arxiv:math/ v1 [math.pr] 14 Feb 2007

Transcription

1 The Annals of Applied Probabiliy 2006, Vol. 16, No. 4, DOI: / c Insiue of Mahemaical Saisics, 2006 arxiv:mah/ v1 [mah.pr] 14 Feb 2007 BOUNDD SOLUTIONS TO BACKWARD SD S WITH JUMPS FOR UTILITY OPTIMIZATION AND INDIFFRNC HDGING By Dirk Becherer Imperial College, London We prove resuls on bounded soluions o backward sochasic equaions driven by random measures. Those bounded BSD soluions are hen applied o solve differen sochasic opimizaion problems wih exponenial uiliy in models where he underlying filraion is nonconinuous. This includes resuls on porfolio opimizaion under an addiional liabiliy and on dynamic uiliy indifference valuaion and parial hedging in incomplee financial markes which are exposed o risk from unpredicable evens. In paricular, we characerize he limiing behavior of he uiliy indifference hedging sraegy and of he indifference value process for vanishing risk aversion. 1. Inroducion. A prominen sochasic conrol problem in sochasic finance is he uiliy maximizaion problem, where he objecive is o maximize by opimal invesmen he expeced uiliy from fuure wealh. Anoher problem is he valuaion and hedging of coningen claims in incomplee markes. Here he ask is o deermine joinly a suiable noion of dynamic valuaion and an opimal parial hedging sraegy such ha boh are consisen wih no-arbirage heory. The uiliy indifference approach combines he wo aforemenioned problems and has recenly araced a lo of ineres. Because of many recen publicaions on his approach, we refrain from giving ye anoher survey on he opic and he lieraure, bu refer for inroducions wih more comprehensive references o he aricles by Fielli [11], Delbaen e al. [8], Becherer [2] and Mania and Schweizer [21]. In his aricle, we obain soluions for he exponenial uiliy maximizaion problem under an addiional liabiliy, boh on he primal and on he dual level, and for he uiliy indifference valuaion and hedging problem in a financial marke model ha permis for nonradable risk from unpredicable evens. This Received Ocober 2005; revised March AMS 2000 subjec classificaions. Primary 60G57, 60H30, 91B28; secondary 60H99, 60G44, 60G55. Key words and phrases. Backward sochasic differenial equaions, random measures, uiliy opimizaion, dynamic indifference valuaion, incomplee markes, hedging, enropy. This is an elecronic reprin of he original aricle published by he Insiue of Mahemaical Saisics in The Annals of Applied Probabiliy, 2006, Vol. 16, No. 4, This reprin differs from he original in paginaion and ypographic deail. 1

2 2 D. BCHRR even risk can involve boh he nonpredicable ime of an even and a possibly nonpredicable even size. An example is provided by he jump imes and sizes of a marked poin process. In such a model, we obain limiing resuls for vanishing risk aversion for boh he dynamic uiliy indifference value process and for he corresponding indifference hedging sraegy. Typical areas of applicaion may be models from he areas of credi risk or from insurance, where doubly marked poin processes are commonly used o model he occurrence and size of defaul or insurance losses. Our main mahemaical means o solve hese opimizaion problems are resuls on backward sochasic equaions (BSDs) wih jumps, which are derived in he firs par of he paper. BSDs are generally known o be useful for sudying problems in mahemaical finance (see [9]), bu have been mainly used in coninuous seings hus far. Broadly, BSDs can describe opimaliy equaions from dynamical programming; his is similar o he familiar Hamilon Jacobi Bellman equaions, bu more general in ha BSDs can also cover non-markovian siuaions. The second par of he paper shows how he soluions o our wo sochasic opimizaion problems wih exponenial uiliy can be described explicily in erms of our BSD soluions. Our incomplee marke framework does no necessiae he underlying filraion o be coninuous, bu allows for nonconinuous maringales and nonpredicable sopping imes; his moivaes he firs conribuion of he paper on BSDs ha are driven by a Brownian moion and a random measure. Building on resuls of Tang and Li [24] and Barles, Buckdahn and Pardoux [1], we derive exisence, uniqueness and coninuiy resuls for bounded soluions o such BSDs when he generaor possesses a cerain monooniciy. This exends previous resuls on square inegrable soluions o soluions wih more inegrabiliy and wih a possibly nonhomogeneous random measure, making hem amendable o he subsequen applicaions. Our second conribuion is he soluion, by an applicaion of our BSD resuls, of he wo aforemenioned exponenial uiliy opimizaion problems in a model wih nonpredicable jump risk. The aricles by Rouge and l Karoui [22], Hu, Imkeller and Müller [14] and Mania and Schweizer [21] are closely relaed o his par of of paper. While heir framework basically covers coninuous filraions, he prime example being he Brownian filraion, he presen paper works in a seing wih random measures which allows he modeling of risk from nonpredicable evens. We moreover characerize he limi of he indifference hedging sraegy for vanishing risk aversion; his complemens a recen resul by Mania and Schweizer [21] for coninuous filraions, and our analysis shows how a random measure componen in he BSD provides he naural means o solve similar problems in he presence of unpredicable jump risk. Anoher conribuion is he mehod of proof which derives he soluion o our opimizaion problems direcly from our exisence and uniqueness resuls for bounded BSDs wih random measures.

3 BOUNDD BSD WITH JUMPS FOR UTILITY OPTIMIZATION 3 Having proven exisence and uniqueness of a suiable BSD soluion, we can employ he maringale opimaliy principle o solve he (primal) opimal sochasic conrol problems direcly. This is more in he spiri of he work by Rouge and l Karoui [22] and Hu, Imkeller and Müller [14], whereas Mania and Schweizer [21] derive exisence and uniqueness for heir specific BSDs from he given exisence of opimal soluions, ensured by dualiy resuls of Kabanov and Sricker [16]. By coninuiy resuls for BSDs wih jumps, we obain he asympoic behavior of he soluion o he indifference valuaion and hedging problem for vanishing risk aversion. The limi corresponds o risk minimizaion under he minimal enropy maringale measure. The paper is organized as follows. Secion 2 esablishes he general framework, assuming he exisence of a sochasic basis carrying a Brownian moion and a compensaed ineger-valued random measure ha possess a weak predicable represenaion propery. Secion 3 derives exisence, uniqueness and coninuiy resuls for bounded soluions of BSDs wih jumps whose generaor may no saisfy he usual global Lipschiz condiion. Secion 4 applies hese resuls o sudy he exponenial uiliy maximizaion problem wih an addiional liabiliy and he uiliy indifference valuaion and hedging problem. 2. Framework and preliminaries. This secion ses ou he noaion and he assumpions ha are supposed o hold in he sequel. We sar wih a sochasic basis (Ω, F,F,P) wih a finie ime horizon T < and a filraion F = (F ) [0,T] saisfying he usual condiions of righ coninuiy and compleeness, such ha we can and do ake all semimaringales o have righ coninuous pahs wih lef limis. For simpliciy, we assume ha F 0 is rivial and F = F T. Condiional expecaions wih respec o F (and P) are denoed by [ ] = P [ ]. On his sochasic basis, le W = (W ) be a d-dimensional sandard Brownian moion and le µ denoe an ineger-valued random measure µ(d,de) = (µ(ω,d,de) ω Ω) on ([0,T], B([0,T]) ) wih compensaor ν := ν P (d,de) under P, where := R l \ {0} is equipped wih is Borel σ-field := B(). Define he measure P ν on ( Ω, F) := (Ω [0,T], F B([0,T]) ) by [ ] (2.1) P ν( B) = I B(ω,,e)ν(ω,d,de), B F; [0,T] his is called he measure generaed by ν. Le P denoe he predicable σ-field on Ω [0,T] and define P := P.

4 4 D. BCHRR A funcion on Ω ha is P-measurable is called predicable. We suppose ha ν is equivalen o a produc measure λ d wih a densiy ζ such ha (2.2) ν(ω,d,de) = ζ(ω,,e)λ(de)d, where λ is a σ-finie measure on (, ) saisfying 1 e 2 λ(de) <, and where he densiy ζ is a P-measurable, bounded, nonnegaive funcion such ha for some, consan c ν, (2.3) 0 ζ(ω,,e) c ν <, P λ d-a.e. Clearly, (2.2) implies ha ν({} ) = 0 for all, and ν([0,t] ) c ν Tλ(). For a predicable funcion U on Ω, he inegral process wih respec o µ (analogously for ν) is defined as U(ω, s, e)µ(ω, ds, de), if finiely defined, U µ (ω) = [0,] + oherwise. We recall ha for any predicable funcion U, he process U ν is a predicable process, while he process U µ is an opional process, and ha [ U µ T ] = [ U ν T ]. If ( U 2 µ) 1/2 is locally inegrable, hen U is inegrable wih respec o µ = µ ν, and U (P) µ is defined as he purely disconinuous local maringale (under P) wih jump process ( Uµ({},de)). If, moreover, he process U 2 ν is inegrable, hen U is inegrable wih respec o µ, and U µ = U (µ ν) is a square inegrable, purely disconinuous maringale wih predicable quadraic variaion U (µ ν) = U 2 ν. If he increasing process U µ (or, equivalenly U ν) is locally inegrable, hen U is µ-inegrable and U µ = U µ U ν. We refer o [15] for deails on (ineger-valued) random measures and sochasic inegrals and noe ha our assumpions on µ and ν imply ha Ŵ = 0 in Secion II.1.d of [15]. We assume ha, wih respec o F and P, (2.4) W and µ have he weak propery of predicable represenaion. This means ha every square inegrable maringale M has a represenaion (2.5) M = M 0 + Z W + U µ := M 0 + Z dw + U µ, where Z and U : Ω R are predicable processes such ha [ 0 Z 2 d] < and [ U 2 ν T ] <, ha is, boh sochasic inegrals are in he space H 2 of square inegrable maringales. We nex provide several cases of ineres where (2.4) holds:

5 BOUNDD BSD WITH JUMPS FOR UTILITY OPTIMIZATION 5 xample 2.1. (1) Le W be a Brownian moion and le N be an independen Poisson poin process. Then W and he compensaed measure µ N of he jump measure µ N of N, ha is µ N (d,de) := s (0,T] δ (s, Ns)(d,de)I { Ns 0}, have he represenaion propery (2.4) wih respec o he usual filraion F (W,N) generaed by hem. (2) More generally, le (X ) [0,T] be a marked poin process, ha is, a process whose pahs are RCLL sep funcions wih only a finie number of jumps (i.e., X can be represened as X = x 0 + i ξ i½ [[Ti,T]] wih x 0 R l and wih random imes T i (0, ] such ha T i and 0 < T i < T i+1 on {T i < } for all i, where all marks ξ i are R l -valued random variables wih {ξ i = 0} = {T i = }). Le W be a Brownian moion independen of X and le F := F (W,X) denoe he usual filraion generaed by X and W. Le µ := µ X := i δ (T i,ξ i )(d,de)i {Ti T } and le ν denoe he compensaor, being he same under F X and F. Then W and µ have propery (2.4) wih respec o F. To see his, noe ha boh W and µ have he represenaion propery wih respec o heir own filraions (see [13], Theorems 13.19, 5.52). By srong orhogonaliy, each maringale M wih M T = I A I B for A FT W and B FX T can be represened as in (2.5). This implies (2.4), since he linear span of random variables like ½ A ½ B is dense in L 2 (F T ). (3) Le X be a (ime-homogenous) Lévy process wih X 0 = 0 and predicable characerisics (α,β,ν). Then he coninuous maringale par X c and he compensaed jump measure µ X = µ X ν of X have he represenaion propery (2.5) wih respec o he filraion F X ; see [13], Theorems and If X c does no vanish (i.e, β 0), hen here is a consan C (0, ) such ha W := X c /C is a Brownian moion. (4) Suppose W and µ have he represenaion propery (2.4) under P. Le P be a probabiliy measure absoluely coninuous (or equivalen) o P wih densiy process (Z ) [0,T]. Then he P -Brownian moion W := W (Z ) 1 d Z,W and he P -compensaed jump measure µ = µ X ν P have he represenaion propery (2.4) wih respec o (Ω,F,P ); see Theorem in [13]. This offers pleny of scope o build models where W and ν are no independen from he previous examples. 3. Backward sochasic differenial equaions wih jumps. For ease of exposiion, all resuls in his secion are formulaed wih P represening some generic probabiliy measure. Remark 3.1. The resuls of he presen secion will be used in he sequel wih differen equivalen measures aking he role of P. This causes no problems when hese measures, he corresponding Brownian moions and he compensaors for µ saisfy he same assumpions as imposed on P, W and ν (cf. xample 2.1 4). I will be made clear on hose occasions wih respec o which measure he resuls and noaion are o be used.

6 6 D. BCHRR Le us fix some noaion: S p,k wih 1 p denoes he space of R k -valued semimaringales (Y ) [0,T] wih Y S p := sup [0,T] Y L p <. L 2,k T (L 2,k d T ) denoes he space of P-predicable processes Z aking values in R k (R k d ) wih Z L 2 := ([ T 0 Z 2 d]) 1/2 <. This norm is equivalen o he norm Z β := (e β Z ) [0,T] L 2 T for β R. L 2,k ν denoes he space of P-predicable funcions U : Ω R k wih ( [ 1/2 U L 2 ν := U (e) ν(d,de)]) 2 <. 0 Assumpions (2.2) and (2.3) imply ha he space L 2,k ν = L 2 ( P,P ν;r k ) includes he space L 2,k λ d = L2 ( P,P λ d;r k ). L 0 (,λ;r k ) denoes he space of measurable funcions wih he opology of convergence in measure. I will be convenien o define for u,u L 0 (,λ:r k ), ( 1/2 (3.1) u u := u u ζ(,e)λ(de)) 2. For U L 2,k ν, U < holds P d-a.e. as [ U 2 d] = U 2 L 2 ν. To simplify noaion we will omi dimension indices like k when hey are clear from he conex. Bu in laer secions we shall refer in our noaion o he underlying probabiliy measure when i is differen from P. For a given daa uple (B, f), which consiss of a random variable B and a suiable generaor funcion f (y,z,u) = f(ω,,y,z,u), we are ineresed in finding a riple (Y,Z,U) of processes in a suiable space such ha (3.2) Y T = B and dy = f (Y,Z,U )d + Z dw + U (e) µ(d,de) for [0,T]. quaion (3.2) can be wrien in inegraed form as (3.3) Y = B + f s (Y s,z s,u s )ds Z s dw s U s (e) µ(ds,de), wih [0,T]. Such a riple (Y,Z,U) is called a soluion o he backward sochasic differenial equaion (3.2) or (3.3). Proposiion 3.2 ensures exisence and uniqueness of he BSD soluion in an L 2 -sense for our seing wih a nonhomogeneous compensaor ν. Admiing ν o be nonhomogeneous allows more ineresing muual dependencies o occur beween he radable and nonradable risk facors in our laer applicaions. For he homogeneous case wih ζ 1 in (2.2), he resul was shown in Lemma 2.4 of [24]; see also Theorem 2.1 in [1]. I is sraighforward o

7 BOUNDD BSD WITH JUMPS FOR UTILITY OPTIMIZATION 7 generalize he esablished fixed poin mehod of proof o he presen seing, hence we leave deails o he reader. Proposiion 3.2. Le B L 2 (F T,P;R k ) and suppose ha he funcion f :Ω [0,T] R k R k d L 0 (,λ;r k ) R k is P B(R k ) B(R k d ) B(L 0 (,λ;r k ))-measurable, saisfies f (0,0,0) and ha here exiss a consan K f [0, ) such ha L 2,k T (3.4) f (y,z,u) f (y,z,u ) K f ( y y + z z + u u ) holds P d-a.e. for all y,y R k, z,z R k d, and u,u L 0 (,λ;r k ) [in paricular, he lef-hand side of ( 3.4) is supposed o be finie when he righhand side is finie]. Then here exiss a unique (Y,Z,U) in S 2,k L 2,k d T L 2,k ν which solves he BSD (3.2). The nex coninuiy resul generalizes Proposiion 2.2 from [1] o a condiional esimae, which reduces o he uncondiional esimae from [1] for τ = 0. Le us remark ha f could ake nonfinie values for some u L 0, bu (3.4) implies ha for all (Y,Z,U) in S 2,k L 2,k d T L 2,k ν, he process (f(y,z,u)) is finie P d-a.e. Hence, he δf erm in (3.5) is well defined P d-a.e. Proposiion 3.3. Le (B,f) and (B,f ) be daa saisfying he assumpions of Proposiion 3.2, wih soluions (Y,Z,U) and (Y,Z,U ) in S 2,k L 2,k d T L 2,k ν, respecively. Denoe (δb,δf) = (B B,f f ) and le (δy,δz,δu) = (Y Y,Z Z,U U ). Then here exiss a consan c = c(t,k f ) < depending on T and K f such ha [ ] τ sup δy u 2 + δz s 2 ds + δu s 2 ν(ds,de) u [[τ,t]] τ ]]τ,t]] (3.5) ] c τ [ δb 2 + δf s (Y s,z s,u s ) 2 ds < τ holds for all sopping imes τ T. If, moreover, he random variable δb and he process (δf(y,z,u)) are bounded, hen δz dw and δu µ are BMO(P)-maringales. Noing ha he BSD has a rivial soluion for vanishing daa, one sees ha esimae (3.5) wih τ = implies he useful a priori esimae [ ] sup Y u 2 + Z s 2 ds + U s 2 ν(ds,de) (3.6) u T (,T] ] c [ B 2 + f s (0,0,0) 2 ds <.

8 8 D. BCHRR Proof of Proposiion 3.3. We exend he argumen from [1]. Applying Iô s formula o δy 2 yields ha, for [0,T], (3.7) δy 2 δb 2 + δz s 2 + δu s 2 s ds 2 δy s (f s (Y s,z s,u s ) f (Y s,z s,u s))ds = 2 δy s δz s dw s 2δY s δu s + (δu s ) 2 µ(ds,de). Using he inegrabiliy of (δy,δz,δu) S 2,k L 2,k d T L 2,k ν and he assumpions imposed on f and f, he lef-hand side of equaion (3.7) can be dominaed in absolue value by an inegrable random variable, uniformly in. Hence, he sochasic inegrals on he righ-hand side are in he maringale space H 1 and heir incremens vanish in condiional expecaion. Using his fac, he inequaliy 2Kab 2K 2 a 2 +b 2 /2 (K,a,b R) and he Lipschiz condiion on f yields, for any sopping ime τ T and u [0,T], ha ] τ [ δy τ u 2 + δz s 2 + δu s 2 s ds = τ [ δb 2 + τ u τ u δf s (Y s,z s,u s ) 2 ds. ] + c δy s 2 ds δz s 2 + δu s 2 s ds τ u τ u wih τ u := max(τ,u) and c denoing a consan depending on T and K f. By he condiional Fubini resul of Lemma A.1 (wih σ = τ) and Gronwall s lemma, a his poin we nearly obain he desired inequaliy (3.5), bu wih a sup u [0,T] ouside he condiional expecaion. From he BSD ha δy saisfies, we have δy τ u τ u [ δb + τ f s (Y s,z s,u s ) f s (Y s,z s,u s ) ds ], for u [0,T]. Taking he supremum over u [0,T] on boh sides and applying Doob s inequaliy o he supremum of he (F τ u ) u [0,T] -maringale on he righ-hand side yields ha τ [sup u [[τ,t]] δy u 2 ] is dominaed by he erm c τ [ δb 2 + τ δf s(y s,z s,u s ) 2 + f s(y s,z s,u s ) f s(y s,z s,u s) 2 ds] wih some consan c depending on T. simae (3.5) now follows from he Lipschiz propery of f and he previous esimae. Finally, if δb and (δf (Y,Z,U)) are bounded, hen i follows from is BSD ha δy is bounded, and ha he lef-hand side of (3.5) is bounded by a consan, uniformly in τ. Hence, he inegral processes δz dw and δu µ are BMO-maringales; see Theorem in [13].

9 BOUNDD BSD WITH JUMPS FOR UTILITY OPTIMIZATION 9 For fuure reference, we sae he following simple bu useful resul: Lemma 3.4. Le Y S and B L. Suppose ha Z is a P-predicable process and U is a P-predicable funcion which are inegrable in he sense of local maringales wih respec o W and µ, respecively, and f(ω,,y,z,u) is a produc-measurable funcion such ha f(y,z,u) is in L (P d) and ha (Y,Z,U) solves he BSD (3.2) wih daa (B,f). Then he sochasic inegrals Z dw and U µ are boh BMO(P)-maringales. In paricular, Z L 2 T and U L2 ν. Proof. Being a bounded maringale, he process Z dw + U µ is in BMO(P). By he characerizaion of BMO-maringales (see [13], Theorem 10.9), he claim hen follows from (i) he observaion ha he quadraic covariaion of Z dw and U µ vanishes, so ha he quadraic variaion of each addend is dominaed by he quadraic variaion of he sum, and (ii) from he fac ha he jumps of U µ are he jumps of Y, hence bounded. In our laer applicaions of BSDs, he Lipschiz condiion (3.4) on he generaor f will no be saisfied, and more han square inegrabiliy of Y will be needed. To his end, we show ha, basically, a monooniciy propery (3.11) of he generaor wih respec o he jumps, ogeher wih bounded erminal daa, ensures exisence of a bounded soluion o he BSD (3.2). Le us emphasize ha for BSDs wih jumps, a comparison resul does no, in general, hold under he assumpions of Proposiion 3.2; see he example in [1]. Therefore, we can no infer he exisence of a bounded soluion for bounded erminal daa by such means. For BSDs wihou jumps ha are driven solely by Brownian moions and which have quadraic generaors ha may no be globally Lipschiz, exisence resuls were obained in [18]. For he remainder, we consider he one-dimensional case wih k = 1 and generaor funcions f :Ω [0,T] R 1 R 1 d L 0 (,λ;r) R of he form f f (y,z,u) = (y,z,u) + g (u(e))ζ(,e)λ(de), if finiely defined, +, oherwise, (3.8) where f and g saisfy condiions which, alhough f does no, in general, saisfy he assumpions of Proposiion 3.2, sill ensure exisence and uniqueness of a BSD soluion whose componens Y and U are furhermore bounded. Theorem 3.5. Le k = 1. Assume ha B L is bounded, λ() < is finie, and ha f has he form (3.8) where f saisfies all assumpions from

10 10 D. BCHRR Proposiion 3.2 (for f). Assume addiionally ha here exis K 1,K 2 [0, ) such ha (3.9) f (y,z,u) K 1 + K 2 y holds P d-a.e. for all y,z,u, and ha g :Ω [0,T] R R in (3.8) is a P B(R)-measurable funcion such ha (3.10) (3.11) u g (u) g (u) u = + u for u 0, g (u) u = u for u 0, is locally Lipschiz in u, uniformly in (ω,), and P d-a.e. Then here exiss a unique soluion (Y,Z,U) in S L 2 T L2 ν o he BSD (3.2), where Y S is bounded and U is bounded P ν-a.e. Moreover, if (B,f ) is anoher uple of daa saisfying he assumpion of his heorem wih soluion (Y,Z,U ) S L 2 T L2 ν, hen esimae (3.5) of Proposiion 3.3 sill holds. In paricular, esimae (3.6) sill holds. Under he assumpions of his heorem, one can hus choose represenaives for Y and U which are bounded on Ω [0,T] and Ω, respecively. Before proving he heorem, le us give an example of a generaor funcion which will reappear in he laer applicaions o mahemaical finance. xample 3.6. For α (0, ), le g(ω,,u) = g (u) := 1 α eαu u 1 α and f := 0. Then f from (3.8) saisfies he assumpions of Theorem 3.5. Proof of Theorem 3.5. By hypohesis, here exiss K 3 [0, ) such ha B K 3. Define a runcaion-boundary funcion b:[0,t] R + by K 3 + K 1 (T ), when K 2 = 0, (3.12) b() := K 3 e K 2(T ) + K 1 (e K 2(T ) 1), when K 2 > 0, K 2 and a runcaion funcion (3.13) κ(, y) := min(max(y, b()), +b()). Then define f :Ω [0,T] R R d L 0 (,λ;r 1 ) R by f(ω,,y,z,u) = f(ω,,κ(,y),z,κ(,y + u) κ(,y)) + g (κ(,y + u(e)) κ(,y))ζ(,e)λ(de) when he righ-hand side is finie, and by + elsewhere. Using (3.13), he local Lipschiz propery of g and he fac ha λ() <, one can verify by he Schwarz inequaliy ha f saisfies he assumpions of Proposiion 3.2.

11 BOUNDD BSD WITH JUMPS FOR UTILITY OPTIMIZATION 11 We noe ha one could find examples of λ, if λ() were no finie, where he Lipschiz condiion (3.4) would no be me by f for f from xample 3.6. Le (Y,Z,U) S 2 L 2 T L2 ν denoe he unique soluion for he BSD wih generaor f. For Ỹ := κ(,y ), le Ũ (e) := κ(,y + U (e)) κ(,y ), which represens he jump size of Ỹ. We will show below ha (3.14) he processes Y and Ỹ are indisinguishable and U = Ũ holds P ν-a.e. By definiion, Ỹ b() b(0) and Ũ(e) 2b() 2b(0) are bounded uniformly in. Clearly, (3.14) implies ha Y = Ỹ in S2 L 2 T and U = Ũ in L2 ν, hence f (Y,Z,U )d = f (Ỹ,Z,Ũ)d and U µ = Ũ µ. Admiing resul (3.14) for a momen, i follows ha he soluion (Y,Z,U) of he BSD wih generaor f also solves he BSD wih f, and ha Y is in S and U has a bounded represenaive Ũ in L2 ν. To show uniqueness, le (Y,Z,U ) be a anoher soluion o he BSD wih f, wih Y bounded. Similarly as wih Ũ for U, one can find a bounded represenaive for U in L 2 ν, for example, bounded by 2 Y S, using he fac ha U (e) µ({},de) = Y 2 Y S. By aking K 3 larger when necessary, say K 3 2 Y S, one can assume ha Y, U K 3. Bu hen boh (Y,Z,U) and (Y,Z,U ) solve he BSD also wih generaor f, and by he uniqueness resul from Proposiion 3.2 applied o f, he wo soluions mus coincide. Finally, he validiy of esimae (3.6) and he validiy of he esimae from Proposiion 3.3 follow from he observaion ha he BSD soluions o (f,b) and (f,b ) also solve he BSDs wih he corresponding runcaed generaors f and f. To complee he proof, i remains o show (3.14). To prove Y b() for all, we firs consider he upper bound. Fix [0,T] and le τ := inf{s [,T] Y s b(s)}. Then Y s b(s) for (ω,s) [[,τ[[, and one has Y τ b(τ) wih τ T, since Y T K 3 = b(t). Since (Y,Z,U) solves he BSD wih f, i follows ha τ ] Y = [Y τ + f(s,y s,z s,u s )ds [Y τ + + τ τ K 1 + K 2 b(s)ds ] g s (κ(s,y s + U(e)) κ(s,y s ))µ(ds,de)

12 12 D. BCHRR τ [Y τ + ] K 1 + K 2 b(s)ds + g τ (κ(τ,y τ ) κ(τ,y τ )) τ ] [Y τ + (K 1 + K 2 b(s))ds + b(τ) Y τ [ τ ] (K 1 + K 2 b(s))ds + b(τ) = b(); his uses he fac ha G µ = G µ G ν is a maringale for G s := g s (κ(s,y s + U(e)) κ(s,y s )), since G s ν c( U s 2b(s)) ν is inegrable (see [15], II ), where c < denoes a local Lipschiz consan for g. We have furher used he fac ha G s µ(ds,de) = g s (κ(s,y s ) κ(s,y s ))½ ( Ys 0), ]],τ]] s ]],τ]] wih all summands vanishing on s ]],τ[[ excep possibly a s = τ, where g τ (κ(τ,y τ ) κ(τ,y τ )) κ(τ,y τ ) κ(τ,y τ ) b(τ) Y τ. This shows he upper bound Y b() for any. The lower bound Y b() is proved similarly by using τ := inf{s [,T] Y s b(s)}. Since Y has RCLL-pahs, i follows ha Y and Ỹ are indisinguishable processes. Hence, 0 = ( (Y Ỹ)) 2 = (U(e) Ũ(e))2 µ(d,de) = (U Ũ)2 µ T, (0,T] 0 implying ha [(U Ũ)2 µ T ] = [(U Ũ)2 ν T ] vanishes. This esablishes he second par of (3.14). 4. Applicaions in exponenial uiliy opimizaion. This secion applies he previous resuls o solve wo prominen opimizaion problems wih exponenial uiliy. We sar wih he expeced uiliy maximizaion problem wih an addiional liabiliy, and proceed aferwards o he uiliy indifference valuaion and hedging problem The financial marke framework. Wihin he general framework of Secion 2, we now inroduce a financial marke model. In his secion, he measure P represens he objecive rue world probabiliy measure. All assumpions and noaion of he presen subsecion remain valid for he remainder of Secion 4, in addiion o hose of he general framework.

13 BOUNDD BSD WITH JUMPS FOR UTILITY OPTIMIZATION 13 The marke conains a riskless numeraire asse as well as d risky asses, whose discouned price processes S = (S i ) [0,T], i = 1,...,d, evolve in (0, ) d according o he sochasic differenial equaion (4.1) ds = diag(s i ) i=1,...,d σ (ϕ d + dw ) =: Σ dŵ, S 0 (0, ) d, [0,T], where ϕ is a predicable from R d -valued d-inegrable process, and σ is an R d d -valued predicable process such ha σ is inverible P d-a.e. and inegrable wih respec o (4.2) Ŵ := W + ϕ d, and we define Σ := (diag(s i ) i=1,...,d )σ. We suppose ha (4.3) he marke price of risk process ϕ is bounded P d-a.e. The soluion S o (4.1) is given by he sochasic exponenial ( ) d (( ) i ) S i = S0 i σ ij (ϕj d + dw j ) = S0 i σ dŵ, [0,T]. j=1 The noaion Ŵ is reminiscen of he fac ha Ŵ is a Brownian moion wih respec o he so-called minimal maringale measure ( d P ) (4.4) := ϕ dw dp. By (4.4), i follows ha (4.5) he compensaor of he random measure µ under P equals ν, ha is, i equals he compensaor under P, up o indisinguishabiliy. We assume (4.6) λ() <, such ha ν([0,t] ) is bounded by (2.2) and (2.3). For any S-inegrable R d -valued process ϑ, he gains process from rading according o a sraegy o hold ϑ shares of risky asses S is given by ϑds = θ dŵ, where (4.7) θ(ϑ) := Σ r ϑ and ϑ(θ) = (Σ r ) 1 θ provides a bijecion beween ϑ and θ. Because he parameerizaion wih respec o θ eases noaion and faciliaes laer formulas, we will use relaion (4.7) o parameerize our sraegies in erms of θ in he sequel. T

14 14 D. BCHRR In Secion 4.2 below, we are going o consider an invesor who wans o maximize he exponenial uiliy wih risk aversion α > 0 from his erminal wealh. For such an invesor, we define he se of available rading sraegies (4.8) Θ := Θ(P,α) as follows. Le Θ consis of all R d -valued, predicable, S-inegrable processes θ which mee he following inegrabiliy requiremens under P: [ ] (4.9) P θ 2 d < and (4.10) 0 { ( τ ) τ } exp α θ dŵ T is a uniformly P-inegrable family 0 of random variables, wih T denoing he se of all sopping imes τ T. Condiions (4.9) and (4.10) correspond o hose in [14]; see heir Definiion 1 and subsequen remarks. Condiion (4.9) excludes arbirage possibiliies like doubling sraegies from Θ, as explained below, and he exponenial condiion (4.10) fis raher naurally wih he exponenial preferences of our invesor. We will also show ha i ransforms in a good way under a change o he minimal enropy maringale measure; see par (3) of Remark 4.5. Le P e := {Q P S is a local Q-maringale} denoe he se of all equivalen local maringale measures. The marke is free of arbirage in he sense ha here exiss a leas one measure in P e, namely P, ha has finie relaive enropy wih respec o P, hus (4.11) P f := {Q P e H(Q P) < }. Also, he se Θ, whose sraegies can give rise o wealh processes unbounded from below, does no conain arbirage sraegies, since 0 θ dŵ 0 wih θ Θ implies ha θ dŵ = 0. In fac, d P/dP and ( 0 θ 2 d) 1/2 are in L 2 (P) by (4.3), (4.4) and (4.9). So, Hölder s inequaliy yields ha ( 0 θ 2 d) 1/2 is in L 1 ( P), hence θ dŵ is in he maringale space H1 ( P). The claim hus follows. The marke model is in general incomplee because we only assume he weak represenaion propery (2.4) and do no assume a coninuous or Brownian filraion. Despie he inveribiliy of he volailiy marix σ, here will in general be several maringale measures having differen compensaors for he random measure µ, which represens some nonradable risk facors relaed o nonpredicable evens such as he jump imes and sizes of a marked (doubly) Poisson process. If µ is nonrivial, one can also see direcly ha here exis purely disconinuous maringales under any Q in P e which canno be represened as sochasic inegrals wih respec o he coninuous process S.

15 BOUNDD BSD WITH JUMPS FOR UTILITY OPTIMIZATION 15 As coningen claims, we consider uropean claims payable a ime T whose payoff is described by a bounded random variable B L := L (P). This inegrabiliy assumpion is he same as in he aricles [22], [14] and [21] which are closely relaed o he subsequen analysis, and i fis comforably ino he dualiy seing from [8] xponenial uiliy maximizaion. We are going o consider he problem of maximizing he expeced uiliy from erminal wealh a ime T for he exponenial uiliy funcion x exp( αx) wih risk aversion parameer α (0, ). We will laer compare resuls for differen levels of risk aversion and, o his end, we emphasize ha mos quaniies in he sequel depend on α. Bu noaional references o α are omied where α is clear from he conex, as in mos proofs. Recalling our parameerizaion (4.7) of sraegies, he soluion of he problem of maximizing he expeced exponenial uiliy from erminal wealh (4.12) V B,α (x) := V B (x) := esssup P θ Θ(P,α) = exp( αx) esssup P θ Θ(P,α) [ ( ( ))] exp α x + ϑ(θ)ds B ( ( [ exp α θ dŵ B ))] from (F -measurable) capial x R a ime [0,T] by opimal fuure invesmens under an addiional liabiliy B will be described by he following BSD under P: (4.13) Y = B + + Z s ϕ s ϕ 2 2α ds ( exp(αus (e)) 1 Z s dw s α ) U s (e) ζ(s, e)λ(de) ds U s (e) µ(ds,de), [0,T]. The linear dependence of he generaor in (4.13) on Z can be removed by a change of measure from P o P from (4.4). By Theorem of [13], he inegral wih respec o µ remains unalered by his change of measure because of he unchanged compensaor (4.5). Hence he BSD (4.13) ransforms o he following BSD under he measure P: (4.14) Y = B + + ϕ 2 2α ds ( exp(αus (e)) 1 α ) U s (e) ζ(s, e)λ(de) ds

16 16 D. BCHRR Z s dŵs U s (e) µ(ds,de), [0,T]. Theorem 4.1. The soluion o he uiliy maximizaion problem (4.12) wih risk aversion α > 0 and liabiliy B L is described by he unique soluion (Y B,Z B,U B ) := (Y B,α,Z B,α,U B,α ) S ( P) L 2 T ( P) L 2 ν ( P) o he BSD (4.14) under P [solving (4.13) under P, wih (Y B,Z B,U B ) being in S (P) L 2 T (P) L2 B,α ν (P)]. The opimal value funcion V (x) and he opimal sraegy are given by (4.15) V B,α (x) = e αx exp(αy B ) = e αx exp( α( Y B )), (4.16) θ B := θ B,α := Z B + 1 α ϕ Θ(P,α). Moreover, θ B dw is in BMO(P). In he sense of (4.15), Y B can be considered as he exponenial ime-cerain equivalen wealh, and Y B as he ime--cerain liabiliy, which are equivalen o he gains (and losses) arising from boh he fuure opimal invesmen and from he erminal liabiliy. Proof of Theorem 4.1. Le us noe ha (Ŵ,ν) under P fis ino he seing of Secion 3. The proof hen proceeds in several seps. Firs, Theorem 3.5 ensures he exisence of he unique (bounded) soluion (Y,Z,U) in S ( P) L 2 T ( P) L 2 ν ( P) o he BSD (4.14) under P, wih U being bounded P ν-a.e. and Z dŵ being in BMO( P), by Lemma 3.4. By Theorem 3.6 in [17] and (4.4) i follows ha Z dw BMO(P) H 2 (P) and Z L 2 T (P). Hence, (Y,Z,U) also solves BSD (4.13) under P, wih he inegrabiliy claims for Y and U under P following from heir a.s. boundedness. By he Doléans Dade formula, or direc compuaion, one obains ( ) exp(αu s (e)) 1 µ(ds,de) ( = exp 0 0 αu s (e) µ(ds,de) ) exp(αu s (e)) 1 αu s (e)ν(ds,de). By he BSD (4.14), equaliy (4.2) and by Iô s formula i follows ha

17 BOUNDD BSD WITH JUMPS FOR UTILITY OPTIMIZATION 17 (4.17) (4.18) ( ( exp α Y 0 + ( = exp α ( 0 θ dŵ Y )) ) ϕ 2 d θ Z dŵ ) exp(αu s (e)) 1 µ(ds,de) ( = e (α2 /2) 0 θ Z ϕ/α 2 d α ( ) exp(αu s (e)) 1 µ(ds,de) = e (α2 /2) 0 θ Z ϕ/α 2 d ( α θ Z dw + ) θ Z dw ) exp(αu s (e)) 1 µ(ds,de), for any θ Θ, [0, T], where (4.18) uses Yor s formula. For any θ Θ, (4.19) he sochasic exponenial in (4.18) ( [0,T]) is a P-maringale. To see he laer, noe ha condiion (4.10) in he definiion of Θ and he boundedness of Y imply ha he erm in (4.17) is a uniformly inegrable family for [0, T]. Since he ordinary exponenial facor in (4.18) is monoone and clearly bounded away from zero, he sochasic exponenial in (4.18) is a uniformly inegrable local maringale, hence (4.19). By (4.18) and (4.19), he process from (4.18) is a supermaringale for all θ Θ and a maringale for θ B = Z + ϕ/α. This implies opimaliy of θ B, provided ha we can show θ B is in Θ. To his end, observe ha θ B dŵ is in BMO( P), since Z dŵ and ϕdŵ are by Lemma 3.4 and (4.3). Since dp/d P L p ( P) for any 1 p <, 0 θb 2 d is in L 1 (P) by Hölder s inequaliy. This yields (4.9), while (4.10) follows from (4.19) and he fac ha Y S. Moreover, θ B dw is in BMO(P) by Theorem 3.6 in [17]. Taking he condiional expecaion of he uiliy of he opimal erminal wealh and using he maringale propery of he process (4.18) for θ = θ B finally yields (4.15). We have solved he primal uiliy maximizaion problem direcly by using he classical (super-)maringale verificaion argumen o show opimaliy of he candidae soluion. To link our resuls o he maringale dualiy resuls, le us recall from [8] (cf. [2] or [21]) ha he primal exponenial uiliy maximizaion problem wih liabiliy B is relaed o he dual problem of

18 18 D. BCHRR finding, for a given α > 0, (4.20) Q,B = argmax{α Q [B] H(Q P)}. Q P f For B = 0, his means finding he minimal enropy maringale measure Q := Q,0, while Q,B can be shown o minimize he relaive enropy H(Q P B ) wih respec o dp B := consexp(αb)dp over he se P f. The nex heorem describes he densiy process for he soluion Q,B o he dual problem as an ordinary and also as a sochasic exponenial, explici in erms of he ingrediens of he relaed BSD. Furhermore, i describes he compensaor of ν under Q,B. The densiy process of Q,B urns ou o be (4.21) Z,B ( ( := exp α Y0 B + ( = ( = ϕdw + 0 ) ( ϕdw )) θ B dŵ Y B exp(αu B s (e)) 1 µ(ds,de) ) exp(αu B s (e)) 1 µ(ds,de) wih Y B, U B and θ B from Theorem 4.1; he equaliies hold by (4.17) and (4.18) for θ = θ B. We noe ha even he ordinary exponenial form does no follow immediaely from exising dualiy resuls in [8] and elsewhere, since our definiion of he sraegy se Θ involves only inegrabiliy assumpions under he objecive measure P; his differs from he varians of Θ sudied in [8]. Theorem 4.2. Suppose he assumpions of Theorem 4.1 hold. Then he densiy process wih respec o P of he soluion Q,B P f o he dual problem (4.20) is given by Z,B from (4.21). Furhermore, Ŵ is a Q,B - Brownian moion, and he compensaor of µ under Q,B is given by ), (4.22) ν Q,B (d,de) = exp(αu B (e))ν(d,de). Proof. We apply he verificaion heorem from [12] o idenify he soluion o he dual problem. To his end, we mus validae ha Z,B T saisfies hree condiions. Firs, i is clear from Theorem 4.1 and (4.19) ha Z,B is a sricly posiive densiy process, and he BSD for Y B implies ha ( ( (4.23) = exp α Y0 B + θ B dŵ )). B Define Z,B T d Q := Z T dp for Z := Z,B. 0

19 BOUNDD BSD WITH JUMPS FOR UTILITY OPTIMIZATION 19 By he sochasic exponenial form of he densiy process from (4.21) and Girsanov s heorem, i follows ha Ŵ is a Q-Brownian moion and ha (4.24) ν(d,de) := exp(αu B (e))ν(d,de) is he Q-compensaor of µ. The firs claim is sandard. For he second claim, le w denoe an P-predicable funcion on Ω such ha w µ is locally Q-inegrable. The laer is equivalen o w µ being locally P-inegrable, since Z and 1/ Z are boh locally bounded due o he boundedness of U. By he form (4.21) of Z and he BSD for Y B, i follows ha Z equals Z (exp(αu B (e) ) 1)µ({},de) = (( Z (exp(αu B ) 1)) µ). By inegraion by pars and Proposiions II.1.28 and 30 in [15], i follows ha d( Z(w µ)) = d( Z w) µ + (w µ )d Z + Z (w µ ) = d( Z exp(αu B )w) µ + (w µ )d Z, d( Z(w ν)) = d( Z((wexp(αU B )) ν)) = d( Z exp(αu B )w) ν + ((wexp(αu B )) ν )d Z + 0. By subracing he wo processes and using he fac ha ν is he P-compensaor of µ, one obains ha w µ w ν is a local Q-maringale. Hence, ν is he compensaor of µ under Q by Theorem II.1.8 of [15]. Denoing µ = µ ν and recalling he compensaor relaion (4.24), we have (see Theorem from [13]) ha under a change of measure, (4.25) U P µ = U Q µ + (U(exp(αU) 1)) ν, wih U being inegrable wih respec o µ such ha U µ is a local maringale under Q. Hence, i follows from he BSD (4.14) under P ha (Y B,Z B,U B ) is also a bounded soluion o he following BSD under Q: ϕ 2 Y = B Z s dŵs U s (e) µ(ds,de) + 2α ds (4.26) ( ) exp(αus (e)) 1 + U s (e)exp(αu s (e)) ζ(s, e)λ(de) ds. α Lemma 3.4 ensures inegrabiliy of (Y B,Z B,U B ) under he change of measure. By (4.16), i follows ha θ B dŵ is a Q-BMO-maringale, since (4.27) Z B dŵ is a Q-BMO-maringale and ϕ is bounded. This is he second condiion needed. For he hird, noe ha Lemma 3.4 and he BSD (4.14) under P imply ha ZB dŵ, and

20 20 D. BCHRR hence θ B dŵ, is in BMO( P). By he John Nirenberg inequaliy, we conclude ha here is some ε > 0 such ha exp(ε 0 θb dŵ) is in Lp ( P) for some p > 1. Since φ is bounded, dp/d P = ( φdŵ) T is in L q ( P) for any q [1, ), so ( ) (4.28) exp ε θ B dŵ is in L 1 (P) 0 by Hölder s inequaliy. By (4.23), (4.27) and (4.28), all hree condiions for he verificaion resul from [12] (cf. Proposiion 3.5 in [2]) are saisfied, implying ha Q is he opimal measure Q,B and Z = Z,B is is densiy process. Remark 4.3. Le us poin ou some connecions o he pioneering work in [6, 7]. In Secions 1.3 and 12, he auhors sudy a model wih jump risk ha can be accommodaed in our general framework [see xample 2.1(2) and (4)] i involves a single risky asse price following a geomeric Brownian moion and one addiional unpredicable (defaul) even wih an inensiy. They showed how he soluion o he exponenial uiliy problem can be derived from a cerain BSD under special, parially resricive, assumpions, and noed in paricular ha a rigorous general exisence resul for a (sufficienly nice) soluion o he key BSD was no ye available. The presen paper conribues o he analysis of he problem posed in [6, 7] as follows. By Theorem 4.1, he process L := exp(αy B ) > 0 describes he maximal expeced uiliy a ime up o a deerminisic facor, and our BSD resuls ensure exisence of a unique soluion Y B o he BSD (4.14). By Iô s formula, he BSD for Y B [or (4.21)] implies ha L saisfies he BSD dl = 1 (L φ 2 + l 2 )d + 2 ldŵ + l µ(de,d) (4.29) L = 1 2L L φ + l 2 + ldw + l µ(de,d), wih L T = exp(αb), where l := αl Z B and l := L (exp(αu B (e)) 1). quaion (4.29) corresponds o he key BSDs (131) and (132) in [7], and our BSD for Y corresponds, up o muliplicaion by a consan, o heir BSD (136). The form of he BSD (4.29) could also be moivaed by he dual problem (4.20), using he fac ha he densiy process of any Q P f is a sochasic exponenial driven by W and µ by (2.5) and following [6]. As already menioned, he aricle [21] in some sense akes an opposie roue by proving in a quie general model ha exisence and uniqueness for he paricular BSD corresponding o he exponenial uiliy problem can be derived from he general dualiy resuls on he exisence and srucure of he soluion o he exponenial opimizaion problem in [8, 16].

21 BOUNDD BSD WITH JUMPS FOR UTILITY OPTIMIZATION Dynamic uiliy indifference valuaion and hedging. In he same way as [21], we define he uiliy indifference value π := π (B;α) process for he claim B under risk aversion α a any ime [0,T] as he implici soluion of he equaion (4.30) V 0,α (x) = V B,α (x + π ), x R, which relaes he maximal expeced uiliy funcions of he opimizaion problems wih and wihou (B = 0) a erminal liabiliy. For exponenial uiliy, i is clear from (4.12) ha he soluion π o (4.30) does no depend on x. One should noe ha he noion indifference value is no uniform hroughou he lieraure. In more classical erms, π can be described as he offseing variaion of curren wealh a ime ha compensaes he invesor for aking on he fuure liabiliy B; see [10] for an exposiion and references o he economic heory of value. The uiliy indifference hedging sraegy ψ(b; α) is defined as he difference of he respecive opimal invesmen sraegies, (4.31) Le µ := µ ν where (4.32) ψ := ψ(b;α) := θ B,α θ 0,α. ν (d,de) := exp(αu 0,α (e))ζ(,e)λ(de)d =: ζ (,e)λ(de)d denoes he compensaor of µ under he minimal enropy maringale measure Q Q,0, ha is, Q,B for B = 0. I i clear from (4.20) ha Q does no depend on α. To see how his can be reconciled wih (4.21), muliply by α he BSD (4.14) from which U 0,α comes and use he uniqueness of he soluion o conclude ha αy 0,α = Y 0,1, αz 0,α = Z 0,1 and αu 0,α = U 0,1, hen noe ha he Q,0 -densiy (4.21) depends on αu 0,α. For he remainder of his secion, le us fix he claim B L so we can ease he noaion by omiing references o B in some indices. The nex heorem shows ha he soluion o he uiliy indifference pricing and hedging problem is characerized by he following single BSD under he enropy minimal maringale measure Q : ( exp(αus (e)) Y = B + 1 ) α α U s(e) ζ (,e)λ(de)d (4.33) Z s dŵs U s (e) µ (d,de), [0,T]. Theorem 4.4. The soluion π and ψ o he dynamic uiliy indifference valuaion and hedging problem for a claim B L under risk aversion α > 0 is described by he unique soluion (Y,Z,U ) := (Y,α,Z,α,U,α ) S (Q ) L 2 T(Q ) L 2 ν(q )

22 22 D. BCHRR o he BSD (4.33) under Q. The uiliy indifference value process is (4.34) π α = Y B,α Y 0,α = Y,α and he indifference hedging sraegy is (4.35) ψ α = Z B,α Z 0,α = Z,α, where Y 0,Y B,Z 0 and Z B are given by he BSD soluions from Theorem 4.1 wih erminal daa B and 0, respecively. A his poin, a commen on a relaed resul in [21] is insrucive. Comparing he above BSD o he one in equaion (4.9) of [21] for a general filraion, one sees ha he λ-inegral par of he generaor in our BSD (4.33) corresponds o he compensaor for he sum of jumps ha appears in he BSD in [21]. This sum is expressed direcly in erms of jumps of Y and herefore is compensaor makes i very hard o derive any properies. In our seing, on he oher hand, he jump-relaed par of he generaor can be explicily expressed in erms of he inegrand process U and he Q - compensaor ν of µ; see (4.32). This form is highly amenable o furher analysis as he subsequen resuls demonsrae. Proof of Theorem 4.4. Le us firs noe ha L 2 ν (Q ) equals L 2 ν (Q ), since he densiy exp(αu 0,α ) of ν wih respec o ν is bounded from above and away from zero, and ha (Ŵ,ν ) wih Q fis ino he seing of Secion 3. I follows direcly from Theorem 4.1 and equaions (4.30) and (4.31) ha π α = Y B Y 0 and ψ α = Z B Z 0. I furher follows from Theorem 4.1 ha (δy,δz,δu) := (Y B Y 0,Z B Z 0,U B U 0 ) is he unique soluion o he following BSD (under P): δy = B δz s dŵs δu s (e) µ(ds,de) (4.36) + ( exp(αus 0 (e)) exp(αδu s(e)) 1 α ) δu s (e) ζ(s, e)λ(de) ds, wih [0,T]. Recalling relaion (4.32) and Theorem from [13], a argumen similar o ha used for (4.25) yields ha under a change of measure, (4.37) δu P µ = δu Q µ + (δu(exp(αu 0 ) 1)) ν.

23 BOUNDD BSD WITH JUMPS FOR UTILITY OPTIMIZATION 23 Thereby, one can rewrie (4.36) o obain a BSD under Q wih a sochasic inegral δu µ. The remaining erms give rise o a differen generaor such ha (δy,δz,δu) is a soluion o he BSD (4.33) under Q, and by our BSD resuls, such a soluion is unique. Remark 4.5. As consequences of Theorem 4.4, we can observe several imporan and ineresing properies of π and ψ. For insance: (1) The uiliy indifference value process π is a Q -supermaringale since he generaor in he BSD (4.33) is nonnegaive. (2) The BSD characerizaion of he soluion implies ha if (π ) and (ψ ) denoe he soluion from Theorem 4.4 wih respec o claim B a mauriy T, hen (π τ ) [0,T] and (ψ ½ [[0,τ]] ()) [0,T] provide he indifference soluion wih respec o he claim π τ a sopping ime τ T. In his sense, he exponenial uiliy indifference valuaion and hedging approach is ime consisen. (3) Combining he resuls from Theorems 4.1 and 4.4, i is seen ha π and ψ are he soluion o a single opimizaion problem in he sense ha (4.38) exp(απ α ) = esssup θ Θ(Q,α) Q [ exp ( ( ))] α θ dŵ B and he opimal sraegy is aained by ψ α Θ(Q,α), wih Θ(Q,α) being defined like Θ = Θ(P,α) from (4.8), bu wih Q aking he role of P. This shows ha he chosen definiion of Θ ransforms in a good way, and characerizes he soluion (π α,ψ α ) o he uiliy indifference problem as he opimal soluion o a single (primal) exponenial uiliy opimizaion problem posed wih respec o he minimal enropy measure Q and over he se Θ(Q,α) ha is defined, consisenly, wih respec o Q. The laer, raher suble, aspec of his saemen appears o be new in he lieraure, while he general message from (4.38) corresponds o Proposiion 3 in [21]. (4) The resul of Theorem 4.4 implies, in combinaion wih argumens from he proof of Theorem 4.2, ha he uiliy indifference value process π α is a (bounded) maringale under a suiable equivalen maringale measure Q B in P e ha depends on B and α. This confirms in our model framework an ineresing observaion made in [6, 7]; see he remark following heir Proposiion 27 in [7]. Thus far, i appears o be an open quesion o wha exend such a propery holds in general. To prove i in our model, le h(u) := k=2 (αu) k 1 /k!. Then h is a coninuous funcion R R wih h(u) > 1 on R and h(0) = 0 such ha uh(u) = (exp(αu) 1)/α u, and he sochasic exponenial (h(u ) µ ) is a maringale. The laer follows by Theorem 3.1 of [20] (or by Remark 3.1 in [17]) whose inegrabiliy condiion is me because he compensaor of

24 24 D. BCHRR ((1+h(U ))log(1+h(u )) h(u )) µ is bounded by he boundedness of U and λ(). Hence, d Q B := (h(u ) µ ) T dq defines a probabiliy measure. By he same Girsanov-ype argumens as were used in he proof of Theorem 4.2, i follows ha Ŵ remains a Brownian moion under Q B, while he compensaor of µ under Q B becomes ν Q B (d,de) = (h(u (e)) + 1)ν (d,de). By he same change-of-measure argumen as used for (4.25) and (4.26), i follows from he BSD (4.33) ha (Y,Z,U ) is also he bounded soluion o he following BSD under Q B : (4.39) = B Zs dŵs + Us (e) µ B (ds,de), Y where µ B := µ ν Q B denoes he compensae measure under Q B. Since Y is bounded, i is clearly a maringale, and boh sochasic inegrals in (4.39) are BMO( Q B ) maringales by Lemma 3.4. Alernaive proofs of some of he properies above, and ohers, in differen or more general models, can be found in he lieraure; see [21] and he references herein Asympoics for vanishing risk aversion. Finally, we prove ha he uiliy indifference price and he indifference hedging sraegy converge for vanishing risk aversion, in a suiable sense, o he condiional expecaion process of B and o he risk-minimizing sraegy for B under he minimal enropy maringale measure Q. This shows ha such a convergence of he sraegy, which has, o our bes knowledge, hus far only been shown in [21] under he assumpion of a coninuous (Brownian) filraion, also holds in a seing like ours where he filraion is nonconinuous in ha i allows for nonconinuous maringales. On his basis, one could conjecure ha an asympoic relaion of his ype should hold in general. We noe ha he convergence resuls of Secion 4.4, ha have been saed for vanishing risk aversion, could alernaively also be formulaed for vanishing claim volume, by using a volume-scaling propery for exponenial uiliy (cf. Secion 3 in [2]). This relaes his aricle o a very ineresing recen work of Kramkov and Sirbu [19] on he asympoic of uiliy-based hedging sraegies for small claim volumes. Unlike he presen aricle, [19] does no invesigae exponenial uiliy bu considers uiliy funcions whose domain is he posiive real half line. Using suggesive noaion anicipaing Theorem 4.6, we denoe by (Y,0,Z,0,U,0 ) from S (Q ) L 2 T (Q ) L 2 ν(q ) he soluion o he

25 BOUNDD BSD WITH JUMPS FOR UTILITY OPTIMIZATION 25 BSD (4.40) wih zero generaor under Q, wih [0,T], (4.40) = B Zs,0 dŵs Us,0 (e) µ (ds,de). Y,0 I follows from his decomposiion ha Z,0 corresponds o he globally risk-minimizing sraegy under he measure Q (more precisely, o is risky asse s par) and ha Y,0 is he associaed valuaion process (cf. [4]). For deails on risk-minimizaion and relaions o mean-variance hedging, see [23]. Theorem 4.6. Le (π α,ψ α,u,α ) = (Y,α,Z,α,U,α ) S L 2 T L2 ν denoe he BSD soluion (under Q ) from Theorem 4.4 o he indifference pricing and hedging problem for risk aversion α (0, ). Then here is a consan C = C(B) < such ha (4.41) Q τ [ sup u [[τ,t]] π α u Y,0 u ]]τ,t]] τ ψ α Z,0 2 ds ] U,α U,0 2 ν (ds,de) α 2 C, for all α (0,1] and all sopping imes τ T. Hence, (4.42) sup π α Y,0 2 α 2 C for α (0,1] [0,T] ψ α dŵ = lim α 0 Z,0 dŵ in BMO(Q ), limu,α µ = U,0 µ in BMO(Q ). α 0 In paricular, lim α 0 sup [0,T] π α Y,0 = 0 in L, and lim ψ α dŵ = Z,0 dŵ in H2 (Q ), α 0 (4.43) limu,α µ = U,0 µ in H 2 (Q ). α 0 We noe ha he upper bound for α in (0,1] is arbirary in (4.41); he same resul would hold for any finie bound oher han 1, possibly wih a differen consan C <. Proof of Theorem 4.6. Le (Y,α,Z,α,U,α ) S L 2 T L2 ν, for each α, denoe he BSD soluion from Theorem 4.4 which describes he soluion o he indifference pricing and hedging problem. I follows, by applying (under Q ) he esimae from Theorem 3.5 o he BSD (4.33) and

26 26 D. BCHRR using Jensen s inequaliy, ha here is a consan c no depending on α such ha [ τ Q Yu,α Yu,0 2 sup u [[τ,t]] + τ c Q τ Z,α Z,0 2 ds + [ τ ]]τ,t]] ] U,α U,0 2 ν (ds,de) 1 α exp(αu,α s (e)) 1 α U,α s (e) 2 ] ζ (,e)λ(de)d for all α (0,1]. Since U,α is bounded uniformly in α, for insance by 2b(0) from (3.12), he inegrand (exp(αus,α (e)) 1)/α Us,α (e) 2 is bounded P ν-a.e. by cons α 2 < for α (0,1], and as ζ is bounded and λ() is finie, here is a consan C < such ha he righ-hand side of he above inequaliy can be bounded by Cα 2 for all α (0,1] and τ. This yields (4.41) (4.43), by leing τ = 0 o obain (4.43) and by using he characerizaion of BMO-maringales for (4.42); see Chaper 10 in [13] xamples. This secion oulines some areas where he general indifference resuls from Secion 4 can be applied, and poins ou furher connecions o some closely relaed conribuions in he lieraure. One area of applicaion involves incomplee sochasic volailiy models. Consider, for insance, an increasing pure jump Lévy process L wihou drif (i.e., a pure jump subordinaor) and an independen Brownian moion W. Le F := F (W,L) = F W+L and le he price S of he single risky asse evolve as (4.44) ds = S γ (Y )d + S σ (Y )dw, S 0 = s (0, ) dy = KY + dl, Y 0 = y (0, ) and K (0, ), for suiable P B((0, ))-measurable funcions γ,σ :Ω [0,T] (0, ) R, wih σ > 0. If L is of finie aciviy and γ σ (Y ) is bounded, his fis comforably ino he framework of Secion 4.1 wih µ := µ L and ν(d,de) = λ(de)d where λ denoes he Lévy measure of L. Moreover, we can dispense wih he independence assumpion, for example, by a change o a new measure wih dp new /dp old = ((ζ 1) (µ ν)) T for a predicable bounded funcion ζ 0 such ha he compensaor of µ becomes dν new = ζ dν old and hence can depend on he hisory of (W,L); see xample 2.1. In [5], he densiy process of he minimal enropy maringale measure Q has been derived for a model like (4.44) wih a specific Markovian choice of γ and σ. Their resuls are boh more and less general han ours. While hey, for example, impose only a cerain inegrabiliy on he marke price of risk and do no require ha L