arxiv: v2 [math.oc] 26 May 2015

Transcription

1 Optimal dividend payments under a time of ruin constraint: Exponential claims arxiv: v [math.oc 6 May 15 Camilo Hernández Mauricio Junca July 3, 18 Astract We consider the classical optimal dividends prolem under the Cramér-Lunerg model with exponential claim sizes suject to a constraint on the time of ruin. We introduce the dual prolem and show that the complementary slackness conditions are satisfied, thus there is no duality gap. Therefore the optimal value function can e otained as the point-wise infimum of auxiliary value functions indexed y Lagrange multipliers. We also present a series of numerical examples. 1 Introduction One of the most studied models in actuarial science to descrie the reserves process of an insurance company is the Cramér-Lunerg model. In this model the company faces claims whose arrivals follow a compound Poisson process and a constant premium is paid y the insured clients. After the model was introduced, the proaility of ruin of such a portfolio was among the principal interests in this field, see [1. Nowadays, results aout minimizing ruin proaility considering reinsurance and investment in risky assets are proved y [8. In [9, similar results for a discrete time version of the model and a diffusion approximation are shown. However, a process that does not end in ruin in a model exceeds every finite level, this is, the company lives an infinite period of time and accumulates an infinite amount of money, which is quite unrealistic in practice. This idea motivated the study of the performance, instead of the safety aspect, of such portfolio. In 1957, Bruno de Finetti was interested in finding a way of paying out dividends in order to optimise the expected present value of the total income of the shareholders from time zero until ruin. This prolem is commonly referred as de Finetti s prolem, see [. As a result, researchers addressed the optimality aspect under more general and realistic assumptions which has turned out to e an aundant and amitious field of research. See [9 for results on this prolem in the Cramér-Lunerg model and its diffusion approximation, and [ when reinsurance is also considered. Under exponential claims, see [9, the optimal dividends payment strategy to de Finetti s prolem is known to e a arrier strategy, this is, there exists a value such that the optimal strategy Department of Mathematics, Universidad de los Andes, Bogota, Colomia. address: mc.hernandez131@uniandes.edu.co Department of Mathematics, Universidad de los Andes, Bogota, Colomia. address: mj.junca@uniandes.edu.co 1

2 is to let D t = [ X t where X t denotes the maximum of the reserves process X up to time t. However, the solution is not necessarily of this type in the general set up. In [ the authors provided an example of claims distriution for which no arrier strategy is optimal. However, there exists a trade-off etween staility and profitaility. Minimizing ruin proaility means no dividends payment and profits tend to. On the contrary, maximizing the dividends leads to a situation for which ruin is certain regardless of the initial capital, see [3. The idea of this work is to study a way to link two key concepts in the optimal dividends payment theory for the Cramér-Lunerg model: the profits and the time of ruin derived from a dividends payment strategy. Approaches in this direction have een already considered, see [6 for a solution to the optimal dividends payment prolem under a ruin constraint in discrete time and state setting. In [7 the author addressed this matter introducing the concept of solvency constraints and studied how they affected the optimal level of the arrier. In [1 the authors consider the classical and diffusion approximation models and introduced a penalization on the time of ruin on the ojective function, however an actual restriction on the time of ruin was not stated in this work. Finally, the model introduced in [5 took this link into account ut in a different setting. More specifically, [5 proposed an iterative scheme to solve the prolem of maximize the expected discounted consumption of an investor in finite time plus a penalisation on the level of the reserves at ruin for a given upper ound for the ruin proaility. This paper is organized as follows: Section is dedicated to the formulation of the prolem under consideration and to rewrite it using duality theory. In the following sections, under the exponential claim sizes assumption, we present the main results of this paper. We first focus on solving the dual prolem in Section 3 and then show the asence of duality gap for this prolem in Section. This paper s contriution relies on oth the solution of the optimal dividend payment prolem under a constrain on the time of ruin, and the tools developed in order to prove the duality gap of this prolem to e zero. Section 5 is dedicated to the presentation of numerical examples that illustrate different scenarios of the solution. In the last section we give conclusions of this study and present directions in which this work can e continued. Prolem formulation In this paper we consider the Cramér-Lunerg risk model, in which the surplus follows the process: N t X t = x + ct Y i, where N = (N t ) t represents a homogeneous Poisson process with rate λ >, modeling the claim occurrences. {Y i } models the sequence of claim amounts, {Y i } iid G(y), with G(.) is a continuous distriution function on [, ). {Y i } is assumed to e independent of the claim occurrences process N. The deterministic components are the premium rate c > and the initial capital x. All of the aove are defined in the same filtered proaility space (Ω, F, (F t ) t, P), with (F t ) t the filtration generated y the process X. The insurance company is allowed to pay dividends which are model y the process D = (D t ) t representing the cumulative payments up to time t. A dividends process is called admissile if it is a non negative, non decreasing càdlàg process adapted to the filtration (F t ) t. Therefore, the i=1

3 surplus process under dividends process D reads as X D t N t = x + ct Y i D t. (1) i=1 Let τ D denotes the time of ruin under dividends process D, i.e., τ D = inf{t : Xt D < }. We require the dividends process not to lead to ruin, i.e., D t D t Xt D for all t and D t = D τ D for t τ D, so no dividends are paid after ruin. We call Θ the set of such processes. The company wants to maximise the expected value of the discounted flow of dividends payment along time, that is, to maximise [ D τ V D (x ) := E x e δt dd t, where the lifespan of the company will e determined y its ruin, see [1. Also, δ is the discount factor. Finally, we add a restriction on the dividends process D which we model y the equation: D E x e δs ds T e δs ds T fixed. () The motivation ehind such a constraint is that it imposes a restriction on the time of ruin. For simplicity, let s denote the right hand side of the restriction y K T, i.e., K T := T e δs ds. Note that K T [, 1 δ ) and that the greater K T the greater τ D must e. Evidently there are other restrictions that capture this effect in a more direct way, e.g., E[τ D K. However there is no, to the est of our knowledge, a satisfactory technique to introduce such type of constraint in the model; additionally, as it will e clear in the following sections, the chosen functional form of the constraint fits in with the model in a smooth way. Comining all the aove components we state the prolem we aim to solve: [ τ D V (x ) := sup V D (x ) s.t. E x e δs ds K T T fixed. (P1) D Θ In order to solve this prolem we use Lagrange multipliers to reformulate our prolem. We first define the following for Λ D τ D VΛ D (x ) := E x e δt dd t + Λ e δs ds ΛK T. (3) The following remark clears out the strategy we will follow in the remainder of the paper. Remark.1. Note that (P1) is equivalent to sup inf D Θ Λ VD Λ (x ) since inf Λ VD Λ (x ) = V D (x ) otherwise. if E x [ τ D e δs ds K T 3

4 The dual prolem of (P1), is defined as inf sup VΛ D (x ), Λ D Θ which is always an upper ound for the primal (P1). The main goal is to prove that sup inf D Θ Λ VD Λ (x ) = inf sup VΛ D(x ). Λ D Θ To solve (D) we note the last term of (3) does not depend on D and is linear on Λ, therefore, we can focus on the first term on the right hand side of this equation and solve for fixed Λ V Λ (x ) := sup VΛ D (x ). D Θ For this prolem, it is known that its solution must satisfy the following HJB equation, see Proposition 11 in [1 max{λ + cv (x) + λ x (D) (P) V (x y)dg(y) (λ + δ)v (x), 1 V (x)} =. () As a first approach to this prolem, we restrict ourselves assuming an exponential distriution for the claim sizes. In this scenario, we succeed in solving (P1) via (D) proving there is no duality gap. However, we have not yet approached the general prolem for an aritrary claim sizes distriution. From now on we assume {Y i } iid Exp(α). As a result () converts into max{λ + cv (x) + λ 3 Solution of (P) x V (x y)αe αy dy (λ + δ)v (x), 1 V (x)} =, (5) For this prolem [1 proved that the optimal strategy corresponds to a arrier strategy and showed that the solution of (P) is given y Theorem 3.1 (Lemma 1 in [1). Let Λ. Then, if Λ (λ+δ) αλ c the value function of (P) is given y V Λ (x) = x + c + Λ λ + δ + Λ δ (e δt 1). Otherwise, there exists unique Λ > such that { x Λ + αc λ δ V Λ (x) = αδ + Λ δ e δt if x Λ C 1 e r1x + C e rx + Λ, (6) δ e δt if x Λ Where r 1, r are roots of the polynomial C 1, C are given y p(r) = cr + (αc (λ + δ))r αδ. (7) C = α + r α [ α α + r 1 C 1 + Λ δ C 1 = (α + r 1)(αδ + e r Λr (α + r )) αδ(e r1 r 1 (α + r 1 ) e r r (α + r )).,

5 and the value of the optimal arrier level Λ is given y the expression (r r 1 )(α + r 1 )(α + r )Λ = r 1 e r (r 1 (λ + δ) + αδ) + r e r1 (r (λ + δ) + αδ). (8) Let us define the critical value Λ = (δ + λ) αλ c. Remark 3.1. Note that for Λ Λ the optimal arrier strategy is =. The following proposition will e essential in the next section to prove the main result of this contriution. Proposition 3.. (i) If Λ for each >, there exists a unique Λ > Λ such that is the optimal arrier dividend strategy for (P) with Λ. (ii) If Λ <, there exists > such that for each, there exists a unique Λ such that is the optimal arrier dividend strategy for (P) with Λ. Proof. Note that equation (8) defines a map Λ : [, ) R. Taking derivative with respect to we otain dλ() = r 1r [e r (r 1 (λ + δ) + αδ) e r1 (r (λ + δ) + αδ) (r r 1 )(α + r 1 )(α + r ) It can e easily shown that oth roots of the characteristic polynomial are real and non zero, furthermore, one of them is positive and the other is negative. The first follows since [αc (λ + δ) + cαδ > and the second since [αc (λ + δ) + [αc (λ + δ) + cαδ >, [αc (λ + δ) [αc (λ + δ) + cαδ <. Now, for the negative root, let s say r, we have α + r > (see Lemma A.1). This leaves us with the case r 1 > > r, in which (9) is strictly positive as oth the numerator and denominator are negative and therefore the map is injective. Furthermore, using the expressions for r 1 and r in (8) we can show that Λ() = (λ + δ) αλc αλ (9) = Λ. (1) Hence, if Λ() < and there exists > (and solution of (??)) that satisfies (ii) since Λ when. (i) follows from (1). Figure 1 shows values of Λ derived from equation (8) for λ = 1, c = 1.3, Y i Exp(1), and δ =.1. Note that this values fall in the second case of Proposition 3.. Solution of (P1) Let X t e the surplus process under dividend arrier strategy with level denoted y D. Let τ e the time of ruin using such strategy, i.e., τ := inf{t : X t < }. In order to find out the solution to (P1) we will need the following proposition. Proposition.1. For each x there exists H x such that if T < H x there exists (Λ, ) that satisfies: (i) Λ and is the optimal arrier for (P) with Λ and initial value x, 5

6 Figure 1: Optimal arrier [ τ (ii) E x e δs ds K T and ( [ ) (iii) Λ τ E x e δs ds K T =. Proof. Let x fixed. Consider the following IDE prolem: A(Ψ )(x) δψ (x) = 1 Ψ () = Ψ C 1 [, (A1) where A(f)(x) is cf (x) + λ x f(x y)αe αy dy λf(x), the infinitesimal generator of the surplus process X t. It can e shown that for x Ψ (x) = 1 δ + C 1e r1x + C e rx with and C 1 = (α + r 1 )(α + r )r e r αδ[r 1 e r1 (α + r 1 ) r e r (α + r ) (α + r ) r e r C = αδ(e r1 r 1 (α + r 1 ) e r r (α + r )) (α + r ) αδ is solution of (A1), where r 1, r denote the roots of (7). Extend Ψ to R so that Ψ (x) =, x < and Ψ (x) = Ψ (), x. Using Dynkin s formula and the Optional Stopping Theorem we otain 6

7 that for x E x [e δτ Ψ (X τ ) = Ψ (x) + E x + s t, D = Ψ (x) + E x + E x e δs [A(Ψ (X s)) δψ (X s)ds e δs[ Ψ (X s) Ψ (X s ) + τ e δs [A(Ψ (X s )) δψ (X s )ds e δs cψ ()1 {Xs=}ds, e δs Ψ (X s)d D s where D denotes the continuous part of the control D. For the last equality we used that the continuous part of the control consists only of c at the moment at which Xs = and that the control has no jumps. Therefore, for Ψ (x), the extended solution of (A1), we get that [ τ Ψ (x) = E x e δs ds. Define, ˆΨ(x) := lim Ψ (x) = 1 δ α + r e rx. αδ Let H x := 1 α+r δ (log( α ) + r x ) and suppose T < H x. Recall K T = 1 e δt δ = ˆΨ(x ), so K T < ˆΨ(x ). Then we have the following to cases: K Hx and note that 1. Suppose Λ. If Ψ (x ) K T then (ii) is satisfied and the arrier = is optimal for (P) with Λ = y Remark 3.1. On the other hand, if Ψ (x ) < K T < ˆΨ(x ) Lemma A. guarantees the existence of a unique > such that Ψ (x ) = K T. In this later case, (i) of Proposition 3. guarantees the existence of a unique Λ for which is optimal for (P) with Λ. In oth cases we have (iii).. Suppose Λ <. If Ψ (x ) K T then (ii) is satisfied and the unconstrained prolem satisfies the restriction. Therefore, = is optimal for (P) with Λ =. If Ψ (x ) < K T < ˆΨ(x ) just as efore we know there exists a unique such that Ψ (x ) = K T. By (ii) of Proposition 3. there exists a unique Λ for which is optimal for (P) with Λ. In oth cases we also have (iii). As a consequence we have the main theorem: Theorem.. Let x, T and V (x ) e the optimal solution to (P1). Then (i) V (x ) inf Λ V Λ(x ) and (ii) inf Λ V Λ(x ) V (x ). 7

8 Therefore, inf Λ V Λ(x ) = V (x ). Proof. Fix x. Condition (i) is satisfied since inf Λ V Λ(x ) is the dual prolem of (P1). To verify condition (ii) we have the following cases: (i) T < H x : By Proposition.1 there is a pair (Λ, ) such that inf Λ V Λ(x ) V Λ (x ) = E x = E x V (x ), e δt dd t e δt dd t τ + Λ e δt dt Λ K T where the last inequality follows since the arrier strategy satisfies (). (ii) T = H x : In this case K T = ˆΨ(x ) and y Lemma A.3 Λ ( E x Λ e δs ds K T ) as Λ. Λ Also E x e δt dd Λ t as Λ since Λ. Therefore, since V (x ) and V Λ (x ) is convex in Λ (it is the supremum of linear functions) we otain that inf V Λ(x) = V (x ). Λ (iii) T > H x : In this case K T > ˆΨ(x ), therefore for all it holds that E x e δs ds < ( ˆΨ(x ) < K T. From this, one can deduce there exists ɛ > such that Λ E x [ ) τ Λ e δs ds K T < Λɛ. Letting Λ we otain inf V Λ(x) = V (x ). Λ 5 Numerical examples In this section we illustrate with more detail the cases that came up in the proof of Proposition.1 and Theorem.. As presented in the previous section to otain the optimal value function of (P1) we showed a pair (, Λ ) that certified strong duality. To do so, we consider several cases depending on the initial value x and T. We will continue to assume the following parameter values: λ = 1, c = 1.3, Y i exp(1), and δ =.1. In each case we will show two graphs. Graphs on the left show Ψ (x) for different values of and graphs on the right show V Λ (x ) for different values of Λ. For the first case, choose T and x so that K T lies ellow Ψ (x ). In this situation we know that the unconstrained solution satisfies the restriction. With such values the plot of V Λ (x ) for 8

9 Ψ KT 5 x x Figure : Inactive constraint. different values of Λ illustrate that the minimum is attained at Λ =, see Figure. The optimal solution is V (x ) and the optimal arrier is = =.8. In the second case, let T and x have values such that K T lies etween ˆΨ(x ) and Ψ (x ). With such values the plot of V Λ (x ) for different values of Λ reflects the existence of a minimum Λ >. To find it, find that satisfies Ψ (x ) = K T and use Proposition 3. to get Λ, see Figure 3. The optimal solution is V Λ (x ) and the optimal arrier is. Ψ x KT 6 Ψ Ψ.8 x x 1 3 Figure 3: Active constraint. 9

10 Now, let T and x have values such that K T = ˆΨ(x ). With such values the plot of V Λ (x ) for different values of Λ shows that the minimum is attained at with a value of see Figure. In this particular case we conclude that V (x ) = so that for (P1) the optimal strategy is to do nothing. Ψ x 1 6 Ψ x KT 8 6 Ψ x x Figure : Do nothing. In the last case, let T and x have values such that K T lies aove ˆΨ(x ). With such values the plot of V Λ (x ) for different values of Λ reflects that the minimum is also attained at. This is due to the fact that there is no such that Ψ (x ) = K T, see Figure 5. The prolem is infeasile so its optimal value is. Ψ KT Ψ.8 3 x x Figure 5: Prolem unfeasile. 1

11 Figure 6 shows the value functions of oth the unconstrained (Solid line) and the constrained prolem (Dashed line) for K. In this case for x <.3 the value function of the constrained prolem equals x Figure 6: V (x ) for oth the unconstrained and the constrained prolem. Finally, Figure 7 shows how the solution to prolem (P1) can e graphically characterized in terms of (x, K T ), the horizontal line at level 1 δ, ˆΨ(x) and Ψ (x). Ψ 1 1 Unfeasile 8 Ψ x K T 6 Active Ψ o x Inactive x Figure 7: Solution description. 6 Conclusions and future work In the framework of the classical dividend prolem there exists a trade-off etween staility and profitaility. Minimizing the ruin proaility could lead to no dividend payment whereas maximizing the expected value of the discounted payments leads to a dividend payment trend for which 11

12 ruin is certain regardless of the initial amount x. In this work we study a way to link the profits and the time of ruin derived from a dividend payment strategy D. We introduced a restriction that imposes a constraint on the time of ruin. Under exponentially distriuted claim sizes distriution we succeed in solving the constrained prolem using Duality Theory. Consider the prolem with general claims distriution is part of future research. Ongoing research also involves different type of restrictions and time-dependent optimal strategies as well. A Auxiliary Lemmas Lemma A.1. Let r e the negative root of the characteristic polynomial (7). Then. r + α >. Proof. r + α > αc + (λ + δ) ([αc (λ + δ) + cαδ) + α > c cα > αc (λ + δ) + ([αc (λ + δ) + cαδ) cα + (λ + δ) > ([αc (λ + δ) + cαδ) cα + (λ + δ) > ([αc + (λ + δ) (λ + δ) + cαδ) cα + (λ + δ) > ([αc + (λ + δ) (αc + (λ + δ))(λ + δ) + (λ + δ) + cαδ) (αc + (λ + δ))(λ + δ) + (λ + δ) + cαδ < (αc + (λ + δ))(λ + δ) > (λ + δ) + cαδ αc(λ + δ) > cαδ αcλ >. Lemma A.. Let Ψ (x) e the solution of prolem (A1). For x fixed, Ψ (x) is increasing in. Proof. The proof consists on calculate dψ (x). For x < g(x) := dψ (x) = (α + r 1)(α + r )re r αδ[r 1 e r1 (α + r 1 ) r e r (α + r ) (αδ[r 1 e r1 (α + r 1 ) r e r (α + r )) e r1x (α + r 1)(α + r )r e r αδ[r1e r1 (α + r 1 ) re r (α + r ) (αδ[r 1 e r1 (α + r 1 ) r e r (α + r )) e r1x (α + r ) re r αδ[r 1 e r1 (α + r 1 ) r e r (α + r ) (αδ[r 1 e r1 (α + r 1 ) r e r (α + r )) e rx + (α + r ) r e r αδ[r 1e r1 (α + r 1 ) r e r (α + r ) (αδ[r 1 e r1 (α + r 1 ) r e r (α + r )) e rx. 1

13 The numerator of this expression can e reduced to αδr (α + r 1 )(α + r )e r(+x) [r 1 r e r1 (α + r 1 ) r e r (α + r ) r 1e r1 (α + r 1 ) + r e r (α + r ) αδr (α + r ) e r(+x) [r 1 r e r1 (α + r 1 ) r e r (α + r ) r 1e r1 (α + r 1 ) + r e r (α + r ) = αδr r 1 (α + r 1 )(α + r ) e r(+x) e r1 [r 1 r αδr r 1 (α + r 1 ) (α + r )e r(+x) e r1 [r 1 r = αδr r 1 (α + r 1 )(α + r )e r(+x) e r1 [r 1 r >. Now, for x, Ψ (x) = Ψ () and therefore we must calculate dψ () =g() + (α + r 1 )(α + r )r e r r 1 e r1 αδ[r 1 e r1 (α + r 1 ) r e r (α + r ) (α + r ) r e r r e r αδ(e r1 r 1 (α + r 1 ) e r r (α + r )) (α + r )r e r αδ =g() + (α + r 1 )(α + r )r 1 r e (r1+r) αδ[r 1 e r1 (α + r 1 ) r e r (α + r ) (α + r ) r e r (α + r 1 )(α + r )r 1 r e (r1+r) + (α + r ) r e r αδ(e r1 r 1 (α + r 1 ) e r r (α + r )) =g() >. Lemma A.3. Let x and T. If K T = ˆΨ(x) [ then Λ E x [ τ Λ e δs ds K T as Λ. Proof. From the proof of Proposition.1 we must calculate Λ [Ψ Λ (x) K T as Λ. Furthermore, from Proposition 3. and Lemma A. we know the second term goes to as Λ. Since Λ is equivalent to, we will calculate the limit of [Ψ (x) K T dψ (x) dλ = [Ψ (x) K T dψ (x) dλ as. Recall that Ψ (x) = 1 δ + (α + r 1)(α + r )r e r+r1x (α + r )(α + r 1 )r 1 e r1+rx αδ[r 1 e r1 (α + r 1 ) r e r (α + r ) and that K T = ˆΨ(x) = 1 δ α+r αδ erx. Therefore (Ψ (x) K T ) = ( (α + r )r [e r1x (α + r 1 ) e rx ) (α + r ) (αδ[r 1 e r1 (α + r 1 ) r e r e r. (α + r ) 13

14 From Proposition 3. and Lemma A. it can e derived that Now, dψ (x) dλ =δα(α + r 1) (α + r ) [r 1 r 3 e r1 e r(+x) (αδ[r 1 e r1 (α + r 1 ) r e r (α + r )) 1 e r (r 1 (λ + δ) + αδ) e r1 (r (λ + δ) + αδ). (Ψ (x) K T ) dψ (x) dλ = ((α + r )r [e r1x (α + r 1 ) e rx (α + r )) e r αδ(r 1 r ) 3 (α + r 1 ) (α + r ) e r1 e r e rx (e r (r 1 (λ + δ) + αδ) e r1 (r (λ + δ) + αδ)) = (α + r )r [e r1x (α + r 1 ) e rx (α + r )) αδ(r 1 r ) 3 (α + r 1 ) (α + r ) e rx (e r1 (r 1 (λ + δ) + αδ) e (r r1) (r (λ + δ) + αδ)), from where one can conclude that the last expression goes to as since r < < r 1. References [1 S. Asmussen and H. Alrecher. Ruin Proailities. Science and Applied Proaility. Springer- Verlag, nd edition edition, 1. [ P. Azcue and N. Muler. Optimal reinsurance and dividend distriution policies in the cramérlunerg model. Mathematical Finance, 15():6138, 3 5. [3 H. Bühlmann. Mathematical Methods of Risk Theory. Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften. Springer-Verlag, 197. [ B. De Finetti. Su unimpostazion alternativa dell teoria collecttiva del rischio. In Transactions of the XVth International Congress of Actuaries, numer, pages 33 3, [5 P. Grandits. An optimal consumption prolem in finite time with a constraint on the ruin proaility. Preprint, 13. [6 C. Hipp. Optimal dividend payment under a ruin constraint: Discrete time and state space. Bltter der DGVFM, 6():55 6, 3. [7 J. Paulsen. Optimal dividend payouts for diffusions with solvency constraints. Finance and Stochastics, 7():57 73, 9 3. [8 H. Schmidli. On minimizing the ruin proaility y investment and reinsurance. The Annals of Applied Proaility, 1(3):89 97, 8. [9 H. Schmidli. Stochastic Control in Insurance. Proaility and Its Applications. Springer, 8. [1 S. Thonhauser and H. Alrecher. Dividend maximization under consideration of the time value of ruin. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 1(1):163 18, 7. 1