A SIMPLE PROOF OF KRAMKOV’S RESULT ON UNIFORM SUPERMARTINGALE DECOMPOSITIONS SAUL JACKA

advertisement
A SIMPLE PROOF OF KRAMKOV’S RESULT
ON UNIFORM SUPERMARTINGALE DECOMPOSITIONS
SAUL JACKA 1,2
University of Warwick
Abstract: we give a simple proof of Kramkov’s uniform optional decomposition in the case
where the class of density processes satisfies a suitable closure property. In this case the decomposition is previsible.
Keywords: UNIFORM SUPERMARTINGALE; UNIFORM OPTIONAL DECOMPOSITION;
UNIFORM PREDICTABLE DECOMPOSITION
AMS subject classification: 60G15
§1 Introduction
In [2], Kramkov showed that for a suitable class of probability measures, 𝒫, on
a filtered measure space (Ω, β„±, ℱ𝑑 ; 𝑑 ≥ 0), if 𝑆 is a supermartingale under all β„š ∈ 𝒫,
then there is a uniform optional decomposition of 𝑆 into the difference between a 𝒫uniform local martingale and an increasing optional process. In this note we give (in
Theorem 2.1) a simple proof of this result in the case where the density processes of
the p.m.s in 𝒫 (taken with respect to a suitable reference p.m.) are closed under scalar
multiplication (and hence continuous).
The applications in [2] refer to the financial set-up, where 𝒫 is the collection of
Equivalent Martingale Measures for a collection of discounted securities 𝒳 , and 𝑆 is
the payoff to a superhedging problem for an American option, so that
𝑆𝑑 = ess supβ„š∈𝒫 ess supoptional 𝜏 ≥𝑑 𝔼[π‘‹πœ βˆ£β„±π‘‘ ],
where 𝑋 is the claims process for the option.
Other examples are a multi-period coherent risk-measure where the risk measure
πœŒπ‘‘ is given by
πœŒπ‘‘ (𝑋) = ess supβ„š∈𝒫 𝔼[π‘‹βˆ£β„±π‘‘ ]
(see [3]) and the Girsanov approach to a control set-up, where 𝑆 is given by the same
formula, but 𝒫 corresponds to a collection of costless controls on 𝑋 (see, for example,
[1]).
§2 Uniform supermartingale decomposition
We assume that we are given a filtered probability space (Ω, β„±, (ℱ𝑑 )𝑑≥0 , β„™), satisfying the usual conditions, and a collection, 𝒫, of probability measures on (Ω, β„±) such
that β„š << β„™, for all β„š ∈ 𝒫.
𝑑𝑒𝑓 π‘‘β„š We note that, since β„š << β„™, Λβ„š
𝑑 = 𝑑ℙ ℱ𝑑 is a non-negative β„™-martingale, with
β„š
Λβ„š
may write it as Λβ„š
𝑑 = πœ€(πœ† )𝑑 , where πœ€ is the Doleans-Dade
0 = 1, and hence we
∫
𝑑 𝑑Λβ„š 𝑠
β„š
exponential and πœ†β„š
𝑑 = 0 Λβ„š , so that πœ† is a β„™-local martingale with jumps bounded
𝑠−
below by −1. We denote by β„’ the collection {πœ†β„š ; β„š ∈ 𝒫} and by β„’π‘™π‘œπ‘ the usual
localisation of β„’.
1
2
Postal address: Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.
E-mail: s.d.jacka@warwick.ac.uk
2
UNIFORM SUPERMARTINGALE DECOMPOSITIONS
Theorem 2.1 Suppose that
i) β„™ ∈ 𝒫;
ii) β„’π‘™π‘œπ‘ is closed under scalar multiplication;
then any 𝒫-uniform local supermartingale, 𝑆, possesses a π‘π‘™π‘Žπ‘ π‘ -uniform Doob-Meyer
predictable decomposition, i.e. we may write 𝑆 uniquely as
𝑆 = 𝑀 − 𝐴,
where 𝑀 is a 𝒫-uniform local martingale and 𝐴 is a locally integrable predictable increasing process with 𝐴0 = 0.
Remark: Notice that condition (ii) implies that every element of β„’π‘™π‘œπ‘ is continuous,
since if π›Ώπœ† ∈ β„’π‘™π‘œπ‘ for all 𝛿 ∈ ℝ the jumps of πœ† must be of size zero.
Proof of Theorem 2.1: take β„š ∈ 𝒫, with Λβ„š = πœ€(πœ†β„š ). Now 𝑆 is a β„š-local supermartingale iff 𝑆Λβ„š is a β„™-local supermartingale so, taking the Doob-Meyer decomposition of 𝑆 with respect to β„™: 𝑆 = 𝑀 − 𝐴, we must have that
∫
∫
β„š
β„š
β„š
π‘†Λ = 𝑆0 + 𝑆𝑑− 𝑑Λ𝑑 + Λβ„š
𝑑 𝑑𝑆𝑑 + < 𝑆, Λ >
∫
∫
∫
β„š
β„š
β„š
= 𝑆0 + 𝑆𝑑− 𝑑Λ𝑑 + Λ𝑑 𝑑𝑀𝑑 + Λβ„š
(2.1)
𝑑 (𝑑 < πœ† , 𝑀 >𝑑 −𝑑𝐴𝑑 )
is a β„™-supermartingale. Now since the first two terms in the last line of (2.1) are local
martingales, whilst the last is a predictable process of integrable variation on compacts,
it follows that the last term must be decreasing. For this to be true, we must have
< πœ†β„š , 𝑀 >+ << 𝐴, with
𝑑 < πœ†β„š , 𝑀 >+
≤ 1,
𝑑𝐴
(2.2)
where < πœ†β„š , 𝑀 >+ and < πœ†β„š , 𝑀 >− are, respectively, the increasing processes corresponding to the positive and negative components in the Hahn decomposition of the
signed measure induced by < πœ†β„š , 𝑀 >.
Now β„’π‘™π‘œπ‘ is closed under scalar multiplication so that, localising if necessary, we
𝛿 𝑑𝑒𝑓
may assume that π›Ώπœ† ∈ β„’ and so, defining β„šπ›Ώ by Λβ„š = πœ€(π›Ώπœ†β„š ), we see that (2.2) holds
β„š
,𝑀 >+
with πœ†β„š replaced by π›Ώπœ†β„š for any 𝛿 ∈ ℝ. Letting 𝛿 → ∞ we see that 𝑑<πœ† 𝑑𝐴
= 0,
whilst letting 𝛿 → −∞ we see that
𝑑<πœ†β„š ,𝑀 >−
𝑑𝐴
= 0. It follows immediately that
< πœ†β„š , 𝑀 >≡ 0
To complete the proof we need simply observe that
∫
∫
∫
β„š
β„š
β„š
β„š
𝑀 Λ = 𝑀0 + 𝑀𝑑− 𝑑Λ𝑑 + Λ𝑑 𝑑𝑀𝑑 + Λβ„š
𝑑 𝑑 < 𝑀, πœ† >𝑑 ,
and hence 𝑀 is a β„š-local martingale and since β„š is arbitrary, the result follows
Remark: We note that if 𝒫 consists of the EMMs (or local EMMS) for a vector-valued
martingale 𝑀 and the underlying filtration supports only continuous martingales (for
example if it is the filtration of a multi-dimensional Wiener process), then the conditions
3
UNIFORM SUPERMARTINGALE DECOMPOSITIONS
of Theorem 2.1 are satisfied. This follows since, under these conditions, if πœ† is a β„™-local
martingale then πœ† ∈ β„’π‘™π‘œπ‘ ⇔< πœ†, 𝑀 >= 0, and the same then holds for any multiple of
πœ†.
REFERENCES
[1] Benes̈, V: Existence of Optimal Stochastic Control Laws (1971), SIAM J. of Control and Optim. 9, 446-472.
[2] Kramkov, D: Optional decomposition of supermartingales and hedging contingent
claims in incomplete security markets (1996), Prob. Th & Rel. Fields 105, 459479.
[3] Reidel, F: Dynamic Coherent Risk Measures (2004), Stoch. Proc. and Appl. 112,
185-200.
Download