivalent martingale measures by Z = { Z λ (T) : λ Λ} where { Z λ (T) = exp 1 T T } { θ 2 (u,s(u))du θ(u,s(u))dwu 1 exp 1 T T } λ 2 (u)du λ(u)dwu Under this incomplete market model, we study the following example. Example 5 Consider a terminal benchmark of F = 1 at T. Following (22), we consider the optimization problem: Ṽ(x) = supp{x(t) 1}, x 0. (36) π A We show that Ṽ(x) is non-decreasing, continuous and concave function satisfying Ṽ(x) = inf a 0 {xa+e[(1 a Z 0 (T)) + ]}. To see this, the associated randomized hypothesis testing is given by V(x) = inf a 0,λ Λ {xa+e[(1 a Z λ (T)) + ]}, which is equivalent to taking λ = 0 due to Lemma 10 in the Appendix. Also, since P{ Z 0 = a} = 0 for any (a,λ) (0, ) Λ T, we conclude that Ṽ(x) = V 1(x) = V(x) by Proposition 7 and the second condition of Theorem 8. A Appendix The following result is a generalization of [6, Exercise 2.3] and the proof of (5.3) and (5.6) in [3, p.19]. Let { Z λ (t) = exp 1 t t λ 2 (u)du λ(u)dw u }. 2 0 t Lemma 10 Suppose λ 1 and λ 2 are two progressively measurable processes satisfying T 0 λ 1(u)du T 0 λ 2(u)du almost surely in P, and ϕ : R R is convex, then E[ϕ(Z λ 1 (T))] E[ϕ(Z λ 2 (T))] Proof: Since, ( t 0 λ(u)dw u) t 0 is a local martingale, there exists a time-changed Brownian motion W λ on the same probability space (Ω,F,P) w.r.t. time-changed filtration F τ(t). In particular, if we define T i = T 0 λ2 i (u)du for i = 1 and 2, then { Z λ i (T) = exp 1 } 2 T i W λ (T i ) = d Z 1 (T i ). 13

14 Here, the second equality holds in distribution. Thus, together with the facts t E[ϕ(Z(t))] is submartingale and T 1 T 2, E[ϕ(Z λ 1 (T))] = E[ϕ(Z 1 (T 1 ))] E[ϕ(Z 1 (T 2 ))] = E[ϕ(Z λ 2 (T))]. References [1] E. Bayraktar, Y.-J. Huang, and Q. Song. Outperforming the market portfolio with a given probability. Ann. Appl. Probab., [2] J. Cvitanić. Minimizing expected loss of hedging in incomplete and constrained markets. SIAM J. Control Optim., 38(4): (electronic), [3] J. Cvitanić and I. Karatzas. Generalized Neyman-Pearson lemma via convex duality. Bernoulli, 7(1):79 97, , 4, 13 [4] H. Föllmer and P. Leukert. Quantile hedging. Finance Stoch., 3(3): , , 7, 8 [5] H. Föllmer and A. Schied. Convex measures of risk and trading constraints. Finance Stoch., 6(4): , [6] M. Jeanblanc, M. Yor, and M. Chesney. Mathematical methods for financial markets. Springer Finance. Springer-Verlag London Ltd., London, [7] R. N. Krutchenko and A. V. Melnikov. Trends in Methematics: Workshop of the Mathematical Finance Research Project, Konstaz, Germany, October 5-7, Birkhauser Verlag Basel/Switzerland, [8] S. Resnick. A probability path. Birkhäuser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, [9] B. Rudloff. Convex hedging in incomplete markets. Appl. Math. Finance, 14(5): , [10] B. Rudloff and I. Karatzas. Testing composite hypotheses via convex duality. Bernoulli, 16(4): , [11] A. Schied. On the Neyman-Pearson problem for law-invariant risk measures and robust utility functionals. Ann. Appl. Probab., 14(3): ,