arxiv: v2 [math.pr] 7 Feb 2012

Transcription

1 BSDES IN UILIY MAXIMIZAION WIH BMO MARKE PRICE OF RISK By Chrisoph Frei, Markus Mocha and Nicholas Wesray Universiy of Albera, Humbold-Universiä zu Berlin and Imperial College London arxiv:7.83v2 mah.pr 7 Feb 22 his aricle sudies quadraic semimaringale BSDEs arising in power uiliy maximizaion when he marke price of risk is of BMO ype. In a Brownian seing we provide a necessary and sufficien condiion for he exisence of a soluion bu show ha uniqueness fails o hold in he sense ha here exiss a coninuum of disinc square-inegrable soluions. his feaure occurs since, conrary o he classical Iô represenaion heorem, a represenaion of random variables in erms of sochasic exponenials is no unique. We sudy in deail when he BSDE has a bounded soluion and derive a new dynamic exponenial momens condiion which is shown o be he minimal sufficien condiion in a general filraion. he main resuls are complemened by several ineresing examples which illusrae heir sharpness as well as imporan properies of he uiliy maximizaion BSDE.. Inroducion. In his aricle we sudy quadraic semimaringale BSDEs ha arise in power uiliy maximizaion. More precisely, we consider he opimal invesmen problem over a finie ime horizon, for an agen whose goal is o maximize he expeced uiliy of erminal wealh. Such a problem is classical in mahemaical finance and daes back o Meron 23. For general uiliy funcions no necessarily power) he main soluion echnique is convex dualiy, see Karazas and Shreve 4, Kramkov and Schachermayer 7 as well as he survey aricle of Schachermayer 33 which gives an excellen overview of he ideas involved as well as many furher references. A second approach o ackling he above problem is via BSDEs, using he facorizaion propery of he value process when he uiliy funcion is of power ype. his allows one o apply he maringale opimaliy principle and, as shown in Hu, Imkeller and Müller 2, o describe he value process and opimal rading sraegy compleely via a BSDE. heir aricle can be regarded as an exension of earlier work by Rouge and El Karoui 3 as well as Sekine 34 and relies on exisence and uniqueness resuls for quadraic BSDEs firs proved in Kobylanski 6. hose exisence resuls were subsequenly exended by Morlais 26, Briand and Hu 5, 6, Delbaen, Hu and Richou 7 as well as Barrieu and El Karoui 3. In paricular, he assumpion ha he mean-variance radeoff process be bounded has been weakened o i having cerain exponenial momens, see Mocha and Wesray 24, 25. As previously saed, i is he BSDE approach o ackling he uiliy maximizaion problem which is sudied in deail in he presen paper. he key idea is o derive a BSDE whose soluion provides a candidae opimal wealh process ogeher wih a candidae opimal sraegy. hen a verificaion argumen is applied, showing ha hese are in fac opimal, see Nuz 28. his laer sep is he difficul par and ypically requires exra regulariy of he BSDE soluion which is guaraneed by he boundedness or exisence of C. Frei graefully acknowledges financial suppor by he Naural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada hrough gran Corresponding auhor: mocha@mah.hu-berlin.de We hank wo anonymous referees for very helpful commens, which enabled us o improve he paper. MSC 2 subjec classificaion: 6H, 9G8 Keywords and phrases: Quadraic BSDEs, BMO Marke Price of Risk, Power Uiliy Maximizaion, Dynamic Exponenial Momens

2 2 C. FREI, M. MOCHA AND N. WESRAY exponenial momens of he mean-variance radeoff. In paricular, when one can show he exisence of a bounded soluion, verificaion is feasible. his is due o he fac ha he maringale par of he corresponding BSDE is hen known o be a BMO maringale. Moivaed by he ease of verificaion given a bounded soluion he main aim of his paper is o quanify, in erms of assumpions on he mean-variance radeoff process, when one can expec a bounded soluion. his naural quesion jusifies he presen sudy. When he marke is coninuous as assumed in his aricle) one can wrie he meanvariance radeoff as λ M, λ M for a coninuous local maringale M and predicable M-inegrable process λ. he assumpion ha he mean-variance radeoff process be bounded or have all exponenial momens implies ha he minimal maringale measure E λ M) is a rue probabiliy measure. In paricular, he se of equivalen maringale measures is nonempy, so ha here is no arbirage in he sense of NFLVR, see Delbaen and Schachermayer 8. If he local maringale λ M is insead assumed o be only a BMO maringale hen from Kazamaki 5 he minimal maringale measure is again a rue probabiliy measure and NFLVR holds. In his case he mean-variance radeoff now need no be bounded or have all exponenial momens. A secondary objecive of his paper is o sudy wha happens o he soluion of he BSDE in his siuaion. As discussed, such a condiion on λ M arises naurally from a no-arbirage poin of view, addiionally however here is a known relaion beween boundedness of soluions o quadraic BSDEs and BMO maringales so ha his quesion is also ineresing from a mahemaical sandpoin. he presen aricle has hree main conribuions. Firsly in a Brownian seing, we show ha he BSDE admis a coninuum of disinc soluions wih square-inegrable maringale pars. his resul provides square-inegrable counerexamples o uniqueness of BSDE soluions. he spiri of our counerexamples is similar o ha of Ankirchner, Imkeller and Popier Secion 2.2 excep ha we consider BSDEs relaed o he uiliy maximizaion problem. Our resul sems from he fac ha conrary o he classical Iô represenaion formula wih square-inegrable inegrands, a muliplicaive L 2 -analogue in erms of sochasic exponenials is no unique, see Lemma 3.4. he second conribuion is a horough invesigaion of when he BSDE admis a bounded soluion. If he invesor s relaive risk aversion is greaer han one and λ M is a BMO maringale, his is auomaically saisfied. For a risk aversion smaller han one he picure is raher differen and we provide an example o show ha even when he mean-variance radeoff has all exponenial momens and he process λ M is a BMO maringale, he soluion o he uiliy maximizaion BSDE need no be bounded. Building on his example our hird and mos imporan resul is heorem 6.5, which shows how o combine he BMO and exponenial momen condiions so as o find he minimal condiion which guaranees, in a general filraion, ha he BSDE admis a bounded soluion. We hus fully characerize he boundedness of soluions o he quadraic BSDE arising in power uiliy maximizaion. We menion ha he limiing case of risk aversion equal o one, i.e. he case of logarihmic uiliy, is covered by our resuls. he paper is organized as follows. In he nex secion we esablish he link beween he uiliy maximizaion problem and BSDEs for an unbounded mean-variance radeoff. hen we analyze he quesions of exisence and uniqueness of BSDE soluions and in Secion 4 urn our aenion o he inerplay beween boundedness of soluions and he BMO propery of λ M. In Secion 5 we develop some relaed counerexamples and hen provide he characerizaion of boundedness in Secion 6. In an addiional appendix we collec some background maerial on quadraic coninuous semimaringale BSDEs.

3 BSDES WIH BMO MARKE PRICE OF RISK 3 2. Power Uiliy Maximizaion and Quadraic BSDEs. hroughou his aricle we work on a filered probabiliy space Ω, F, F ), P) saisfying he usual condiions of righ-coninuiy and compleeness. We assume ha he ime horizon is a finie number in, ) and ha F is he compleion of he rivial σ-algebra. In addiion all semimaringales are assumed o be equal o heir càdlàg modificaion. In a firs sep, we assume ha he filraion is coninuous in he sense ha all local maringales are coninuous. his condiion is relaxed in Secion 6 where we provide he main characerizaion resul for a general filraion. here is a marke consising of one bond, assumed consan, and d socks wih price process S = S,..., S d ), which we assume o have dynamics ds = DiagS ) dm + d M, M λ ), where M = M,..., M d ) is a d-dimensional coninuous local maringale wih M =, λ is a d-dimensional predicable process, he marke price of risk, saisfying λ d M, M λ < + and DiagS) denoes he d d diagonal marix whose elemens are aken from S. We consider an invesor rading in he above marke according o an admissible invesmen sraegy ν. A predicable d-dimensional process ν is called admissible if i is M-inegrable, i.e. ν d M, M ν < + a.s. and we wrie A for he family of such invesmen sraegies ν. Observe ha each componen ν i represens he proporion of wealh invesed in he ih sock S i, i =,..., d. In paricular, for some iniial capial x > and an admissible sraegy ν, he associaed wealh process X x,ν evolves as follows, a.s. X x,ν := x Eν M + ν M, M λ), where E denoes he sochasic exponenial. he family of all such wealh processes is denoed by X x). Our invesor has preferences modelled by a power uiliy funcion U, Ux) = xp, where p, ), ). p Saring wih iniial capial x >, hey aim o maximize he expeced uiliy of erminal wealh. his leads o he following primal opimizaion problem, 2.) ux) := sup E U X x,ν ). ν A Relaed o he above primal problem is a dual problem which we now describe. For y > we inroduce he se Yy) := {Y Y = y and XY is a supermaringale for all X X )}, as well as he minimizaion problem ũy) := inf E ) Ũ Y, Y Yy) p is yq where Ũ is he conjugae or dual) of U given by Ũy) = q, y >, where q := p he dual exponen o p. here is a bijecion beween p and q so ha in wha follows we ofen sae he resuls for q raher han for p.

4 4 C. FREI, M. MOCHA AND N. WESRAY I is shown in Kramkov and Schachermayer 7, 8 among ohers) ha for general uiliy funcions no necessarily power) he following assumpion is he weakes possible for well posedness of he marke model and he uiliy maximizaion problem. Assumpion 2.. i) he se M e S) of equivalen local maringale measures for S is non-empy. ii) If p >, here is an x > such ha ux) < +. Summarizing he resuls of 7 we hen have ha here exiss a sraegy ˆν A, independen of x >, which is opimal for he primal problem. In paricular, for any oher opimal sraegy ν A and x > we have ha ˆX x := X x,ˆν and X x, ν are indisinguishable. On he dual side, given y >, here exiss a Ŷ y Yy) which is opimal for he dual problem and unique up o indisinguishabiliy. Finally, he funcions u and ũ are coninuously differeniable and conjugae and if y = u x) hen Ŷ = U ˆX ) and he process ˆXŶ is a maringale on,, where we omi wriing he dependence on he iniial values. Remark 2.2. In 7 he auhors work in he addiive formulaion where sraegies represen he number of shares and wealh remains only) nonnegaive. However, for power uiliy maximizaion, he addiive formulaion and he seing here are equivalen. We refer he reader o 24 for furher deails. We also sae here a represenaion of he dual opimizer shown in 9 when S is one-dimensional and exended in 24 o he curren framework. Using he coninuiy of he filraion, here exiss a coninuous local maringale ˆN which is orhogonal o M, i.e. ˆN, M i for all i =,..., d, and such ha Ŷ = y E λ M + ˆN). Finally, we recall he BSDE saisfied by he so-called opporuniy process from 27, more precisely by is log-ransform. We sar wih he soluions ˆX and Ŷ o he above primal and dual problem when y = u x)) and derive he BSDE saisfied by he following process ) Ŷ ˆΨ := log U ˆX). he logic is now very similar o he procedure in 2, we apriori obained he exisence of he objec ˆΨ of ineres. Imposing a suiable assumpion we show ha ˆΨ lies in a cerain space in which soluions o a special ype of) quadraic semimaringale BSDE are unique. his approach of using BSDE comparison principles in uiliy maximizaion may be found in 2 and 26. We observe ha in hese references he mean-variance radeoff λ M, λ M is bounded. In wha follows we exend heir reasoning o he unbounded case under exponenial momens which was horoughly invesigaed in 24 where he corresponding assumpion is Assumpion 2.3. For all ϱ > we have ha E exp ) ϱ λ M, λ M < +, i.e., he mean-variance radeoff λ M, λ M has exponenial momens of all orders. he preceding assumpion is compaible wih Assumpion 2. in he following sense.

5 Lemma Proposiion 2.8). precisely, BSDES WIH BMO MARKE PRICE OF RISK 5 Assumpion 2.3 implies Assumpion 2., more i) he process Y λ := E λ M) is a maringale on,, hence defines an equivalen local maringale measure for S. ii) he funcion u is finie on all of, + ). For compleeness le us also include he case p =, equivalenly q =, which corresponds o he case of logarihmic uiliy, i.e. Ux) = logx) and Ũy) = logy), and for which he opimizers have a simple srucure. Namely, ˆν λ is he opimal sraegy and Ŷ E λ M) is he dual opimizer. We also have ˆX Ŷ so ha ˆΨ. We menion ha he Assumpion 2. wih iem ii) exended o p = is a sufficien condiion for exisence and uniqueness of he opimizers. In paricular, Assumpion 2.3 or he condiion ha λ M be a BMO maringale, see below, are sufficien as can be deduced easily. Before we discuss properies of he process ˆΨ we firs fix some noaion. Definiion 2.5. Le E denoe he space of all processes Υ on, whose supremum Υ := sup Υ has exponenial momens of all orders, i.e. for all ϱ >, E exp ϱυ ) < +. We hen recall from 24 ha if Assumpion 2.3 holds and if ˆX, Ŷ ) is he soluion o he primal and dual opimizaion problem, hen ˆΨ E. Wih regards o he derivaion of he BSDE saisfied by ˆΨ, we noe ha, using he formulae for ˆX and Ŷ, ˆΨ = log y E λ M + ˆN) ) ) p x E ˆν M + ˆν M, M λ). Afer he change of variables Ẑ := λ + p)ˆν a calculaion shows ha we have found a soluion ˆΨ, Ẑ, ˆN) o he following quadraic semimaringale BSDE wrien in he generic variables Ψ, Z, N)), 2.2) dψ = Z dm + dn 2 d N, N + q 2 Z + λ ) d M, M Z + λ ) 2 Z d M, M Z, Ψ =, where we refer o Definiion A. for he noion of a soluion o he BSDE 2.2). We summarize our findings in he following heorem, noing ha i is uniqueness which requires he sronger Assumpion 2.3, exisence is guaraneed via Assumpion 2.. heorem 2.6. Le Assumpion 2.3 hold and ˆX, Ŷ ) be he soluion pair o he primal/dual opimizaion problem i.e. for x > ˆX = x Eˆν M + ˆν M, M λ) and Ŷ = u x) E λ M + ˆN). Seing ˆΨ := logŷ/ U ˆX) ) and Ẑ := λ + p)ˆν, hen

6 6 C. FREI, M. MOCHA AND N. WESRAY i) he riple ˆΨ, Ẑ, ˆN) is he unique soluion Ψ, Z, N) o he BSDE 2.2) where Ψ E and Z M and N are wo square-inegrable maringales. ii) In erms of he BSDE we may wrie Ŷ as Ŷ = exp ˆΨ) U ˆX) = e ˆΨ x p E λ M + ˆN) Y c p x p ) wih c p := exp ) ˆΨ, a.s. iii) he process E q) Ẑ qλ M + ˆN ) is a maringale on,. Proof. he conen of iem i) follows from heorem A.3 in he Appendix which summarizes he main resuls on quadraic semimaringale BSDEs under an exponenial momens condiion. A calculaion yields he alernaive formula for Ŷ in iem ii) and he relaion e ˆΨ x E p q) Ẑ qλ M + ˆN ) ˆXŶ gives he remaining asserion in iem iii). he saemen of he above heorem is essenially known. In 2 and 26 he boundedness of he mean-variance radeoff is used o ensure uniqueness, in 24 his argumen is exended o he unbounded case wih exponenial momens. Building on 2, 22, he aricle 28 shows ha in a general seing he opporuniy process exp ˆΨ) saisfies a BSDE which reduces o 2.2) under he addiional assumpion of coninuiy of he filraion. In paricular, exp ˆΨ) is idenified here as he minimal soluion o he corresponding BSDE. Having idenified candidae opimizers from he BSDE, a difficul ask is hen verificaion, i.e. showing ha a soluion o he BSDE indeed provides he primal and dual ) opimizers. A sufficien condiion is ha E q)z qλ M + N is a maringale as can be derived from 28, see also Proposiion 3. below. However, given a soluion Ψ, Z, N) o he BSDE 2.2), his condiion need no be saisfied, hence a soluion o he BSDE 2.2) need no yield he opimizers even when Z and N are square-inegrable, as demonsraed in Subsecion 3.2. In conclusion, if a soluion riple Ψ, Z, N) exiss, hen under some condiions i provides he soluion ˆX, Ŷ ) o he primal and dual problem and we have uniqueness o he BSDE wihin a cerain class. his is in he spiri of 22 heorem.3.2 and 28 heorem 5.2. However, above and in heir heorems, he requiremens imposed are no on he model. In conras, our goal is o sudy which condiions on he model, i.e. on λ and M, ensure such a BSDE characerizaion and he regulariy of is soluion in erms of a bounded dynamic value process. 3. Exisence, Uniqueness and Opimaliy for Quadraic BSDEs. From heorem 2.6 we see ha under Assumpion 2.3 one can connec he dualiy and BSDE approaches o solving he uiliy maximizaion problem. o analyze his connecion in furher deail, we consider in he presen secion a seing where he BSDE 2.2) is explicily solvable. Proposiion 3. gives a sufficien condiion for a soluion o he BSDE 2.2) o exis and provides an expression for ˆΨ in erms of E λ M). We go on o sudy uniqueness and show in heorem 3.6 ha in general here are many soluions wih square-inegrable maringale par. his is a consequence of he fac ha a muliplicaive represenaion of random variables as sochasic exponenials need no be unique, which is he conen of Lemma 3.4. Finally, a main aim in he presen aricle is o sudy he boundedness of soluions o he BSDE 2.2) under he

7 BSDES WIH BMO MARKE PRICE OF RISK 7 exponenial momen and BMO condiions. his involves consrucing counerexamples and some of he key echniques and ideas used for his are inroduced in he curren secion. herefore we resric ourselves o he Brownian seing, which we assume o be one-dimensional for noaional simpliciy. Le W be a one-dimensional Brownian moion under P and F ), is augmened naural filraion. In paricular, N is he unique local maringale orhogonal o M = W. A generalizaion of he following resuls o he mulidimensional Brownian framework is lef o he reader. 3.. Necessary Condiions for he Exisence of Soluions o Quadraic BSDEs. Proposiion 3.. For q, ) he BSDE 2.2) always admis a soluion. For q < he BSDE 2.2) admis a soluion if and only if Y ) λ q 3.) E = E E λ W ) q < +. If here exiss a soluion, here is a unique soluion ˆΨ, Ẑ) wih E q)ẑ qλ W ) a maringale. Is firs componen is given by 3.2) ˆΨ = E q log E λ W ) q ), F,,, a.s. In paricular, solving 2.2) and seing X, Y ) as suggesed by heorem 2.6 gives he pair of primal and dual opimizers. As a resul, condiion 3.) is sufficien for exisence and uniqueness of he opimizers and we menion ha i corresponds o condiion ) in 7. Hence, he uiliy maximizaion problem is well-defined even if NFLVR no free lunch wih vanishing risk) does no hold. his is because FLVR sraegies canno be used beneficially by he CRRAinvesor due o he requiremen of having a posiive wealh a any ime. Proof. Le us firs show ha he BSDE 2.2) admis a soluion if 3.) holds. Observe ha from Jensen s inequaliy, for q, ), E E λ W ) q E E λ W ) q, so ha 3.) auomaically holds in his case. For, consider qq ) 3.3) M := E E qλ W ) exp λ 2 s ds) 2 F. Since we have E E qλ W ) exp qq ) 2 λ 2 s ds ) = E E λ W ) q < +, M is a posiive maringale so ha by Iô s represenaion heorem here exiss a predicable process Z wih Z2 d < + a.s. such ha M Z W. We se M Ẑ := Z + qλ q

8 8 C. FREI, M. MOCHA AND N. WESRAY and ˆΨ as in 3.2). A calculaion hen shows ha ˆΨ, Ẑ) solves he BSDE 2.2) wih E q)ẑ qλ W ) E Z W ) M a maringale. M We now urn our aenion o uniqueness. Le us assume ha Ψ, Z) is a soluion o 2.2) such ha E q)z qλ W ) is a maringale. For, a calculaion gives exp ) 3.4) q)ψ = exp q)ψ Ψ ) ) so ha we obain = E q)z qλ W ), E λ W ) q, Ψ = E q log E λ W ) q ), F We derive ha Ψ and ˆΨ are indisinguishable due o coninuiy. From 3.4) we hen obain ha E q)z qλ W ) is uniquely deermined, from which i follows ha Ẑ W Z W. Finally, we show ha he condiion 3.) is also necessary. Assume ha a soluion Ψ, Z) o 2.2) exiss bu E E λ W ) q = +. hen, ogeher wih he supermaringale propery of E q)z qλ W ), he equaliy 3.4) shows ha a.s. a.s. exp ) q)ψ E E q)z qλ W ) exp ) q)ψ = E E λ W ) q = +, from which Ψ = + a.s. in conradicion o he exisence of Ψ. We now provide an explici marke price of risk for which condiion 3.) fails o hold, hence for which he BSDE 2.2) has no soluion. While similar examples have been provided in Delbaen and ang 9 heorem 2.8 as well as Frei and dos Reis Lemma A., we give he full consrucion as i will be used hroughou. Proposiion 3.2. maringale and E Y λ Proof. For, define a.s. ) For every q < here exiss λ such ha λ W is a bounded q = E E λ W ) q = +. λ := π 2 q ) /2,, ), where is he sopping ime { := inf > 2 /2 } dw s. s Here, we define λ from ime /2 onwards o be consisen wih he consrucion in Subsecion 5.3. For he presen proof, we could equally well replace /2 by in he definiions of λ and. Observe ha we have ha P/2 < < ) = due o coninuiy and he relaion dw /2 dw, /2 = /2 d = +.

9 BSDES WIH BMO MARKE PRICE OF RISK 9 π By consrucion, λ W is bounded by 2. We obain, using 5 Lemma.3 similarly q o he proof of Lemma A., E E λ W ) q = E exp qλ W ) q ) λ 2 d 2 e π ) q 2 E exp = +, from which he saemen follows immediaely. π 2 8 /2 d Le us make wo poins concerning he above example, firsly ha when q, ) such a degeneracy canno occur, as shown by Proposiion 3.. In fac for a BMO maringale λ W here acually always exiss a hen unique) bounded soluion, as Corollary 4.2 below shows. We recall from 5 ha a coninuous maringale M on he compac inerval, wih M = is a BMO maringale if M M BMO2 := sup E ) 2 /2 L M F < +, where he supremum is over all sopping imes valued in,. Secondly we poin ou ha he maringale in he above proposiion is bounded. Indeed, i is a leimoiv of he presen aricle ha requiring in addiion) he maringale λ M o be bounded does no improve he siuaion wih respec o finieness of a BSDE soluion. his is because he key esimaes are all on he quadraic variaion process λ M, λ M which in general does no inheri such properies. Remark 3.3. As described in he inroducion, he assumpion ha λ M is a BMO maringale is naural from a no-arbirage perspecive. We now give an addiional financial inerpreaion of he BMO condiion. Suppose for simpliciy ha S is a geomeric Brownian moion of he form ds = S σ dw + µ d), so ha λ = µ/σ 2 and λ M, λ M = µ 2 d. he Sharpe raio, defined as µ/σ, σ 2 measures he reurn per uni of risk. A BMO condiion on λ M requires ha he condiional expeced inegral of he squared Sharpe raio E µ 2 σ 2 d F be bounded, which implies a resricion on he asse no offering huge reurns wih iny risk. Developing his idea furher, consider an invesmen sraegy π which in his remark represens he amoun, no, as elsewhere, he proporion, of wealh invesed in S. We assume ha E λ M, λ M < + and ha π is predicable and saisfies E π M, π M < +. From he sock dynamics ds = DiagS ) dm + d M, M λ ), i follows ha he expeced gain or loss) relaed o π is given by d E i= π i S i ds i = E π dm + E π d M, M λ = E π d M, M λ.

10 C. FREI, M. MOCHA AND N. WESRAY Using 29 heorem IV.54, we deduce ha λ M is a BMO maringale if and only if here exiss a consan c such ha d 3.5) E π i ds i c E π M, π M /2 =: c π M H i= for all π wih E π M, π M < +. Using S i d π i i= S i ds i, d π i i= S i ds i = π M, π M, we can view π M H as a measure of risk in our porfolio. We see from 3.5) ha he assumpion of λ M being a BMO maringale means ha porfolios wih bounded risk in his H -sense) always have bounded expeced gains. Conversely, if he expeced gains are bounded in erms of such risk uniformly over all invesmen sraegies, hen λ M needs o be a BMO maringale Nonopimaliy of BSDE Soluions. If a soluion o he BSDE 2.2) does exis, i does no auomaically lead o an opimal pair for he uiliy maximizaion problem. his is because i may fail o be in he righ space e.g. wih respec o which uniqueness for BSDE soluions holds). We now provide a heoreical resul o illusrae he problem. More precisely, in conras o he classical Iô represenaion heorem wih square-inegrable inegrands, an analogous represenaion of random variables in erms of sochasic exponenials is no unique. Lemma 3.4. Le ξ be a random variable bounded away from zero and infiniy, i.e. here are consans L, l > such ha l ξ L a.s. hen, for every real number c Eξ, here exiss a predicable process α c such ha 3.6) ξ = c Eα c W ), E α c 2 d < +. However, here is only one pair c, α) which saisfies ξ = c Eα W ) wih α W a BMO maringale or, equivalenly, wih c = Eξ. Remark 3.5. Comparing he muliplicaive represenaion 3.6) wih he classical one, see 3 heorem 4.5, namely ξ = k + β W ), E β 2 d < +, we see ha exisence holds in boh cases, whereas here is no uniqueness of c, α c ) in 3.6) despie he fac ha E αc 2 d < +, in conras o he uniqueness of k, β). While in he sandard Iô represenaion for L 2 -random variables he square-inegrabiliy and maringale propery are equivalen, our resul shows ha in he muliplicaive form E αc 2 d < + does no guaranee uniqueness. he inuiion for he difference beween β in he addiive and α c in he muliplicaive form is he following. Since β is a square-inegrable process, β W is a maringale, hence i mus be he case ha k = Eξ. In conras, he square-inegrabiliy of α c is no sufficien for Eα c W ) o be a

11 BSDES WIH BMO MARKE PRICE OF RISK maringale. Indeed, i can be ha EEα c W ) < so ha increasing c Eξ may be offse by an appropriae choice of α c such ha 3.6) sill holds. A consequence of his is ha uniqueness of ξ = c Eα W ) holds if α W is a BMO maringale or equivalenly see 5 heorem 3.4, using he boundedness of ξ) if Eα W ) is a maringale. One could argue ha a more naural condiion in 3.6) is o assume ha Eα c W ) be a rue maringale, however our aim is a characerizaion in erms of α c W iself and hus we do no pursue his. Noe ha i is no possible o find c < Eξ such ha 3.6) holds, because Eα c W ) is always a posiive local maringale, hence a supermaringale. Proof. We firs define M := Eξ F,,, and apply Iô s represenaion heorem o he sochasic logarihm of M, which is a BMO maringale by 5 heorem 3.4 since M is bounded away from zero and infiniy. his applicaion yields a predicable process α such ha α W is a BMO maringale and ξ = Eξ Eα W ). he uniqueness par of he saemen is hen immediae; if α W is a BMO maringale, we have c = Eξ and α W α W since Eα W ) is a maringale. Conversely, if c = Eξ he process Eα W ) is a supermaringale wih consan expecaion, hence a maringale. Indeed, we hen have Eα W ) EEα W ) F. Eξ Eξ F. EEα W ) F. Eα W ) and hus α W α W, which is he BMO maringale from above. o consruc α c we fix c Eξ and define he sopping ime { c := inf s dw s 2 ) + log M }. c We argue ha c < a.s. o his end consider { c := inf s dw s 2 ) + log l } c and observe ha c c. If we define he ime change ρ :,, + by ρ) :=, hen i follows from 3 II.3.4. ha ) ) 3.7) E exp 8 ρ c) = exp 2 log l ) = c/2 < +. c l/2 We deduce ha Eρ c ) < +, ρ c ) < + a.s. and c < a.s. from which i follows ha indeed c < a.s. We now define α c :=, c, ) + α c,, ), which saisfies c Eα c W ) = c M Eα c W ) c = c M M c M c M c c = M = ξ, where he second equaliy is due o he specific definiion of he sopping ime c. Moreover, we have c E α c 2 d E ) 2 d + E α 2 d = Eρ c ) + E α 2 d, which is finie because Eρ c ) Eρ c ) < + and α W is a BMO maringale.

12 2 C. FREI, M. MOCHA AND N. WESRAY he sandard mehod of finding soluions o quadraic BSDEs involves an exponenial change of variables. A consequence of he preceding lemma is ha he above ype of nonuniqueness ransfers o he corresponding BSDE soluions, in paricular o hose of he uiliy maximizaion problem. Observe ha for each c he process α c W is squareinegrable in conras o classical locally inegrable counerexamples. Indeed i is well known ha wihou square-inegrabiliy even he sandard Iô decomposiion is no unique. In fac, for every k R here exiss β k such ha ξ = k + β k W ), β k 2 d < + see Proposiion. We are hence able o consruc disinc soluions o he BSDE 2.2). his amouns o some of hose soluions being nonopimal by Proposiion 3.. Alernaively, uniqueness of he muliplicaive decomposiion ξ = c Eα W ) holds under an addiional BMO assumpion which hen implies he uniqueness of ˆΨ. We summarize hese commens in he following heorem. heorem 3.6. For all p, ) and λ wih λ2 d bounded, here exiss a coninuum of disinc soluions Ψ b, Z b, N b ) o he BSDE 2.2), parameerized by b, saisfying he following properies: i) he maringale par Z b W is square-inegrable for all b. ii) he process E q)z b qλ ) W is a maringale if and only if b =. iii) Defining ν b as suggesed by he formula in heorem 2.6, he admissible process ν b is he opimal sraegy if and only if b =. I is known from Secion 2.2 ha quadraic BSDEs need no have unique squareinegrable soluions. hese auhors presen a specific example of a quadraic BSDE which allows for disinc soluions wih square-inegrable maringale par. In conras, heorem 3.6 shows ha every BSDE relaed o power uiliy maximizaion wih bounded mean-variance radeoff has no unique square-inegrable soluion, independenly of he value of p. his underlines he imporance of being able o find a soluion o he BSDE 2.2) wih Z W a BMO maringale in 2 and 26. Proof. We se ξ := exp qq ) 2 λ2 d a.s. ) and define he measure change d P dp := E qλ W ), so ha P is an equivalen probabiliy measure under which W is a Brownian moion on, where W := W + q λ s ds. Observe ha his measure change is implicily already presen in he proof of Proposiion 3., see 3.3). We now apply Lemma 3.4 o he riple W ), P, F ), noing ha in is proof we may use Iô s represenaion heorem in he form of 4 heorem.6.7, i.e. we can wrie any P-maringale as a sochasic inegral wih respec o W, alhough W may no generae he whole filraion F ),. For every real number c E Pξ we hen derive he exisence of a predicable process α c such ha ξ = c Eα c W ), α c 2 d < +. E P

13 For, we hen se Ψ c := logc) + so ha Ψ c solves he BSDE BSDES WIH BMO MARKE PRICE OF RISK 3 α c s d W s 2 d Ψ c = α c d W 2 αc 2 d α c s 2 ds qq ) 2 qq ) 2 λ 2 d, Ψc =. λ 2 s ds, Using he ransformaions b := c E Pξ, Ψ c =: q)ψ b and α c =: q)z b we arrive a he BSDE 2.2), dψ b = Z b dw + q 2 Zb + λ ) 2 d 2 Z b ) 2 d, Ψ b =, which admis a coninuum of disinc soluions, parameerized by b. We show ha each maringale par is addiionally square-inegrable under P. his follows from he inequaliy E α c 2 d Eqλ E P W /2 2 /2 ) 2 E P α d) c 2. Noe ha he second erm on he righ hand side is finie since from 3.7) in he proof of Lemma 3.4 we have ha E P ρ c ) 2 < +. Moreover, using α from his proof, α W is a BMO maringale under P), hence α 2 d has an exponenial P-momen of some order by 5 heorem 2.2, see also Lemma 6. and he commens hereafer. o derive ha he firs erm is finie we use ha E P Eqλ W ) 2 E P /2 exp 6q 2 λ 2 d) < +. Clearly, he Assumpion 2.3 is saisfied, hence our previous analysis applies. However, here is a coninuum of disinc soluions Ψ b, Z b ) o he BSDE 2.2) since for every b = c E Pξ we have ha Ψ b = logc) q. From 5 heorem 3.6 we have ha αc W is a BMO maringale under P if and only if α c W is a BMO maringale under P. his las condiion holds if and only if Z b W is a BMO maringale under P. We conclude ha E q)z b qλ W ) is a maringale if b =. I canno be a maringale for b > since oherwise Ψ b, Z b ) would coincide wih ˆΨ, Ẑ) Ψ, Z ). he las asserion is hen immediae. 4. Boundedness of BSDE Soluions and he BMO Propery. hus far we have worked under an exponenial momens assumpion on he mean-variance radeoff which provides us wih he exisence of he primal and dual opimizers as well as a link beween hese opimizers and a special quadraic BSDE. We now connec he above sudy o he boundedness of soluions o quadraic BSDEs which we show o be inimaely relaed o he BMO propery of he maringale par and he mean-variance radeoff. For q, ) and under he assumpion ha λ M is a BMO maringale, we show ha he BSDE 2.2) has a bounded soluion. his follows as a consequence of exisence

14 4 C. FREI, M. MOCHA AND N. WESRAY resuls and a priori esimaes for a general class of BSDEs as described below. We consider he BSDE 4.) dψ = Z dm + dn F, Ψ, Z ) da 2 d N, N, Ψ = ξ, where, as in he appendix, A is a nondecreasing bounded process such ha M, M = B B A for a predicable process B valued in he space of d d marices. We assume ha ξ is a bounded random variable and ha he driver F is coninuous in ψ, z) and saisfies 4.2) δ 2 B z 2 B κ 2 F, ψ, z) ϕ ψ ) + γ 2 B z 2 + B η 2, ψ F, ψ, z) F,, z) ) β ψ 2 ; β, δ, γ are consans, ϕ is a deerminisic coninuous nondecreasing funcion wih ϕ) =, and κ, η are processes such ha κ M, η M are BMO maringales. If β, we addiionally assume ha here exiss a consan c A such ha A c A for all,, and we se β = c A β. For he noion of soluion o 4.), see Appendix A. heorem 4.. i) If δ = and η saisfies η M 2 e β BMO 2 < max{,γ}, hen he BSDE 4.) has a soluion wih bounded firs componen. ii) Assume ϕ and ha Ψ, Z, N) is a soluion o 4.). hen Ψ is bounded if and only if boh Z M and N are BMO maringales. iii) Suppose ϕ, δ = and ha η saisfies η M 2 e β BMO 2 < max{,γ}. hen here exiss a soluion Ψ, Z, N) wih bounded Ψ and BMO maringales Z M and N. Proof. i) Using he assumpion δ =, we can argue similarly o he proof of 7 heorem 2.. ha proof is given in a Brownian seing bu ranslaes correspondingly o our semimaringale model similarly o 25. Wih γ := max{, γ} and based on 4.2), his yields he exisence of a soluion Ψ, Z, N) saisfying Ψ γ log E exp γe )β ξ + + γ Ψ E ξ B s κ s 2 da s F. e s )β B s η s 2 da s ) F, Since ξ L and κ M is a BMO maringale, he laer inequaliy shows ha Ψ is bounded from below. From he former inequaliy, we obain Ψ e β ξ L + γ ) log E exp γe β B s η s 2 da s F e β ξ L γ log γe β η M 2 ) BMO 2 by he John-Nirenberg inequaliy; see Lemma 6.. his shows ha Ψ is bounded from above due o he assumpions ξ L and η M 2 e β BMO 2 < max{,γ}. Hence, Ψ is bounded, which concludes he proof of i).

15 BSDES WIH BMO MARKE PRICE OF RISK 5 For ii), le firs Ψ, Z, N) be a soluion o 4.) wih bounded Ψ. he BMO properies of Z M and N follow from 2 Proposiion 7, using ha 4.2) wih ϕ implies F, ψ, z) γ + δ 2 B z 2 + B η 2 + B κ 2. Conversely, if Z M and N are BMO maringales, hen Ψ is bounded. his follows by aking he condiional -expecaion in he inegraed version of 4.) and esimaing he remaining finie variaion pars wih he help of he BMO 2 norms of κ M, η M, Z M and N, uniformly in. Finally, he saemen iii) is an immediae consequence of he iems i) and ii). Le us now apply his resul o he specific BSDE 2.2) relaed o power uiliy maximizaion. Corollary 4.2. Assume ha q, ) and ha λ M is a BMO maringale. hen he BSDE 2.2) has a soluion wih bounded firs componen. In paricular, seing X, Y ) as suggesed by heorem 2.6 gives he pair of primal and dual opimizers. Proof. By Appendix A, he BSDE 2.2) is of he form 4.) wih he driver given by F, z) = q 2 z + λ ) B B z + λ ) + 2 z B B z. Using q, ), we can show by an elemenary calculaion ha q 2 q) B λ 2 F, z) 2 B z 2 so ha 4.2) is saisfied. hus we can apply heorem 4. iii) o obain ha here exiss a soluion riple Ψ, Z, N) such ha he process Z M + N is a BMO maringale. We derive ha q)z qλ M + N is a BMO maringale which, by 5 heorem 2.3, shows ha E q)z qλ M + N ) is a rue maringale. We hen deduce ha solving he BSDE wih a bounded Ψ gives rise o an opimal pair for he primal and dual problem. Remark 4.3. Insead of applying heorem 4., which holds for a more general class of BSDEs, Corollary 4.2 can also be shown as follows using specific resuls relaed o power uiliy maximizaion. Since λ M is a BMO maringale, Y λ := E λ M) defines an equivalen local maringale measure for S so ha Assumpion 2. is saisfied, where we use an easy calculaion o exend is iem ii) o p =. By 5 Corollary 3.4, if q, ), he process Y λ Y) saisfies he reverse Hölder inequaliy. his means ha here is consan c rh,p > which depends on p = q q ) such ha for all sopping imes valued in,, E Y λ / ) q Y λ F c rh,p he asserion of Corollary 4.2 hen follows from 27 Proposiion 4.5 and from he explici formula ˆΨ ha holds in he case q =. Proposiion 3. shows ha in a Brownian framework he BSDE 2.2) always admis a soluion if q, ). In view of Corollary 4.2 his propery exends o he general framework under he condiion ha λ M is a BMO maringale. In paricular, here

16 6 C. FREI, M. MOCHA AND N. WESRAY is a unique bounded soluion and i is given by he opporuniy process for he uiliy maximizaion problem. Le us now conras his wih he siuaion when q <. he example in Subsecion 3. provides a bounded BMO maringale λ M such ha he corresponding BSDE admis no soluion. For his example he uiliy maximizaion problem saisfies u) = + and is hus degenerae Ψ + ). he quesion now becomes wheher, given an arbirary λ such ha λ M is a BMO maringale and q <, we can sill guaranee a bounded soluion Ψ o he BSDE 2.2) when he uiliy maximizaion problem is nondegenerae. We sele his quesion negaively in he nex secion providing an example for which Assumpion 2.3 as well as he BMO propery of λ M hold, bu he BSDE 2.2) does no have a bounded soluion. o counerbalance his negaive resul in Secion 6 we provide, via he John-Nirenberg inequaliy, a condiion on he order of he dynamic exponenial momens of he meanvariance radeoff ha guaranees boundedness of ˆΨ. his is accompanied by a furher example showing ha his condiion canno be improved. o conclude, Corollary 4.2 and heorem 6.5 provide a full characerizaion of he boundedness of soluions o he BSDE 2.2) in erms of he dynamic exponenial momens of λ M, λ M for a BMO maringale λ M. 5. Counerexamples o he Boundedness of BSDE Soluions. We know ha an opimal pair for he uiliy maximizaion problem gives rise o a riple ˆΨ, Ẑ, ˆN) solving he BSDE 2.2). Conversely, under suiable condiions, BSDE heory, based on 6, 6 or he resuls saed in he appendix, provides soluions o he BSDE wih ˆΨ bounded in E), wih uniqueness in he class of bounded processes in E). We now presen an example of a BMO maringale λ M which saisfies Assumpion 2.3 and for which he BSDE 2.2) relaed o he uiliy maximizaion problem has an unbounded soluion for a given p. We develop his example in hree seps. Firsly, we show ha Assumpion 2.3 alone raher unsurprisingly) is no sufficien o guaranee a bounded BSDE soluion. he corresponding λ M involved is however no a BMO maringale. he second example is of BMO ype, bu lacks finie exponenial momens of a sufficienly high order. I resembles he example provided in Subsecion 3.. Finally, we combine hese wo examples o consruc a BMO maringale λ M such ha λ M, λ M has all exponenial momens, bu for which he BSDE does no allow for a bounded soluion. Alhough his las sep leaves he firs wo obsolee, we believe ha he oulined presenaion helps he reader in gaining insigh ino he naure of he degeneracy. In addiion i hins a he minimal sufficien condiion in heorem 6.5 below. Namely, insead of simply requiring boh he BMO and he exponenial momens properies, hey should be combined ino a dynamic condiion. While here is no reason o have a bounded soluion if one requires only he BMO and he exponenial momens properies, e.g. see he a priori esimae for general BSDEs in 25 Proposiion 3., consrucing counerexamples appears o be nonrivial and similar ideas will be used o show sharpness of he dynamic condiion in Secion 6. Since in he presen secion we consruc suiable counerexamples, le M = W be again a one-dimensional P-Brownian moion in is augmened naural filraion. 5.. Unbounded Soluions under All Exponenial Momens. Le us assume he marke price of risk is given by λ := sgnw ) W so ha he sock price dynamics read as follows, ds = dw sgnw ) W d. S

17 BSDES WIH BMO MARKE PRICE OF RISK 7 Noe ha in he above definiion sgn is moivaed by economic raionale, o simulae a cerain revering behaviour of he reurns. Assumpion 2.3 is saisfied since λ 2 d M, M = and by Doob s inequaliy, for ϱ >, ) E exp ϱ sup W = E 2 sup W d sup W expϱ W ) ) ϱ ϱ e ϱ2 /2 < +. ϱ ) ϱ ϱ Eexpϱ W ) ϱ Now le p, ) so ha q < and le ˆX, Ŷ ) be he opimizers of he uiliy maximizaion problem, where ˆX = x > and Ŷ = y := u x). Since we are in a complee Brownian framework we have ha Ŷ = y EsgnW ) W W ). If ˆν denoes he opimal invesmen sraegy we derive from heorem 2.6 ha ˆΨ, Ẑ, ) is he unique soluion o he BSDE 2.2) where ˆΨ := logŷ/ U ˆX)) E and Ẑ := sgnw ) W + p)ˆν. According o 27 Proposiion 4.5 ˆΨ is bounded if and only if Ŷ saisfies he reverse Hölder inequaliy ) q 5.) E Ŷ /Ŷ F c rh,p for some posiive consan c rh,p and all sopping imes valued in,, which we show is no he case. he family { W, } is uniformly inegrable since E W 2 =, so we may apply he sochasic Fubini heorem 4 Lemma A.) o ge, for some, ), via Jensen s inequaliy, ) q E Ŷ /Ŷ F = E exp q sgnw s ) W s dw s q W s ds) 2 F exp E q sgnw s ) W s dw s q ) W s ds 2 F = exp q2 ) E W s ds F = exp q E W s ) F ds 2 exp q ) ) q ) W ds = exp W. 2 2 Since he las random variable is unbounded i canno be he case ha 5.) holds, hence ˆΨ canno be bounded. However, λ W from his example is no a BMO maringale since for, ), E W s ds F = which shows ha λ M BMO2 canno be finie. E W s F ds ) W,

18 8 C. FREI, M. MOCHA AND N. WESRAY 5.2. Unbounded Soluions under he BMO Propery. We coninue wih a BMO example for which he soluion o he BSDE 2.2) is unbounded. he idea is he following, from Proposiion 3.2, for q <, here exiss λ wih λ W a BMO maringale such ha he BSDE 2.2) has no soluion in any class of possible soluions). Replacing his λ by c λ for a consan c, i follows from 6.9) below ha he BSDE has eiher no soluion for c ) or has a soluion which is bounded and fulfills a BMO propery for c < ). his dichoomy is in line wih he fac ha for a BMO maringale M he se of all q < such ha EM) saisfies he reverse Hölder inequaliy R q is open; compare Lemma 6.3 below. he insigh hen is o make c a random variable in order o consruc λ such ha he BSDE 2.2) has a soluion which is no bounded. More precisely, we have he following resul. Proposiion 5.. such ha, For every q < here exiss a λ wih λ W a BMO maringale i) he BSDE 2.2) has a unique soluion ˆΨ, Ẑ, ˆN ) wih E q)ẑ qλ W ) a maringale. In paricular, solving 2.2) and seing X, Y ) as suggesed by heorem 2.6 gives he pair of primal and dual opimizers. ii) here does no exis a soluion Ψ, Z) o 2.2) wih Z W a BMO maringale or Ψ bounded. Proof. For, we se λ := πα 2 q ) /2,, ), where α := 2 ) Φ π arccos 2/ W/2 for Φ he sandard normal cumulaive disribuion funcion and he sopping ime from he proof of Proposiion 3.2, { 5.2) := inf > } dw s. 2 s /2 Noe ha Φ ) 2/ W /2 is uniformly disribued on, and ha α is valued in, ) π a.s. I follows immediaely ha λ W is bounded by 2, in paricular i is a BMO q maringale. Using 5 Lemma.3 in he same way as in he proof of Lemma A., we obain ha E E λ W ) q e π q 2 E = e π q 2 E π 2 α 2 exp 8 /2 Φ ) 2/ W /2 ) d = e π q 2 E = 2e π q 2 < +, cos πα/2 ) so ha Proposiion 3. gives he firs asserion. Due o he F /2 -measurabiliy of α and

19 he F /2 -independence of, we have BSDES WIH BMO MARKE PRICE OF RISK 9 exp q) ˆΨ ) π q π 2 α 2 /2 e 2 E exp 8 = e π q π 2 x 2 2 E exp 8 /2 /2 ) d F /2 ) d = x=α e π q 2 cosπα/2). his shows ha q) ˆΨ /2 π q 2 )) Φ 2 log 2/ W/2, which is unbounded by he uniform disribuion of Φ ) 2/ W /2. For iem ii) assume ha here exiss a soluion Ψ, Z) o 2.2) wih Z W a BMO maringale or Ψ bounded. By heorem 4.ii) we can resric ourselves o assuming ha Ψ is bounded, which implies ha Z W is a BMO maringale so ha E q)z qλ W ) is a maringale. By uniqueness, Ψ, Z) coincides wih ˆΨ, Ẑ) in conradicion o he unboundedness of ˆΨ Unbounded Soluions under All Exponenial Momens and he BMO Propery. he wo previous subsecions raise he quesion wheher we can find a BMO maringale λ M such ha is quadraic variaion has all exponenial momens and he BSDE 2.2) has only an unbounded soluion. Roughly speaking, he idea is o combine he above wo examples by ranslaing he crucial disribuional properies of W and α ino he corresponding properies of a suiable sopping ime σ. his guaranees ha he BMO propery and he exponenial momens condiion are saisfied simulaneously, while we can also achieve he unboundedness of he BSDE soluion by using independence. able summarizes he key properies. Form of λ 2 Firs example see 5.) W Second example see 5.2) π 2 α 2 4 q) Combinaion π 2 4 q) /2,, ) /2, σ, ) Crucial properies W is unbounded, has all exponenial momens α 2, ), Pα 2 ϱ) > ϱ <, E /cosαπ/2) < + σ /2,, Pσ ϱ) > ϱ <, d has all exponenial momens σ able Comparison of he BSDE examples from Secion 5 heorem 5.2. For every q <, here exiss a λ such ha, i) he process λ W is a BMO maringale. ii) For all ϱ > we have E exp ϱ λ2 d ) < +. iii) he BSDE 2.2) has a unique soluion ˆΨ, Ẑ, ˆN ) wih E q)ẑ qλ W ) a maringale. In paricular, solving 2.2) and seing X, Y ) as suggesed by heorem 2.6 gives he pair of primal and dual opimizer. iv) here does no exis a soluion Ψ, Z) o 2.2) wih Z W a BMO maringale or Ψ bounded.

20 2 C. FREI, M. MOCHA AND N. WESRAY Proof. Le us firs consruc σ wih he desired disribuional properies. We define he nonnegaive coninuous funcion f : /2, R, fs) := c e s, where c > is a consan such ha /2 fs) ds =. We hen consider he sricly increasing funcion F : /2,,, F s) := s /2 fu) du and is inverse F :, /2,. We se σ := F Φ ) 2/ W/2 ), so ha σ is an F /2 -measurable random variable wih values in /2, and cumulaive disribuion funcion F. Now define for,, λ := π 2 q ) /2, σ, ), where is he sopping ime from 5.2). I follows immediaely ha λ W is bounded by, hence a BMO maringale. π 2 q Le us now show ha λ2 d has all exponenial momens. ake ϱ > and ϱ 2 an ineger. We derive π 2 ϱ 4 q) E exp ϱ ) ) σ λ 2 d E exp ϱ /2 d = E exp ϱ log/2) log σ) ) = /2) ϱ E σ) ϱ ) ϱ + = c /2) ϱ e s ds = /2) ϱ u ϱ 2 c e u du s /2 ϱ 2 = c /2) ϱ ϱ 2)! e 2/ k= 2/ ) k k! < +, where in he las equaliy we used he represenaion of he incomplee gamma funcion a ineger poins or, direcly, inegraion by pars). A sandard argumen hen shows ha E E λ W ) q < +, see he proof of heorem 6.5i) below. I follows from he Proposiion 3. ha here exiss a unique soluion ˆΨ, Ẑ) o he BSDE 2.2) such ha E q)ẑ qλ W ) is a maringale and he firs componen is given by We deduce ha a.s. ˆΨ = E q log E λ W ) q ), F,,, a.s. exp q) ˆΨ ) π q /2 e 2 E exp = e π q 2 E exp π 2 8 π 2 8 σ /2 s /2 ) d ) d 2/ F /2 because σ is F /2 -measurable and is independen from F /2. From monoone convergence, i follows ha π 2 ) s 5.3) lim E exp s 8 /2 d π 2 ) = E exp 8 /2 d = +. s=σ

21 BSDES WIH BMO MARKE PRICE OF RISK 2 We now fix K > and ake s /2, ) such ha π 2 ) s E exp 8 d e q)k+ π q 2 for all s s, ), /2 which is possible by 5.3). his implies P ˆΨ /2 K) Pσ s ) = F s ) > since s <, in paricular ˆΨ is unbounded. he las iem hen follows as in he previous proof. Remark 5.3. I is ineresing o compare, for differen consans c R, he above differen definiions of λ regarding he behaviour of he soluion o he BSDE 5.4) dψ = Z dw + q 2 Z + cλ ) 2 d 2 Z2 d, Ψ =. In he example of Proposiion 3.2 λ 2 is of he form π2 4 q) /2,, ), while in Subsecion 5.2 λ 2 equals π2 α 2 4 q) /2,, ), which we modified o π2 4 q) /2, σ, ) in he above discussion. able 2 shows ha by inroducing addiional random variables in he consrucion of λ, he BSDE 5.4) becomes solvable for bigger values of c, bu he soluion for c is unbounded. he asserions of able 2 can be deduced from he argumens in he above proofs ogeher wih he addiional calculaion given in 6.) below. Example from 3. Form of λ 2 up o ) π2 4 q) Soluion o he BSDE 5.4) c, ) c = c > /2,, ) bounded no soluion Example from 5.2 α 2 /2,, ) bounded unbounded no soluion Example from 5.3 /2, σ, ) bounded unbounded able 2 Descripion of soluions o he BSDE 5.4) Remark 5.4. In he Subsecions 3., 5.2 and above we consruced several counerexamples o he boundedness of BSDE soluions. Such examples can also be given in Markovian form using Azéma-Yor maringales. More precisely, for, ) le X := s /2, s) dw s and as in 5.2), noing ha = inf { X }. If X X) denoes he running minimum maximum) of X, hen U := XX + 2 X2 and V := XX 2 X2 are coninuous local maringales on, ) by Azéma and Yor 2. o close he coninuiy gap a = consider ˇ := inf { X 2 } and se M := X ˇ, U ˇ, V ˇ ). A calculaion hen shows ha, = {g M,M 2 ) } {g2 M,M 3 ) }

22 22 C. FREI, M. MOCHA AND N. WESRAY for g x, u) := x x 2 + 2u ) {x 2 2u} and g 2 x, v) := x + x 2 2v ) {x 2 2v}. For he analogue of Proposiion 3.2 we could now ake he hree-dimensional M from above, bu acually he one-dimensional local maringale M urns ou o be sufficien. We obain ha for every q < here exiss a predicable process λ which is a funcion of M such ha λ M is a bounded maringale saisfying E E λ M ) q = +. Indeed, λ := π 2 q { M } gives he claim. For he analogues of Proposiion 5. and heorem 5.2 we se M 4 := W,/2 + W /2 /2, and λ = λ,,, ), where λ := πα 2 q, or λ := π 2 q, σ, which again prove o be Markovian in M and for which he saemens of he cied resuls remain valid. 6. Characerizaion of Boundedness of BSDE Soluions. We have already shown ha for a BMO maringale λ M and q, ) he BSDE 2.2) allows for a unique bounded soluion. In he previous secion we gave some examples o show ha for q < he siuaion is differen. In his secion we complee he analysis by developing a sufficien condiion ha guaranees necessarily unique) bounded soluions o 2.2). I is also shown ha his paricular condiion canno be improved. More precisely, we consider here a more general siuaion where F ), is no necessarily a coninuous filraion, bu only a filraion saisfying he usual condiions. We assume ha he local maringale M is sill coninuous. In his case he BSDE 2.2) is replaced by 6.) dψ = Z dm + dn 2 d N c, N c + log + N ) N + q 2 Z + λ ) d M, M Z + λ ) 2 Z d M, M Z, Ψ =. We menion ha all he resuls which depend only on he specific coninuous local maringale M also hold in his more general seing. In paricular, he saemens of 27 Proposiion 4.5 and our Corollary 4.2 coninue o hold for he BSDE 6.) in place of he BSDE 2.2). 6.. he criical exponen of a BMO maringale. We will see ha he boundedness of BSDE soluions depends crucially on he so-called criical exponen of he marke price of risk. Afer defining he criical exponen of a general BMO maringale, we give some properies which will be exploied laer. We hen explain for a general BSDE how he criical exponen is relaed o boundedness. In addiion o he counerexamples in Secion 5, his gives a moivaion for our main resul, heorem 6.5, abou how o characerize bounded soluions. We recall he John-Nirenberg inequaliy for he convenience of he reader. In wha follows M is an arbirary coninuous maringale on, wih M =. Lemma 6. Kazamaki 5 heorem 2.2). If M BMO2 < hen for every sopping ime valued in, ) 6.2) E exp M, M M, M F M 2. BMO 2

23 BSDES WIH BMO MARKE PRICE OF RISK 23 Using he definiion of 5 and he erminology of Schachermayer 32, we define he criical exponen b via { 6.3) bm) := sup b sup E exp b ) ) } L M, M M, M F < +, where he supremum inside he brackes is over all sopping imes valued in,. We refer o his inner supremum as a dynamic exponenial momen of M, M of order b. A consequence of Lemma 6. is hen ha a maringale M is a BMO maringale if and only if bm) >. In addiion, he following lemma shows ha he supremum in 6.3) is never aained. Lemma 6.2. Le k > and M be a coninuous maringale wih 6.4) sup E exp k ) ) L M, M M, M F < +. hen here exiss k > k such ha ) ) L sup E exp k M, M M, M F < + and hence b M ) > k. Proof. Inspired by 5 Corollary 3.2 we aim o apply Gehring s inequaliy. o his end, fix a sopping ime and se Γ := exp k ) ) M, M M, M for,. For each µ >, we hen define he sopping ime µ := inf{, Γ > µ}. I follows from µ > and he coninuiy of Γ ha 6.5) Γ µ = µ on { µ < + }. Since Γ is nondecreasing, we have ha {Γ > µ} = { µ < + } and his even is F µ -measurable. herefore, we obain E {Γ >µ}γ = E {Γ >µ}eγ F µ = E {Γ >µ}γ µ E exp k ) ) M, M M, M µ Fµ c k E {Γ >µ}γ µ, where we used 6.4) and denoed is lef-hand side by c k. Fix now ε, ). Using 6.5), we derive E {Γ >µ}γ µ = µ ε E {Γ >µ}γ ε µ µ ε E {Γ >µ}γ ε and conclude ha E {Γ >µ}γ ck µ ε E {Γ >µ}γ ε. I follows from he probabilisic version of Gehring s inequaliy given in 5 heorem 3.5, however see Remark 6.4 below, ha here exis r > and C > depending on ε and c k only) such ha E Γ r C EΓ r. o obain he condiional version, we ake A F and derive from he same argumen and Jensen s inequaliy ha E Γ r A C EΓ A r C E EΓ F r A