1 views

Uploaded by Mzukisi

A paper on option pricing

- Simulation HW1
- 3rdqtr13
- An Examination and Implementation of the Libor Market Model
- Investment Banking Securities Dealing Lines 52311 L
- Alex Sharpe's Portfolio
- CQF Brochure 2011
- Risk Averse Timing
- 1-s2.0-S1570794607802124-main
- As Fs d Grg 23543645
- BEAM
- Molecular Mechanics
- Functions of a Single Variable-FEA
- Disseratation-1
- Term Structure Models Leippold
- Interview Questions
- 001
- Managing the Exploitation Life of the Mining
- Week 2a(1)
- Islamic Finance & Risk Management
- NCFM MODULE

You are on page 1of 26

in Incomplete Markets

Jan Kallsen

Universitt Freiburg i. Br.

Abstract

plete markets have been made. We argue that some of them can be naturally interpreted

in terms of neutral derivative prices which occur if derivative demand and supply are

balanced. Secondly, we introduce the notion of consistent derivative pricing which is a

way of constructing market models that are consistent with initially observed derivative

quotations.

ing, consistent pricing

1 Introduction

Portfolio optimization, hedging, and derivative pricing constitute three fundamental quanti-

tative problems in mathematical finance. Since martingale methods have been introduced by

Harrison and Kreps (1979) and Harrison and Pliska (1981), these questions can be addressed

very elegantly in complete models. As the key tool they come up with the unique equivalent

martingale measure (EMM). Computing conditional expectations of some random variables

under this auxiliary measure yields important parts of the solution: the unique arbitrage-

free contingent claim value in the derivative pricing problem, the value of its replicating

portfolio in the hedging problem, and the optimal wealth process in utility maximization

problems (cf. Harrison and Pliska (1981), Pliska (1986), Karatzas et al. (1987), Cox and

Huang (1989)). An important early reference in this context is Bismut (1975).

In incomplete markets the situation is more involved because one is facing a mathemat-

ical and a conceptual problem: Mathematically, the use of martingale methods is compli-

cated by the fact that there exists more than one EMM. This may explain why they have

Institut fr Mathematische Stochastik, Universitt Freiburg, Eckerstrae 1, D-79104 Freiburg i. Br., Ger-

many, (e-mail: kallsen@stochastik.uni-freiburg.de). The author wants to thank Thomas Goll for fruitful dis-

cussions.

1

been applied only in the last decade. Nevertheless, martingale methods play a very impor-

tant role in incomplete models. In utility maximization problems, conditional expectations

still lead to the optimal wealth process if the right equivalent martingale measure is cho-

sen. Intuitively, this measure leads to an in some sense least favourable market completion

(cf. Foldes (1990, 1992), He & Pearson (1991a,b), Karatzas et al. (1991), Cvitanic and

Karatzas (1992), Pliska (1997), Kramkov and Schachermayer (1999), Cvitanic et al. (2001),

Schachermayer (2001b)).

As regards derivative pricing and hedging, we are facing the severe conceptual prob-

lem that unique arbitrage-free contingent claim values and perfect hedging strategies do

not exist. Derivative pricing in incomplete models basically means choosing one of the

set of equivalent martingale measures in some economically or mathematically motivated

fashion, e.g. based on hedging arguments (cf. Schl (1994), Schweizer (1996)), on util-

ity or equilibrium-type considerations (cf. Davis (1997), Karatzas and Kou (1996), Frittelli

(1998), Rouge and El Karoui (2001), Bellini and Frittelli (2000), Kallsen (2001)), or on

distance minimization (cf. Keller (1997), Miyahara (1996, 1999), Chan (1999), Grandits

(1999a,b), Frittelli (2000), Goll and Rschendorf (2001)). Similarly, various suggestions

have been made to replace the perfect hedge in complete models with a reasonable coun-

terpart in incomplete settings, e.g. based on hedging error minimization (cf. Fllmer &

Schweizer (1989, 1991), Schweizer (1991, 1992, 1994, 1995)), superhedging (cf. El Karoui

and Quenez (1995)), or utility maximization (cf. Fllmer and Leukert (2000), Kallsen (1998a,

1999), Cvitanic et al. (2001), Delbaen et al. (2000)).

Although the problems and even more so their solutions look quite different on first

glance, they are intimately related. The links between portfolio optimization, derivative

pricing, and hedging start to become folklore among experts. Still, the results are scattered

in the literature and have been derived in quite different settings. As far as derivative pricing

is concerned, some precise definitions are missing altogether. This makes it hard for the

non-specialist in the field to get an intuitive picture.

The aim of this paper is threefold. By focusing on one important result, we want to

provide the novice with an idea how martingale methods enter portfolio optimization in in-

complete models. Secondly, we give a precise definition of neutral derivative prices which

occur if traders maximize their expected utility and if supply and demand of derivatives are

balanced. Neutral prices are closely related to seemingly different concepts in the literature.

Thirdly, we introduce the notion of consistent derivative pricing which is a way of construct-

ing market models that are consistent with initially observed contingent claim quotations.

Previous approaches in this direction include inversion of the yield curve (cf. Bjrk (1997))

and Avellaneda et al. (1997), Avellaneda (1998), Kallsen (1998a,b), Goll and Rschendorf

(2000). Since this paper aims at concepts rather than mathematical generality, we stick to a

finite market model.

The paper is organized as follows: The role of martingale methods in portfolio optimiza-

tion is reviewed in the subsequent section. Sections 3 and 4 deal with neutral and consistent

derivative pricing, respectively.

2

2 Optimal trading

2.1 General notation

Our general mathematical framework for a finite frictionless market model is as follows. We

work with a filtered probability space (, F, (Ft )t{0,1,...,T } , P ), where and the time set

{0, 1, . . . , T } are finite. We consider traded securities 0, . . . , d whose prices are expressed

in terms of multiples of the numeraire security 0. Put differently, securities 0, . . . , d are

modelled by their adapted, Rd+1 -valued discounted price process S = (S 0 , . . . , S d ), where

S 0 = 1. In order to avoid lengthy notation, we let F = P(), F0 = {, }, and P ({}) >

0 for any . Occasionally, we identify S with the Rd -valued process (S 1 , . . . , S d ).

We consider an investor (hereafter called you) who disposes of an initial endowment

e R. Your preferences are expressed in terms of a proper, upper semi-continuous, concave

utility function u : R [, ) which is differentiable on its effective domain (i.e. on

{x R : u(x) > }; in fact, functions like x 7 x, which are not differentiable on

the boundary of their effective domain, fit in our framework as well). Trading strategies

are modelled by Rd+1 -valued, predictable stochastic processes = (0 , . . . , d ), where it

denotes the number of shares of security i in your portfolio at time t.

We write Xt := Xt Xt1 for any stochastic process X. Moreover, the notation H X

is used to denote the stochastic integral of H relative to X, which is just a sum in our simple

setting, i.e. H Xt = ts=1 Hs Xs . The transposed of a vector x is written as x> .

P

> > >

equivalent definition is S = 0 S0 + S, which make sense in continuous-time as

well. For any predictable process (1t , . . . , dt )t{0,...,T } and any x R, there exists a unique

predictable process (0t )t{0,...,T } such that := (0 , . . . , d ) is self-financing and > 0 S0 =

x (cf. Lamberton and Lapeyre (1996), Proposition 1.1.3). If your trading strategy is self-

financing with 0 = 0, then the value of your portfolio is described by the discounted wealth

process V () defined as Vt () := e + > St for t = 0, . . . , T .

Trading constraints are given in terms of subsets of the set of all trading strategies. In

this paper, we consider the following cases:

1, . . . , p and j> = 0 for j = p + 1, . . . , q} a polyhedral cone, where 1 , . . . , q Rd . By

S(A, K) we denote the set of all self-financing trading strategies with 0 = 0 that satisfy

the following condition: There exists an a A such that for any (, t) {1, . . . , T }

we have (1t , . . . , dt )() a K.

cone as in the previous definition. Moreover, let A0 := A a for some a A.

Typical choices for the constraint sets (A,K) are ({0}, Rd ) (no constraints), ({0}, (R+ )d )

(no short sales), ({0, . . . , 0, }, Rd1 {0}) (fixed position in security d), ({0, . . . , 0}

3

R, Rd1 {0}) (Security d can only be traded once, namely at time 0, and then has to be

held till time T .).

surely and P (> ST > 0) > 0. A ({0}, Rd )-arbitrage is simply called arbitrage. We say

that the market allows no (A, K)-arbitrage (resp. arbitrage) if there is no such strategy.

? ? ?

density dP if dP is a real-valued random variable with E( dP ) = 1 and P ? (C) =

R dP ? dP dP

?

dP

?

C dP

dP for any C F. We write EP ? (X|Ft ) := E(X dP dP

|Ft )/E( dP

dP

|Ft ) for any

dP ?

real-valued random variable X if E( dP |Ft ) 6= 0.

?

2. Let P ? be a signed probability measure with density dPdP

. An adapted process X is

? dP ?

called P -(super)martingale if the process (E( dP |Ft )Xt )t{0,...,T } is a P -(super)mar-

tingale.

?

3. A signed probability measure P ? with P -density dP

dP

is called signed (A, K)-seper-

dP ? >

ating measure if E( dP ( ST )) 0 for any S(A, K).

a signed (A, K)-seperating measure.

5. Any equivalent (resp. signed) ({0}, Rd )-seperating measure is simply called equiva-

lent martingale measure (EMM) (resp. signed martingale measure (SMM)).

Remarks.

similar statement holds for SMMs.

2. The name seperating measure is taken from Kabanov (1997). These measures play

an important role in the work of Delbaen & Schachermayer (1994, 1998) on the fun-

damental theorem of asset pricing (cf. also Lemma 2.4 below). Note that P ? is a

({0}, K)-seperating measure if and only if > S is a P ? -supermartingale for any

S({0}, K).

The following lemma is a simple form of the fundamental theorem of asset pricing which

has been studied extensively (cf. Harrison and Kreps (1979), Harrison and Pliska (1981),

Kreps (1981), Willinger and Taqqu (1987), Dalang et al. (1990), Schachermayer (1992),

Kabanov and Kramkov (1994), Rogers (1994), Delbaen & Schachermayer (1994, 1995,

1998), Schrger (1996), Jacod and Shiryaev (1998)). In its definitive form in Delbaen and

Schachermayer (1998), arbitrage has to be replaced with no free lunch with vanishing risk

(NFLVR) and EMM with sigma-martingale measure. For arbitrary closed convex cones, cf.

in particular Pham and Touzi (1999), Theorems 4.1 and 4.2.

4

Lemma 2.4 (Fundamental theorem of asset pricing) The market does not allow arbitrage

(resp. (A0 , K)-arbitrage) if and only if there exists an EMM (resp. equivalent (A0 , K)-

seperating measure).

P ROOF. The general assertion follows almost literally as Theorem 1.2.7 in Lamberton and

Lapeyre (1996) for the unconstrained case if we set V := {> ST R : S(A0 , K)}

and show that the following two propositions hold.

then there exists some % R such that %> c 0 for any c C and %> b > 0 for any

b B.

1. Here and in later proofs, we denote by Ft,1 , . . . , Ft,mt the partition of that generates

Ft (for t = 0, . . . , T ). Since a mapping is Ft -measurable if and only if it is constant on

the sets Ft,i , i = 1, . . . , mt , and since is uniquely determined by 1 , . . . , d , we can

identify the set of all self-financing strategies satisfying 0 = 0 with Rn := Rm0 d

. . . RmT 1 d . As K and A0 are given by linear equality and inequality constraints,

it follows that S(A0 , K) corresponds to a polyhedral cone in Rn . Therefore, there

exist a1 , . . . , ak Rn such that S(A0 , K) = { ki=1 i ai Rn : 1 , . . . , k 0}

P

(cf. Rockafellar and Wets (1998), Theorem 3.52). On the other hand, the mapping

L : Rn R : 7 > ST is linear. Hence, V = L(S(A0 , K)) = { ki=1 i L(ai )

P

2. By Rockafellar and Wets (1998), Theorem 2.39, there exist % R , r R such that

%> c < r for any c C and %> b > r for any b B. Since %> 0 = 0, it follows that

r 0. It remains to be shown that %> c 0 for any c C. Otherwise, there exists

some c C with %> c > 0. This implies %>e c C, which

c > r for a positive multiple e

yields a contradiction.

As an investor with given endowment e, you may want to choose your trading strategy in

some optimal way. Classical and intuitive suggestions are to maximize the expected utility

from terminal wealth or consumption. A further related concept is introduced in Subsection

2.3 below. Due to limited space, we do not discuss the consumption case in this paper

(except for Remark 7 below).

Definition 2.5 We say that S(A, K) is optimal for terminal wealth under the con-

straints (A, K) if it maximizes E(u(VT ())) = E(u(e + > ST )) over all S(A, K).

For K = Rd (no constraints) we call simply optimal for terminal wealth.

5

For the rest of this subsection, we make the following weak technical

Assumption. There exists a strategy S(A, K) such that VT () = e + > ST has only

values in the interior of the effective domain of u.

The following result characterizes optimal strategies in terms of EMMs or, more gener-

ally, signed seperating measures. In analogy to the fundamental theorem of asset pricing and

to underline its importance, we daringly call it a fundamental theorem of utility maximiza-

tion. It is by no means new. Especially the inclusion 12 can be traced way back to Arrow

and Debreu (cf. Duffie (1992), Chapter 1c and the references therein). Moreover, it plays

a key role in many papers that apply martingale or duality methods to utility maximization

(Pliska (1986), Karatzas et al. (1987), Cox and Huang (1989), Foldes (1990, 1992), He

& Pearson (1991a,b), Karatzas et al. (1991), Cvitanic and Karatzas (1992), Pliska (1997),

Kramkov and Schachermayer (1999), Cvitanic et al. (2001), Schachermayer (2001b)). Al-

though easier to prove, the inclusion 21 is less often explicitly stated. Versions can be

found in Foldes (1990), Karatzas et al. (1991), Theorem 9.3, Goll and Kallsen (2000),

Kallsen (1998a, 2000b), Goll and Rschendorf (2001). The extent to which the equivalence

holds in more general settings depends sensitively on the chosen set of trading strategies and

probability measures (cf. Schachermayer (2001a) for an overview).

Lemma 2.6 Let be a trading strategy in S(A, K) such that E(u0 (e + > ST )) > 0.

Write as = a + with a A, S({0}, K). Then we have equivalence between:

1. is optimal for terminal wealth under the constraints (A, K).

2. There exists a signed (A0 , K)-seperating measure P ? and a number such that

?

(a) dP

dP

= u0 (e + > ST ),

(b) > S is a P ? -martingale.

P ROOF. 12: Let a0 A. Since A is an affine subspace of Rd , there exist 1 , . . . , r Rd

such that A = {a Rd : i> (a a0 ) = 0 for i = 1, . . . , r}. As in the proof of

Lemma 2.4, we denote by Ft,1 , . . . , Ft,mt the partition of that generates Ft , t = 0, . . . , T .

We use the notation t (l) := (t1 (), . . . , td ()) for t = 1, . . . , T , l = 1, . . . , mt1 ,

Ft1,l . Similarly, we set c(l) := c() for l = 1, . . . , mT , FT,l and any real-

valued random variable c. Therefore, any triple (a, , c) consisting of a Rd , a strat-

egy S({0}, Rd ), and a real-valued random variable c can be identified with an el-

ement of Rn := (Rd (Rm0 d . . . RmT 1 d ) RmT ) and vice versa, namely with

(a, 1 (1), . . . , T (mT 1 ), c(1), . . . , c(mT )). Using this identification, we can define map-

pings f : Rn R {}, gj,t,l : Rn R (for j = 1, . . . , q, t = 1, . . . , T , l = 1, . . . , mt1 ),

hi : Rn R (for i = 1, . . . , r), and k : Rn R (for any ) by

f (a, , c) := E(u(c)),

6

gj,t,l (a, , c) := j> t (l),

hi (a, , c) := i> (a a0 ),

k (a, , c) := c() e (a + )> ST ().

With this notion, a + is optimal for terminal wealth under the constraints (A, K) if

and only if (a, , e + (a + )> ST ) minimizes f subject to the constraints gj,t,l 0 (for

j = 1, . . . , p, t = 1, . . . , T , l = 1, . . . , mt1 ), gj,t,l = 0 (for j = p + 1, . . . , q, t = 1, . . . , T ,

l = 1, . . . , mt1 ), hi = 0 (for i = 1, . . . , r), k = 0 (for any ). From Rockafellar

(1970), Theorems 28.2 and 28.3 it follows that a + is optimal for terminal wealth under

the constraints (A, K) if and only if there exists a real-valued random variable and real

numbers j,t,l (for j = 1, . . . , q, t = 1, . . . , T , l = 1, . . . , mt1 ), i (for i = 1, . . . , r) such

that we have for c := e + (a + )> ST :

P P Pm

2. 0 = f (a, , c) + qj=1 Tt=1 l=1t1 j,t,l gj,t,l (a, , c) + ri=1 i hi (a, , c) +

P

P

()k (a, , c),

where denotes the gradient of a mapping Rn R. Note that , j,t,l , i can be chosen

independently of (a, , c). Replacing () with %() := ()/P ({}) as well as j,t,l

ejt () := j,t,l /P (Ft1,l ) (for Ft1,l ) and straightforward calculations yield the

with

following equivalence: a + is optimal for terminal wealth under the constraints (A, K) if

and only if there exists a real-valued random variable %, a vector = (1 , . . . , r ) Rr , and

a predictable Rq -valued process e such that we have for c := e + (a + )> ST :

ejt 0 and

1. ejt j> (t1 , . . . , td ) = 0 for j = 1, . . . , p, t = 1, . . . , T ,

2. (a) 0 = u0 (c) + %,

(b) 0 = qj=1 ejt j E(%St |Ft1 ) for t = 1, . . . , T .

P

P

Suppose now that = a+ is optimal for terminal wealth under the constraints (A, K).

?

Let := E(%) = E(u0 (e + > ST )) and dP

dP

:= % . Then Statement 2 in Lemma 2.6 holds.

21: Similarly as in the first part of the proof, one shows that a random variable c

?

minimizes E(u(c)) under the constraint E( dP dP

(c e aT (ST S0 ))) 0 if there exists

a non-negative real number such that we have

?

1. E( dP

dP

(c e a> (ST S0 ))) 0,

?

2. E( dP

dP

(c e a> (ST S0 ))) = 0,

?

3. 0 = u0 (c) + dP

dP

.

7

?

It follows that c := e + > ST minimizes E(u(c)) under the constraint E( dP dP

(c e

> > > >

a (ST S0 ))) 0. But note that e e ST = (

c := e + e a) ST + e + a (ST S0 )

dP ? >

c e a (ST S0 ))) 0 for any

satisfies the constraint E( dP (e e S(A, K) because P ?

is a S(A0 , K)-seperating measure. Therefore E(u(e + > ST )) E(u(e + e> ST )) for

any e S(A, K), which implies that is optimal for terminal wealth under the constraints

(A, K).

ing on its effective domain. Moreover, let be a self-financing trading strategy. Then we

have equivalence between:

?

2. There exists a number (0, ) such that dP

dP

= 1 u0 (e+> ST ) for some equivalent

martingale measure P ? . (Of course, we have = E(u0 (e + > ST )) in this case.)

Definition 2.8 We call the measure P ? in Lemma 2.6 (A, K)-dual measure for terminal

wealth.

Remarks.

1. If there is more than one optimal solution , then P ? in Lemma 2.6 can be cho-

sen independently of the particular solution (cf. the respective proof). Therefore, the

(A, K)-dual measure for terminal wealth is unique. If u is strictly concave, then any

e have the same wealth process e + > S.

two optimal solutions ,

equivalent (A0 , K)-seperating measure.

3. Observe that 0 does not affect the stochastic integral > S in Definition 2.5. You

only need to consider (1t , . . . , dt )t{1,...,T } without any self-financiability constraint

and choose 0 such that is indeed self-financing.

(instead of > 0) in Lemma 2.6. Moreover, Statement 2b follows from the fact that P ?

is a (A0 , K)-seperating measure.

5. By choosing the constraint sets (A, K) appropriately, Definition 2.5 also allows to

address hedging problems. Suppose you have a fixed number of shares of security d

and you want to hedge the resulting risk by trading in securities 0, . . . , d 1. A rea-

sonable suggestion is to choose an optimal strategy in S({0, . . . , 0, }, Rd1 {0}).

This utility-based approach to hedging has been taken e.g. in Schweizer (1994, 1995),

Fllmer and Leukert (2000), Delbaen et al. (2000). If the utility function is not differ-

entiable, one has to replace the derivative u0 in Lemma 2.6 with the subdifferential of

u (cf. Kallsen (1998a)).

8

6. If the right P ? is known and if u is strictly concave, then the optimal payoff is

?

obtained as e + > ST = (u0 )1 ( dP dP

). This is the case in complete models and

it gives rise to the martingale method in portfolio optimization (cf. Korn (1997) for

an introduction). In general, it is not evident how to find an EMM whose density

is related in this way to the terminal payoff of some trading strategy. Therefore, the

fundamental theorem of utility maximization does not lead to explicit solutions in

general. Nevertheless, it is very useful in order to verify that some given candidate is

indeed optimal (cf. Goll and Kallsen (2000), Kallsen (2000)).

E( Tt=0 ut (ct )) over all pairs of self-financing trading strategies and consumption

P

plans c satisfying the financiability constraint Tt=0 ct e + > ST . Here, the utility

P

2.7 then reads as follows: (, c) is optimal if and only if there exists a number

?

(0, ) and an equivalent martingale measure P ? such that E( dP dP

|Ft ) = 1 u0t (ct ) for

t {0, . . . , T } (cf. Kallsen (1998a)).

Lemma 2.9 Suppose that u is increasing and for any > 0 there exist x1 > x2 with

u0 (x1 )

u0 (x2 )

< . If there is no (A0 , K)-arbitrage, then an optimal strategy for terminal wealth

under the constraints (A, K) exists.

P ROOF. Step 1: Similarly as in the proof of Lemma 2.4, we identify any trading strat-

egy S({0}, Rd ) with an element of Rn := (Rm0 d . . . RmT 1 d ) via t (l) :=

(1t (), . . . , dt ()) for t = 1, . . . , T , l = 1, . . . , mT 1 , Ft1,l . In this sense S(A, K)

corresponds to a polyhedral subset C of Rn (cf. Rockafellar (1970), Section 19). Define the

convex function f : Rn R, 7 E(u(e + > ST )). Then is optimal for terminal

wealth under the constraints (A, K) if it minimizes f on C. By Rockafellar (1970), Theo-

rem 27.3 f attains its minimum on C if f is constant on the common directions of recession

of f and C.

Step 2: Let be a direction of recession of f and C. Then corresponds to a strategy

in S(A0 , K). If > ST 0, then > ST = 0 because there is no (A0 , K)-arbitrage. In this

case f is constant in direction . Hence we may assume P (> ST < 0) > 0. Note that

u must be finite on R: Otherwise f () = E(u(e + > ST )) = for R+ large

enough, which implies that cannot be a direction of recession of f .

0 (x )

Step 3: W.l.o.g. e = 0, u(0) = 0. Let > 0 and choose x2 < 0 < x1 such that uu0 (x 1

2)

< .

Note that u(x)

u0 (x1 )x + O( 1 ) for x > 0 and . Similarly, u(x)

u0 (x2 )x + O( 1 )

for x < 0 and . Therefore, lim sup 1 E(u((> ST )+ )) u0 (x2 )E((>

ST )+ ) and lim sup 1 E(u((> ST ) )) u0 (x2 )E((> ST ) ). For small we

have E((> ST )+ ) + E((> ST ) ) < 0, which implies f () = E(u(> ST ))

for . Therefore cannot be a direction of recession of f .

9

2.3 Local utility

Especially in hedging applications it may be very hard to compute optimal portfolios ex-

plicitly because one has to deal with constraints resp. random endowment. A way out is

to work instead with the simpler concept of local utility maximization. The notion of local

utility has been introduced in Kallsen (1998b, 1999), but the concept of step-by-step opti-

mization goes at least back to Fllmer and Schweizer (1989) (cf. Remark 4 at the end of this

section). If you are a local utility maximizer, you try to do your best on a, say, day-by-day

basis. You do not care about past profits and losses or your exact current wealth. Mathemati-

cally, this means that optimal portfolios can be computed seperately for any one-period step.

This makes it much easier to obtain explicit solutions than in the terminal wealth case. The

concept is related to maximization of consumption, but here financial gains are consumed

immediately (cf. the remark following Definition 2.10). For a continuous-time extension of

this approach cf. Kallsen (1999). In this subsection, we assume throughout that A = {a}

for some a Rd .

Definition 2.10 We say that a strategy S({a}, K) is locally optimal under the con-

straints ({a}, K) if it maximizes E( Tt=1 u(Vt ())) = E( Tt=1 u(>

P P

t St )) over all

d

S({a}, K). For K = R (no constraints) we simply call locally optimal.

Remark. Observe that Definition 2.10 corresponds to an optimal investment with con-

sumption problem for e = 0, c0 = 0 (cf. Remark 7 above) if we require in addition that

Pt >

s=1 cs = St for any t {1, . . . , T } (not only for t = T ).

t St , t = 1, . . . , T has

only values in the interior of the effective domain of u.

?

Definition 2.11 We say that a signed probability measure P ? with P -density dP has loga-

dP Q

dP ?

rithm process N if N is an adapted process with N0 = 0 such that E( dP |Ft ) = ts=1 (1 +

Ns ) for t = 1, . . . , T .

Remarks.

1. The name is motivated by the fact that dPdP

?

= E E

(N )T , where (N ) = t=1 (1 +

Q

continuous-time cf. Kallsen and Shiryaev (2000).

?

2. If E( dP

dP

|Ft ) 6= 0 P -almost surely for t = 0, . . . , T , then the logarithm process of P ?

is unique and E(1 + Nt |Ft1 ) = 1 for t = 1, . . . , T .

Theorem 2.12 Let be a trading strategy in S({a}, K) such that u0 (>t St ) > 0 P -

almost surely for t = 1, . . . , T . Then we have equivalence between

10

1. is locally optimal under the constraints ({a}, K).

2. There exists a signed ({0}, K)-seperating measure P ? with logarithm process N and

a predictable process such that

(a) t (1 + Nt ) = u0 (>

t St ) for t = 1, . . . , T ,

t St )|Ft1 ) in this case.)

P ROOF. 12: As in the proof of Lemma 2.6, we denote by Ft,1 , . . . , Ft,mt the partition of

that generates Ft , t = 0, . . . , T and we use the notation t (l) := (1t (), . . . , dt ())

for t = 1, . . . , T , l = 1, . . . , mt1 , Ft1,l . Similarly, we write ct (l) := ct () for

t = 1, . . . , T , l = 1, . . . , mt , Ft,l , and any adapted real-valued process c. Therefore, any

pair (, c) consisting of a strategy S({a}, Rd ) and an adapted real-valued process c can

be identified with an element of Rn := ((Rm0 d . . .RmT 1 d )(Rm1 . . .RmT )) and vice

versa, namely with (1 (1), . . . , T (mT 1 ), c1 (1), . . . , cT (mT )). Using this identification,

we can define mappings f : Rn R{}, gj,t,l : Rn R (for j = 1, . . . , q, t = 1, . . . , T ,

l = 1, . . . , mt1 ), kt,l : Rn R (for t = 1, . . . , T , l = 1, . . . , mt ) by

T

X

f (, c) := E u(ct ) ,

t=1

>

gj,t,l (, c) := j (t (l) a),

kt,l (, c) := ct (l) t ()> St ()

for an arbitrary Ft,l . Note that all these are convex mappings on Rn .

With this notion, is locally optimal under the constraints ({a}, K) if and only if

(, (> t St )t{1,...,T } ) minimizes f subject to the constraints gj,t,l 0 (for j = 1, . . . , p, t =

1, . . . , T , l = 1, . . . , mt1 ), gj,t,l = 0 (for j = p + 1, . . . , q, t = 1, . . . , T , l = 1, . . . , mt1 ),

kt,l = 0 (for t = 1, . . . , T , l = 1, . . . , mt ). From Rockafellar (1970), Theorems 28.2 and

28.3 it follows that S({a}, K) is locally optimal under the constraints ({a}, K) if and

only if there exist real numbers t,l (for t = 1, . . . , T , l = 1, . . . , mt ) and real numbers j,t,l

(for j = 1, . . . , q, t = 1, . . . , T , l = 1, . . . , mt1 ) such that we have for c := > S:

P P Pm

2. 0 = f (, c) + qj=1 Tt=1 l=1t1 j,t,l gj,t,l (, c) + Tt=1 m

P P t

l=1 t,l kt,l (, c),

where denotes the gradient of a mapping Rn R. Note that t,l , j,t,l can be chosen

independently of (, c). Replacing t,l with %t () := t,l /P (Ft,l ) (for Ft,l ) as well as

ejt () := j,t,l /P (Ft1,l ) (for Ft1,l ) and straightforward calculations yield

j,t,l with

the following equivalence: is locally optimal for terminal wealth under the constraints

({a}, K) if and only if there exists an adapted real-valued process % and a predictable Rq -

valued process e such that we have for c := > S:

11

ejt 0 and

1. ejt j> (1t , . . . , dt ) = 0 for j = 1, . . . , p, t = 1, . . . , T ,

(b) 0 = qj=1 ejt j E(%t St |Ft1 ) for t = 1, . . . , T .

P

Suppose now that is locally optimal under the constraints ({a}, K). Define t :=

%t

E(%t |Ft1 ) = E(u0 (> t St )|Ft1 ) and Nt := t 1 for t = 1, . . . , T . Finally, set

P

N := t=1 Nt and dP dP

?

E

:= (N )T . Then Statement 2 in Theorem 2.12 holds.

21: Similarly as in the first part of the proof, one shows that an adapted process c

minimizes E( Tt=1 u(ct )) under the constraints E((1 + Nt )(ct a> St )|Ft1 ) 0

P

1. E((1 + Nt )(ct a> St )|Ft1 ) 0,

3. 0 = u0 (ct ) + t (1 + Nt )

for t = 1, . . . , T . It follows that c := > S minimizes E( Tt=1 u(ct )) under the con-

P

straints E((1 + Nt )(ct a> St )|Ft1 ) 0 for t = 1, . . . , T . But note that e c := e> S

satisfies the constraints E((1 + Nt )(e ct a> St )|Ft1 ) 0, t = 1, . . . , T for any

e

?

PT >

S({a}, K) because P is a S({0}, K)-seperating measure. Therefore E( t=1 u(t St ))

E( Tt=1 u( e>

P

t St )) for any e S({a}, K), which implies that is locally optimal

under the constraints ({a}, K).

Definition 2.13 We call the measure P ? in the previous theorem ({a}, K)-dual measure for

local utility.

Remarks.

1. If K is a subspace of Rd , then it suffices to assume that u0 (> 0 >

t St ) 6= 0 and E(u (t

St )|Ft1 ) 6= 0 P -almost surely for t = 1, . . . , T (instead of u0 (>

t St ) > 0). More-

?

over, Statement 2b follows from the fact that P is a ({0}, K)-seperating measure.

1, . . . , T . Therefore, local utility maximization practically means maximization of

E(u(> t St )) over all Ft1 -measurable, (a+K)-valued random vectors t seperately

for any t {1, . . . , T }, i.e. maximization of the utility of discounted one-period gains

(cf. also Lemma 2.15 below).

4. The approach of Fllmer and Schweizer (1989) to option hedging in incomplete mar-

kets is based on one-period hedging error minimization. More specifically, they pro-

pose the trading strategy appearing in Definition 3.9 below (in the case n = 1)

as an optimal hedge. A comparison with Definition 2.10 and the previous remark

shows that this is locally optimal for the utility function u(x) := x2 , constraint set

S({0, . . . , 0, 1}, Rm {0}) and S m+1 as security m + 1.

12

5. As in the terminal wealth case, hedging problems can be addressed by considering

appropriate constraint sets (cf. Kallsen (1999)).

Lemma 2.14 Suppose that u is increasing and for any > 0 there exist x1 > x2 with

u0 (x1 )

u0 (x2 )

< . If there is no ({0}, K)-arbitrage, then a locally optimal strategy under the

constraints ({a}, K) exists.

P

t St )) if and only if t maximizes

>

t 7 E(u(t St )) =: ft (t ) seperately for t = 1, . . . , T . The statement follows along

the same lines as the proof of Lemma 2.9.

Lemma 2.15 Suppose that K = Rk {0} Rd for some k {0, 1, . . . , d}. Then

S({a}, K) is locally optimal under the constraints ({a}, K) if and only if E(u0 (>

t St )

i

St |Ft1 ) = 0 for i = 1, . . . , k and t = 1, . . . , T .

P ROOF. Similarly as in the proof of Lemma 2.9, we identify any trading strategy

S({0}, Rd ) with an element of Rn := (Rm0 d . . . RmT 1 d ) via t (l) := (1t (), . . . ,

dt ()) for t = 1, . . . , T , l = 1, . . . , mT 1 , Ft1,l . Define ft,l (t (l)) := E(u(>

t St )|

Ft1 )() for t = 1, . . . , T , l = 1, . . . , mt1 , Ft1,l . Then S({a}, K) is locally

optimal under the constraints ({a}, K) if and only if t (l) minimizes ft,l : Rd R subject

to the constraint t (l) {a} + K seperately for t = 1, . . . , T . This is the case if and only

if 0 = i ft,l (t (l)) = E(u0 (> i

t St )St |Ft1 )() for i = 1, . . . , k and t = 1, . . . , T ,

l = 1, . . . , mt1 , where Ft1,l .

In this section we turn to derivative pricing. More exactly, we propose a way to extend a

market model for the underlyings to a model for both underlyings and derivatives. Later, we

will see that other valuation approaches as e.g. distance minimization and L2 -approximation

pricing often lead to the same prices.

Derivative pricing in complete models is well understood. Since contingent claims are

redundant securities, it suffices to assume absence of arbitrage in order to obtain unique

prices. The situation is less obvious in incomplete markets. Even in many models of practi-

cal importance arbitrage arguments yield only trivial bounds on contingent claim prices (cf.

Eberlein and Jacod (1997), Frey and Sin (1999), Cvitanic et al. (1999)). Unique values can

only be derived under stronger assumptions.

Sometimes it is suggested to apply some kind of equilibrium asset pricing based on

production and the preference structure of agents in the economy. As an example let us

consider a market consisting of a number of identical investors (or a representative agent

as a stand-in) who all maximize their expected utility of terminal wealth in the sense of

Definition 2.5. Moreover, assume that they all dispose of a random aggregate endowment

eT up to time T . From the market clearing condition and from standard variation arguments

it follows that the discounted price process of any traded security in this economy must be a

13

?

martingale with respect to some probability measure P ? whose density dP dP

is a multiple of

0

u (eT ) where u denotes the utility function of the investors. Hence we can compute prices

for any asset whose terminal payoff at time T is given. Of course, this reasoning can and has

been modified, generalized, and refined in many ways. We only want to stress two important

features: On the one hand, not only the preferences but also the random endowment of the

representative agent has to be given exogenously as input. On the other hand, this is not

a genuine derivative pricing approach. By contrast, we obtain prices for any security with

given payoff at time T .

Note that we run into a consistency problem if we want to apply this concept naively

to derivative pricing. Since the underlying price processes that are given in the first place

are not incorporated in this approach, they may turn out not to be P ? -martingales. Put

differently, we do not recover the right price even for trivial contingent claims whose payoff

at maturity equals the underlying. A way out is to choose the exogenous endowment eT such

that P ? is in fact a martingale measure for the given underlyings. In view of the fundamental

theorem of asset pricing we obtain a price system that is consistent with absence of arbitrage.

Note that we certainly have to consider random endowment in this case. Otherwise P ? = P

which is generally no EMM.

A problem with this approach is its arbitrariness. Since the endowment is not observable,

u0 (eT )

one may be tempted to just guess some eT such that E(u 0 (e )) is the density of an EMM.

T

0 1 dP ?

However, by letting eT := (u ) ( dP ) one can obtain any equivalent martingale measure

P ? in this fashion. This means that any derivative price in the no-arbitrage interval can be

recovered by choosing eT appropriately. Therefore the use of this approach to derivative

pricing is limited unless one has good reason to assume a specific kind of endowment.

We want to suggest an alternative that mediates between derivative pricing in complete

models and general equilibrium asset pricing. The idea is to apply the equilibrium arguments

only to the secondary market. We take the underlying price processes as given ignoring the

market mechanisms they result from. On the other hand, we assume that only some identical

investors trade in derivatives as well. (This assumption will be relaxed in the next section.)

Suppose that these investors are expected utility maximizers as in Definition 2.5 with fixed

non-random endowment e R. Since any derivative that is bought has to be sold and

since the derivative traders behave identically, we end up with the following market clearing

condition:

Derivative prices should be such that the optimal portfolio of the representative

investor contains no contingent claim.

Such prices are termed neutral in Definition 3.1 below. Intuitively, they are stable in the

sense that they do not lead to unmatched supply or demand of derivatives. Note that we no

longer need to consider a random endowment eT to reproduce underlying prices because the

clearing condition applies only to contingent claims. Of course, neutral price processes still

depend on the preferences and the initial endowment of the derivative traders. However, the

degree of arbitrariness is greatly reduced.

14

To an economist, this valuation principle may sound quite natural or even familiar. Nev-

ertheless, we can produce almost no reference where such an approach has been taken. In

fact, the first to suggest this kind of valuation seems to be Davis (1997) (cf. also Karatzas

and Kou (1996)), but the corresponding price system has been considered before by He and

Pearson (1991a,b) and Karatzas et al. (1991) in the context of portfolio optimization. Davis

suggestion for a reasonable derivative price is such that among all strategies that buy an

infinitesimal number of contingent claims and hold it till maturity, a portfolio containing

no derivative is optimal. Although he does not claim that this remains true if we compare

among all portfolios trading arbitrarily with the contingent claim, this follows in an It-

process setting from duality results by He and Pearson (1991b) and Karatzas et al. (1991).

The first to notice the duality between portfolio optimization and least favourable market

completion seem to be He and Pearson (1991a,b).

The general setting is as in the previous section. We distinguish two kinds of securi-

ties: underlyings 0, . . . , m and derivatives m + 1, . . . , m + n. The underlyings are given

in terms of their discounted price process S = (S 0 , . . . , S m ). At this stage, the only in-

formation on the derivatives is their discounted terminal payoffs Rm+1 , . . . , Rm+n at time

T , which are supposed to be FT -measurable random variables. We call adapted processes

S m+1 , . . . , S m+n derivative price processes if STm+i = Rm+i for i = 1, . . . , n.

Fix a utility function u and an initial endowment e R such that e belongs to the interior

of the effective domain of u. For the following, we assume that there exists an optimal

strategy for terminal wealth in the underlyings market S 0 , . . . , S m such that E(u0 (e +

> ST )|Ft ) 6= 0 P -almost surely for t = 0, . . . , T (cf. Lemma 2.9). For reasons that

will become clear below, we call the unique ({0}, Rm )-dual measure for terminal wealth

P ? neutral pricing measure for terminal wealth. Recall that P ? is an EMM if u is strictly

increasing on its effective domain.

Definition 3.1 We call derivative price processes S m+1 , . . . , S m+n neutral derivative price

processes for terminal wealth if there exists a strategy in the extended market S 0, . . . , S m+n

which is optimal for terminal wealth (without constraints, i.e. for ({0}, Rm+n )) and satisfies

m+1 = . . . = m+n = 0.

A slightly more general definition that avoids claiming the existence of an optimal

strategy could be based on the property that the maximal expected utility in the market

S 0 , . . . , S m+n is not higher than in the market S 0 , . . . , S m . However, for simplicity we stick

to the above version.

Theorem 3.2 There exist unique neutral derivative price processes. They are given by

Stm+i = EP ? (Rm+i |Ft ) for t = 0, . . . , T , i = 1, . . . , n.

P ROOF. Let Stm+i = EP ? (Rm+i |Ft ) for t = 0, . . . , T , i = 1, . . . , n and define a trading

strategy S({0}, Rm+n ) in the extended market by := (, 0). Lemma 2.6 yields that

15

is optimal for terminal wealth, which in turn implies that S m+1 , . . . , S m+n are neutral

derivative price processes.

Conversely, let S m+1 , . . . , S m+n be neutral derivative price processes and S({0},

Rm+n ) a corresponding optimal strategy for terminal wealth. Obviously, := (0 , . . . , m )

S({0}, Rm ) is an optimal strategy for terminal wealth in the market S 0 , . . . , S m . Since

is an optimal strategy in this market as well, we have u0 (> ST ) = u0 ( > ST ) and

hence u0 ((, 0)> (S 0 , . . . , S m+n )) = u0 (> (S 0 , . . . , S m+n )). In particular, (, 0)

S({0}, Rm+n ) is an optimal strategy in the market S 0 , . . . , S m+n . From Lemma 2.6 it fol-

lows that S m+1 , . . . , S m+n are P ? -martingales, which yields the uniqueness.

Note that P ? is an EMM for the extended market S 0 , . . . , S m+n if u is strictly increasing

on its effective domain. In particular, the corresponding price system allows no arbitrage.

If an EMM Q is interpreted as a pricing rule, then it induces a market completion: In

the completed market any FT -measurable claim is traded at time 0 at a price EQ (X). Your

optimal expected utility in this completed market obviously equals

sup{E(u(X)) : X FT -measurable random variable with EQ (X) = e}

= sup{E(u(e + X EQ (X))) : X FT -measurable random variable}. (3.1)

Investing in the underlyings does not increase your utility because you can buy the terminal

payoff > ST of any strategy as a contingent claim at time 0. The minimax martingale

measure P ? is defined as the measure which minimizes the expression (3.1) (cf. He and

Pearson (1991b)). It has been studied in the context of derivative pricing by Bellini and

Frittelli (2000). It corresponds to the market completion that is least favourable to you as

an investor. The following result shows that this measure leads to neutral derivative prices.

Lemma 3.3 (Least favourable market completion) If u is strictly increasing on its effec-

tive domain, then the neutral pricing measure P ? minimizes

sup{E(u(e + X EQ (X))) : X FT -measurable random variable}

over all equivalent martingale measures Q.

P ROOF. Note that sup{E(u(e + X EQ (X))) : X FT -measurable random variable} =

sup{E(u(c)) : c FT -measurable random variable with EQ (c e) = 0}. Similarly as in

the second part of the proof of Lemma 2.6 it is shown that for Q = P ? the supremum is

attained in c = e + > ST , where denotes the optimal strategy for terminal wealth. Since

EQ (> ST ) = 0 for any EMM Q, the claim follows.

Some authors suggest to choose an EMM P ? as a pricing rule that is closest in some

sense to the original probability measure P . In particular, the relative entropy and the

Hellinger distance or more generally Lp -distances have been considered (cf. Keller (1997),

Miyahara (1996, 1999), Chan (1999), Grandits (1999a,b), Frittelli (2000), Goll & Rschen-

dorf (2001)). One may critisize that distance minimization is a purely mathematically moti-

vated criterion which is hard to interpret economically. However, Bellini and Frittelli (2000)

16

observed that for some standard distances, the minimizing measures are in fact minimax

measures for HARA-type utility functions (cf. also Goll and Rschendorf (2001) in this con-

text). In view of the previous lemma, we conclude that they lead to neutral price processes

as well.

c R, and any x R, then the neutral pricing measure minimizes EQ (log dQ dP

)) over

all equivalent martingale measures Q, i.e. the entropy of Q relative to P .

2. If u(x) = a log(x + b) + c for some a > 0, b, c R and any x (b, ), then the

neutral pricing measure minimizes E(log dQ dP

dP

)) = E(log dQ )) over all equivalent

martingale measures Q, i.e. the entropy of P relative to Q.

p

then the neutral pricing measure minimizes E(( dQ

dP

) p1 ) over all equivalent martin-

gale measures Q.

4. If u(x) = a(x+b)p +c for some p (0, 1), a > 0, b, c R and any x [b, ), then

p

the neutral pricing measure minimizes E(( dQdP

) p1 ) over all equivalent martingale

measures Q.

5. If u(x) = a|x+b|p +c for some p (1, ), a > 0, b, c R and any x R, then the

p

neutral pricing measure minimizes E(| dQ

dP

| p1 ) over all signed martingale measures

Q.

P ROOF. 1. W.l.o.g. a = 1, c = 0. Set f (x) := u(e + x) and let Q be an EMM. Note that

sup{E(u(e + X EQ (X))) : X random variable} = inf{E(f (X)) : X random variable

with EQ (X) 0}. By Rockafellar (1970), Theorem 28.2, this equals

(0,)

dQ

= inf E inf f (x) + x

(0,) xR dP

dQ

= inf E f ,

(0,) dP

where f denotes the convex conjugate of f (cf. Rockafellar (1970), Section 12). For f (x) =

exp(e + x) we have f (x) = | xb |(log | xb | 1 + eb) for x < 0. Therefore inf (0,) E(f (

dQ

dP

)) = inf (0,) (EQ (log( dQ

dP

) + log() 1 + eb). Note that this expression gets minimal

in Q if and only if EQ (log( dQ

dP

)) gets minimal. In view of Lemma 3.3, the claim follows.

Statements 25 are shown similarly. For Statement 5 observe that Lemma 3.3 holds also

for non-increasing u if EMM is replaced with SMM.

an L2 -sense by the payoff of some portfolio with initial investment y R and trading

17

strategy S({0}, Rm ). Mathematically speaking, the claim is projected onto the space

of replicable payoffs. This problem has been studied extensively, cf. Schweizer (1999) for

an overview. The optimal initial investment y R has been suggested as a pricing rule e.g.

by Schl (1994), Schweizer (1996).

L2 -approximation derivative prices if, for i = 1, . . . , n, there exists a strategy S({0},

Rm ) such that

m+i m+i > 2 m+i > 2

E (R S0 ST ) E (R ye ST )

e

the payoff under the variance-optimal signed martingale measure, which in turn corresponds

to the case p = 2 in Statement 5 of Lemma 3.4. Therefore, it can also be interpreted as a

neutral price. However, since neutral prices may lead to arbitrage in this case, one should

use this valuation rule with care.

Lemma 3.6 If u(x) = a(x + b)2 + c for some a > 0, b, c R, then the global L2 -

approximation prices are the initial values of the neutral price processes for terminal wealth.

P ROOF. Fix i {1, . . . , n}. Observe that S0m+i + > ST in the previous definition is the

L2 -projection of Rm+i on the vector space {y + > ST : y R, S({0}, Rm )}. Hence,

we have E((Rm+i S0m+i > ST )(y + > ST )) = 0 for any y R, = S({0}, Rm ).

?

Since u0 (x) = 2ax 2ab, we have in particular E((Rm+i S0m+i > ST ) dP dP

) = 0 for

the neutral pricing measure for terminal wealth (cf. Lemma 2.6). This in turn implies that

S0m+i = EP ? (Rm+i > ST ) = EP ? (Rm+i ).

In this subsection, we consider the local utility-based version of neutral pricing. Fix a utility

function u such that 0 belongs to the interior of the effective domain of u. Similarly as in the

last subsection, we assume that there exists a locally optimal strategy in the underlyings

market S 0 , . . . , S m such that u0 (> 0 >

t St ) 6= 0 and E(u (t St )|Ft1 ) 6= 0 P -almost surely

for t = 1, . . . , T (cf. Lemma 2.14). We call the unique ({0}, Rm )-dual measure for local

utility P ? neutral pricing measure for local utility. Recall that P ? is an equivalent martingale

measure if u is strictly increasing on its effective domain.

Definition 3.7 We call derivative price processes S m+1 , . . . , S m+n neutral derivative price

processes for local utility if there exists a strategy in the extended market S 0 , . . . , S m+n

which is locally optimal (without constraints, i.e. for ({0}, Rm+n )) and satisfies m+1 =

. . . = m+n = 0.

18

Theorem 3.8 There exist unique neutral derivative price processes. They are given by

Stm+i = EP ? (Rm+i |Ft ) for t = 0, . . . , T , i = 1, . . . , n.

Note that P ? is an EMM for the extended market S 0 , . . . , S m+n if u is strictly increasing

on its effective domain. In particular, the corresponding price system allows no arbitrage.

A local L2 -approximation procedure has been suggested by Fllmer and Schweizer

(1989) for contingent claim hedging (cf. the subsequent definition). The processes S m+1 ,

. . . , S m+n appearing in that procedure are obtained via conditional expectation relative to

the (signed) minimal martingale measure in the sense of Fllmer and Schweizer (1991),

Schweizer (1995a). Lemma 3.10 shows that they can be interpreted in terms of neutral

pricing for local utility. The minimal martingale measure has been proposed for derivative

pricing e.g. in Hofmann et al. (1992).

Definition 3.9 (Local L2 -approximation pricing) Let S m+1 , . . . , S m+n be derivative price

processes. We call S m+1 , . . . , S m+n local L2 -approximation price processes if, for i =

1, . . . , n, there exists a strategy S({0}, Rm ) such that the following condition holds:

For t = 1, . . . , T we have

2 2

E Stm+i m+i

St1 t> St Ft1 E St Y St Ft1

m+i >

Lemma 3.10 If u(x) = a(x + b)2 + c for some a > 0, b, c R, then the local L2 -

approximation price processes are the neutral price processes for local utility. In other

words, the neutral pricing measure for local utility is the minimal martingale measure in the

sense of Fllmer and Schweizer (1991), Schweizer (1995a).

m+i

P ROOF. Fix i {1, . . . , n} and t {1, . . . , T }. Observe that St1 + t> St is the

2

L -projection of St m+i

on the vector space {y + St : y, Ft1 -measurable random

>

t> St )(y +

> St )|Ft1 ) = 0 for any such y, . In particular, we have E((Stm+i St1

m+i

t> St )(1 +

Nt )|Ft1 ) = 0, where N denotes the logarithm process of the neutral pricing mea-

sure P ? for local utility (cf. Theorem 2.12). This implies EP ? (Stm+i St1 m+i

|Ft1 ) =

m+i m+i > m+i ?

EP ? (St St1 t St |Ft1 ) = 0. Consequently S is a P -martingale, which

proves the claim.

In general, neutral prices for terminal wealth and for local utility differ even if the same

utility function is chosen. Indeed, a main motivation to introduce local utility maximization

was that hedging strategies and neutral pricing measures can be computed more easily (cf.

Lemma 2.15). Even so, neutral prices for terminal wealth and for local utility do in fact

coincide for logarithmic utility:

19

Lemma 3.11 If u(x) = a log(x + b) + c for some a > 0, b ( min(1, e), ), c R, then

the neutral pricing measures for terminal wealth and for local utility coincide. Moreover,

this measure does not depend on a, b, c and the initial endowment e.

P ? be the neutral pricing measure for local utility with logarithm process N . Moreover, let

t := E(u0 (>t St )|Ft1 ) for t = 1, . . . , T . Then 1+Nt = (t (b+

>

t St ))

1

and hence

? T

1 = E(t (b + t St )(1 + Nt )|Ft1 ) = t b. Therefore dP = t=1 (1 + b St )1 .

> dP 1 >

Q

>

Define S({0}, Rm ) recursively by t := t b+e+b St1 for t = 1, . . . , T . A simple

?

calculation yields that dP

dP

= (e + b)(b + e + > ST )1 = (e + b)u0 (e + > ST ). In view

of Lemma 2.6, this implies that P ? is the neutral pricing measure for terminal wealth.

From Lemma 3.4 it follows that the neutral pricing measure for terminal wealth does not

depend on a, b, c, e. Hence the second statement holds as well.

In practise, valuation rules are used for different purposes. If you are an issuer of a con-

tingent claim that is not yet traded, the approaches in the previous section provide some

guidance as to what a reasonable price could be. The situation is different for a risk man-

ager who must assess the riskyness of a companys portfolio. For her, the current derivative

quotations are observable in the market. She is interested in the distribution of future asset

price changes, especially for short time horizons. Of course, the pricing measures from the

previous section can be used for this purpose as well. However, typically neutral derivative

prices do not match observed quotations exactly even at time 0. So one may doubt whether

they provide a good description of future price movements. It would be more satisfactory to

use a valuation rule that incorporates the initially observed market quotations. A solution of

this kind is presented in this section.

In the derivation of neutral prices we assumed that all participants in the derivative mar-

ket are identical expected utility maximizers. Let us now consider the more realistic situ-

ation that some traders (from now on called other investors) behave differently. They may

e.g. take a derivative position for insurance purposes. How are market prices affected if

the aggregate demand for derivatives by these other investors does not sum up to 0? Since

the utility maximizers have to take the counterposition, market prices must be such that the

number of derivatives in their optimal portfolio exactly offsets the demand from the other

traders. This demand is reflected in the initially observed market quotations. Intuitively, a

positive demand by the other investors should lead to market prices which are higher than

the neutral value in order to prompt utility maximizers to sell contingent claims.

We make the simplifying assumption that the aggregate demand from the other investors

is deterministic and constant. Put differently, we relax the market clearing condition from

the previous section as follows:

20

Derivative prices should be such that the optimal portfolio of the representative

utility maximizer contains a constant number of any contingent claim.

Such prices are called constant demand price processes in Definition 4.2 below. Of course,

we cannot hope any more for unique derivative prices in this more general setting. But we

can hope for unique constant demand price processes that match initially observed market

quotations.

The issue of consistent derivative pricing is barely touched in the literature. Maybe

closest in spirit is the concept of inverting the yield curve in interest rate theory (cf. Bjrk

(1997)). As in the approach below a pricing measure is chosen from a parametric set of

EMMs in such a way that theoretical and observed initial prices match. The Heath-Jarrow-

Morton approach in interest rate theory avoids the consistency problem elegantly by treating

bonds as underlyings rather than derivatives on the short rate. For a discussion of Avellaneda

et al. (1997), Avellaneda (1998) cf. the end of this section. Recently, Kallsen (1998a) and

Goll and Rschendorf (2000) addressed this issue. In Kallsen (2001) a local utility-based

variant of consistent pricing is discussed.

The general setting is as in the previous section. As before, we assume that derivative

securities m + 1, . . . , m + n are given in terms of their discounted FT -measurable pay-

off Rm+1 , . . . , Rm+n . Moreover, suppose that their initial prices m+1 , . . . , m+n R are

given. We call adapted processes S m+1 , . . . , S m+n consistent derivative price processes if

STm+i = Rm+i and S0m+i = m+i for i = 1, . . . , n. Fix an initial endowment e R and a

utility function u such that e belongs to the interior of the effective domain of u.

Observe that any choice of consistent price processes leads to arbitrage if the initial

prices are unreasonably chosen. This situation occurs if the market S 0 , . . . , S m+n allows

({0} Rn , Rm {0})-arbitrage, i.e. the derivatives have to be traded only at times 0 and

T in order to obtain a riskless gain. By Lemma 2.4 there is no such arbitrage if and only if

threre exists an equivalent ({0} Rn , Rm {0})-seperating measure, or put differently, a

consistent equivalent martingale measure in the sense of the following

EP ? (Rm+i ) = m+i for i = 1, . . . , n. Consistent signed martingale measures (CSMM) are

defined accordingly.

Note that the terminal wealth of strategies S({0} Rn , Rm {0}) in the ex-

tended market S 0 , . . . , S m+n does not depend on the particular choice of consistent deriva-

tive price processes S m+1 , . . . , S m+n . Therefore, we may assume that there exists an optimal

strategy for terminal wealth under the constraints ({0} Rn , Rm {0}) without fixing

S m+1 , . . . , S m+n in the first place. Moreover, we suppose that E(u0 (e + > ST )|Ft ) 6= 0 P -

almost surely for t = 0, . . . , T . By Lemma 2.9, these assumptions follow from the absence

of arbitrage for decent utility functions. We call the corresponding ({0} Rn , Rm {0})-

dual measure P ? for terminal wealth the least favourable consistent pricing measure. Recall

that P ? is an EMM for S 0 , . . . , S m if u is strictly increasing on its effective domain.

21

Definition 4.2 We call consistent price processes S m+1 , . . . , S m+n constant demand deriva-

tive price processes if there exists a strategy in the extended market S 0 , . . . , S m+n which is

optimal for terminal wealth (without constraints, i.e. for ({0}, Rm+n )) and satisfies m+1 =

am+1 , . . . , m+n = am+n for some constants am+1 , . . . , am+n R.

Theorem 4.3 There exist unique constant demand derivative price processes. They are

given by Stm+i = EP ? (Rm+i |Ft ) for t = 0, . . . , T , i = 1, . . . , n.

P ROOF. This is shown similarly as Theorem 3.2 if the neutral pricing measure is replaced

with the least favourable consistent pricing measure.

The name least favourable consistent pricing measure is motivated by the following

analogue of Lemma 3.3:

Lemma 4.4 (Least favourable market completion) If u is strictly increasing on its effec-

tive domain, then the least favourable consistent pricing measure P ? minimizes

The following result shows that Lemma 3.4 also has a counterpart for consistent pricing.

It is shown exactly in the same way. Distance minimizing CEMMs are considered in Goll

and Rschendorf (2000).

Lemma 4.5 (Distance minimization) Lemma 3.4 still holds if neutral pricing measure is

replaced with least favourable consistent pricing measure and EMM (resp. SMM) with

CEMM (resp. CSMM).

Avellaneda et al. (1997) and Avellaneda (1998) suggest to calibrate a market model

to initially observed derivative quotations m+1 , . . . , m+n by minimizing the entropy or

pseudo entropy of the pricing measure relative to P . In view of the previous lemma this

seems to be closely related to constant demand derivative pricing. However, instead of

focusing on equivalent martingale measures, their minimization extends over a larger class

of probability measures Q that reproduce the observed initial prices. In these papers, either

the equivalence to P (cf. Avellaneda et al. (1997)) or the martingale property of S (cf.

Avellaneda (1998)) is dropped. This allows for easier numerical computations but applied

to our setting, the resulting price system is typically not arbitrage-free.

22

References

Avellaneda, M. (1998). The minimum-entropy algorithm and related methods for calibrating asset-pricing

models. Documenta Mathematica Extra Volume ICM III, 545563.

Avellaneda, M., C. Friedman, R. Holmes, and D. Samperi (1997). Calibrating volatility surfaces via

relative-entropy minimization. Applied Mathematical Finance 4, 3764.

Bellini, F. and M. Frittelli (2000). On the existence of minimax martingale measures. Technical Report

14/2000, Universit degli Studi di Milano - Bicocca.

Bismut, J. (1975). Growth and optimal intertemporal allocations of risks. Journal of Economic Theory 10,

239287.

Bjrk, T. (1997). Interest rate theory. In W. Runggaldier (Ed.), Financial Mathematics, Volume 1656 of

Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pp. 53122. Berlin: Springer.

Chan, T. (1999). Pricing contingent claims on stocks driven by Lvy processes. The Annals of Applied

Probability 9, 504528.

Cox, J. and C.-F. Huang (1989). Optimal consumption and portfolio policies when asset prices follow a

diffusion process. Journal of Economic Theory 49, 3383.

Cvitanic, J. and I. Karatzas (1992). Convex duality in constrained portfolio optimization. The Annals of

Applied Probability 2, 767818.

Cvitanic, J., H. Pham, and N. Touzi (1999). Super-replication in stochastic volatility models under portfolio

constraints. Journal of Applied Probability 36, 523545.

Cvitanic, J., W. Schachermayer, and H. Wang (2001). Utility maximization in incomplete markets with

random endowment. Finance & Stochastics 5, 259272.

Dalang, R., A. Morton, and W. Willinger (1990). Equivalent martingale measures and no-arbitrage in

stochastic security market models. Stochastics and Stochastics Reports 29, 185202.

Davis, M. (1997). Option pricing in incomplete markets. In M. Dempster and S. Pliska (Eds.), Mathematics

of Derivative Securities, pp. 216226. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Delbaen, F., P. Grandits, T. Rheinlnder, D. Samperi, M. Schweizer, and C. Stricker (2000). Exponential

hedging and entropic penalties. Preprint Technische Universitt Berlin.

Delbaen, F. and W. Schachermayer (1994). A general version of the fundamental theorem of asset pricing.

Mathematische Annalen 300, 463520.

Delbaen, F. and W. Schachermayer (1995). The existence of absolutely continuous local martingale mea-

sures. The Annals of Applied Probability 5, 926945.

Delbaen, F. and W. Schachermayer (1998). The fundamental theorem of asset pricing for unbounded

stochastic processes. Mathematische Annalen 312, 215250.

Duffie, D. (1992). Dynamic Asset Pricing Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Eberlein, E. and J. Jacod (1997). On the range of option prices. Finance & Stochastics 1, 131140.

El Karoui, N. and M. Quenez (1995). Dynamic programming and pricing of contingent claims in an incom-

plete market. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization 33, 2966.

Foldes, L. (1990). Conditions for optimality in the infinite-horizon portfolio-cum-saving problem with

semimartingale investments. Stochastics and Stochastics Reports 29, 133170.

Foldes, L. (1992). Existence and uniqueness of an optimum in the infinite-horizon portfolio-cum-saving

problem with semimartingale investments. Stochastics and Stochastics Reports 41, 241267.

Fllmer, H. and P. Leukert (2000). Efficient hedging: Cost versus shortfall risk. Finance & Stochastics 4,

117146.

Fllmer, H. and M. Schweizer (1989). Hedging by sequential regression: an introduction to the mathematics

of option trading. ASTIN Bulletin 18, 147160.

23

Fllmer, H. and M. Schweizer (1991). Hedging of contingent claims under incomplete information. In

M. H. A. Davis and R. J. Elliott (Eds.), Applied Stochastic Analysis, Volume 5 of Stochastics Mono-

graphs, pp. 389414. London: Gordon & Breach.

Frey, R. and C. Sin (1999). Bounds on European option prices under stochastic volatility. Mathematical

Finance 9(2), 97116.

Frittelli, M. (1998). Introduction to a theory of value coherent with the no-arbitrage principle. Technical

report, Universit degli Studi di Milano.

Frittelli, M. (2000). The minimal entropy martingale measure and the valuation problem in incomplete

markets. Mathematical Finance 10(1), 3952.

Goll, T. and J. Kallsen (2000). Optimal portfolios for logarithmic utility. Stochastic Processes and their

Applications 89, 3148.

Goll, T. and L. Rschendorf (2000). Minimal distance martingale measures and optimal portfolios under

moment constraints. Preprint.

Goll, T. and L. Rschendorf (2001). Minimax and minimal distance martingale measures and their rela-

tionship to portfolio optimization. Finance & Stochastics, forthcoming.

Grandits, P. (1999a). On martingale measures for stochastic processes with independent increments. Theory

of Probability and its Applications 44, 3950.

Grandits, P. (1999b). The p-optimal martingale measure and its asymptotic relation with the minimal-

entropy martingale measure. Bernoulli 5, 225247.

Harrison, M. and D. Kreps (1979). Martingales and arbitrage in multiperiod securities markets. Journal of

Economic Theory 20, 381408.

Harrison, M. and S. Pliska (1981). Martingales and stochastic integrals in the theory of continuous trading.

Stochastic Processes and their Applications 11, 215260.

He, H. and N. Pearson (1991a). Consumption and portfolio policies with incomplete markets and short-sale

constraints: The finite-dimensional case. Mathematical Finance 1(3), 110.

He, H. and N. Pearson (1991b). Consumption and portfolio policies with incomplete markets and short-sale

constraints: The infinite-dimensional case. Journal of Economic Theory 54, 259304.

Hofmann, N., E. Platen, and M. Schweizer (1992). Option pricing under incompleteness and stochastic

volatility. Mathematical Finance 2(3), 153187.

Jacod, J. and A. Shiryaev (1998). Local martingales and the fundamental asset pricing theorems in the

discrete-time case. Finance & Stochastics 2, 259273.

Kabanov, Y. (1997). On the FTAP of Kreps-Delbaen-Schachermayer. In Statistics and control of stochastic

processes (Moscow, 1995/1996), pp. 191203. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific.

Kabanov, Y. and D. Kramkov (1994). No arbitrage and equivalent martingale measures: An elementary

proof of the Harrison-Pliska theorem. Theory of Probability and its Applications 39, 523527.

Kallsen, J. (1998a). Duality links between portfolio optimization and derivative pricing. Technical Report

40/1998, Mathematische Fakultt Universitt Freiburg i. Br.

Kallsen, J. (1998b). Semimartingale Modelling in Finance. Dissertation Universitt Freiburg i. Br.

Kallsen, J. (1999). A utility maximization approach to hedging in incomplete markets. Mathematical Meth-

ods of Operations Research 50, 321338.

Kallsen, J. (2000). Optimal portfolios for exponential Lvy processes. Mathematical Methods of Operations

Research 51, 357374.

Kallsen, J. (2001). Derivative pricing based on local utility maximization. Finance & Stochastics, forth-

coming.

Kallsen, J. and A. Shiryaev (2000). The cumulant process and Esschers change of measure. Preprint.

24

Karatzas, I. and S. Kou (1996). On the pricing of contingent claims under constraints. The Annals of Applied

Probability 6, 321369.

Karatzas, I., J. Lehoczky, and S. Shreve (1987). Optimal portfolio and consumption decisions for a small

investor on a finite horizon. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization 25, 15571586.

Karatzas, I., J. Lehoczky, S. Shreve, and G. Xu (1991). Martingale and duality methods for utility maxi-

mization in an incomplete market. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization 29, 702730.

Keller, U. (1997). Realistic Modelling of Financial Derivatives. Dissertation Universitt Freiburg i. Br.

Korn, R. (1997). Optimal Portfolios: Stochastic Models for Optimal Investment and Risk Management in

Continuous Time. Singapore: World Scientific.

Kramkov, D. and W. Schachermayer (1999). The asymptotic elasticity of utility functions and optimal

investment in incomplete markets. The Annals of Applied Probability 9, 904950.

Kreps, D. (1981). Arbitrage and equilibrium in economics with infinitely many commodities. Journal of

Mathematical Economics 8, 1535.

Lamberton, D. and B. Lapeyre (1996). Stochastic Calculus Applied to Finance. London: Chapman & Hall.

Miyahara, Y. (1996). Canonical martingale measures of incomplete assets markets. In S. Watanabe,

M. Fukushima, Y. Prohorov, and A. Shiryaev (Eds.), Probability Theory and Mathematical Statistics:

Proc. Seventh Japan-Russia Symposium, Tokyo 1995, pp. 343352. Singapore: World Scientific.

Miyahara, Y. (1999). Minimal entropy martingale measures of jump type price processes in incomplete

assets markets. Asia-Pacific Financial Markets 6, 97113.

Pham, H. and N. Touzi (1999). The fundamental theorem of asset pricing with cone constraints. Journal of

Mathematical Economics 31, 265279.

Pliska, S. (1986). A stochastic calculus model of continuous trading: Optimal portfolios. Mathematics of

Operations Research 11, 371384.

Pliska, S. (1997). Introduction to Mathematical Finance. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Rockafellar, T. (1970). Convex Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rockafellar, T. and R. Wets (1998). Variational Analysis. Berlin: Springer.

Rogers, C. (1994). Equivalent martingale measures and no-arbitrage. Stochastics and Stochastics Re-

ports 51, 4149.

Rouge, R. and N. El Karoui (2001). Pricing via utility maximization and entropy. Mathematical Finance,

forthcoming.

Schachermayer, W. (1992). A Hilbert space proof of the fundamental theorem of asset pricing in finite

discrete time. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 11, 249257.

Schachermayer, W. (2001a). Optimal investment in incomplete financial markets. In H. Geman, D. Madan,

S. Pliska, and T. Vorst (Eds.), Mathematical Finance Bachelier Congress 2000, Berlin. Springer.

Schachermayer, W. (2001b). Optimal investment in incomplete markets when wealth may become negative.

The Annals of Applied Probability, forthcoming.

Schl, M. (1994). On quadratic cost criteria for options hedging. Mathematics of Operations Research 19,

121131.

Schrger, K. (1996). On the existence of equivalent -measures in finite discrete time. Stochastic Processes

and their Applications 61, 109128.

Schweizer, M. (1991). Option hedging for semimartingales. Stochastic Processes and their Applications 37,

339363.

Schweizer, M. (1992). Mean-variance hedging for general claims. The Annals of Applied Probability 2,

171179.

25

Schweizer, M. (1994). Approximating random variables by stochastic integrals. The Annals of Probabil-

ity 22, 15361575.

Schweizer, M. (1995a). On the minimal martingale measure and the Fllmer-Schweizer decomposition.

Stochastic Analysis and Applications 13, 573599.

Schweizer, M. (1995b). Variance-optimal hedging in discrete time. Mathematics of Operations Re-

search 20, 132.

Schweizer, M. (1996). Approximation pricing and the variance-optimal martingale measure. The Annals of

Probability 24, 206236.

Schweizer, M. (1999). A guided tour through quadratic hedging approaches. Preprint.

Willinger, W. and M. Taqqu (1987). The analysis of finite security markets using martingales. Advances in

Applied Probability 19, 125.

26

- Simulation HW1Uploaded byHoang Lam Nguyen
- 3rdqtr13Uploaded byTu Zhan Luo
- An Examination and Implementation of the Libor Market ModelUploaded byJames Jardine
- Investment Banking Securities Dealing Lines 52311 LUploaded byDataGroup Editorial
- Alex Sharpe's PortfolioUploaded bySiona Maria Nathaniel
- CQF Brochure 2011Uploaded bymayhem12
- Risk Averse TimingUploaded bybivu_plu
- 1-s2.0-S1570794607802124-mainUploaded byduplicado2012
- As Fs d Grg 23543645Uploaded bygamersam
- BEAMUploaded byDeepesh Kumar
- Molecular MechanicsUploaded bygumjunkie
- Functions of a Single Variable-FEAUploaded bySankar Kumar
- Disseratation-1Uploaded byAnkit Jain
- Term Structure Models LeippoldUploaded byXiao Yuan
- Interview QuestionsUploaded byFaraz Anwar
- 001Uploaded byshoemakerlevy9
- Managing the Exploitation Life of the MiningUploaded byJesus Soares
- Week 2a(1)Uploaded byHafsa Souleiman
- Islamic Finance & Risk ManagementUploaded byS.m.SharifulAmin
- NCFM MODULEUploaded byAbdul Basith
- 16Uploaded byJulliana Maisy
- Operation Research 2Uploaded byRK Singh
- Global Design Optimization for Fluid Machinery ApplicationsUploaded byCarlos Junior Alexander Ruiz Sánchez
- ballbouncing (1).pdfUploaded bymfqc
- Final ReportUploaded bybandana_pandey123
- Real-Estate Derivatives From Econometrics to Financial Engineering.pdfUploaded byEdgar
- Equity-DerivativesUploaded byAnkit
- Highland 2011 ADV Part 2a BrochureUploaded byWho's in my Fund
- HISTORICAL DEV ELOPMENT OF DERI VATI V ES’ UNDERLY ING ASSETSUploaded byvrimanek
- Optimization Algorithm for Optimal MVMOUploaded byJaol1976

- Time Schedule Jan-Dec 2017 - NewEraCTCUploaded byMzukisi
- Beyond black scholesUploaded byMzukisi
- Lesson3 SummaryUploaded byMzukisi
- Dsc4812 101_2017_0_bUploaded byMzukisi
- MIT SDE SolnsUploaded byMzukisi
- MlArm GuidebookUploaded byMzukisi
- Or Manager GuidebookUploaded byMzukisi
- Edu 2009 Spring Exam Mfe QaUploaded byYan David Wang
- MCom Risk Management of Financial Markets Handbook EntryUploaded byMzukisi
- SdeUploaded byMzukisi
- Mathematical Structure of ARIMA Models--Robert NauUploaded byMzukisi
- Lesson5 SummaryUploaded byMzukisi
- SASLesson2 SummaryUploaded byMzukisi
- SASLesson2 SummaryUploaded byMzukisi
- Oxford Fintech Programme ProspectusUploaded byMzukisi
- Visualbasic TutorialUploaded bySrey Saroeun
- LaTeX and BibTeX Branded Jan 2016Uploaded byMzukisi
- Latex Tutorials for BeginnersUploaded byAdebisi Adetayo Abdulmumin
- Undergrad Guide To rUploaded byAndreea Palici
- R language an Introduction for Time SeriesUploaded bykanabaramit
- Regression in R SoftwareUploaded byJoão Heitor De Avila
- Filtration sUploaded byMzukisi
- Unisa Council Bursary Application FormUploaded byThabiso
- Week9 SDEUploaded byMzukisi
- CompMktsUploaded byMzukisi
- chapter_1Uploaded byMzukisi
- chapter+1+and+2Uploaded byMzukisi
- BibTeX TutorialUploaded byMzukisi
- BibTeX TutorialUploaded byMzukisi

- Guppy on Volume-Part 1.pdfUploaded bynwahlian5270
- IFC+and+Housing+FinanceUploaded byKumar Pritam
- Get to Know the Seal of ExcellenceUploaded byTruelift
- Opening of Loan AccountUploaded bykumarrajeevatscribd
- Project Resource GuideUploaded bymarraez
- 70114906 Barclays Capital Hong Kong BanksUploaded byMrunali Vaidande
- Incorporation or LLC Formation ChecklistUploaded bynancyfallon
- Chapter - Monetary Policy (Model & Transmission)1Uploaded byNahidul Islam IU
- Exit KitUploaded byjinxed
- BINDUUploaded byRupesh More
- Tax Amnesty PresentationUploaded byANGELINA ANGELINA
- Senior Director or Vice President or Chief Marketing OfficerUploaded byapi-78945016
- UN Compendium on Debt Sustainability and Development 2011 - Agenda 21Uploaded byLinda Louise
- SIPCOT Land Allotment FormUploaded byanaamikaa
- Swiss Banking_ Annual Report 2012Uploaded bymunia76
- Syllabus FAUploaded byFarhan Majid
- Thayer Vietnam's Military Telecommunications General Corporation Renamed Military Industry and Telecoms GroupUploaded byCarlyle Alan Thayer
- CIO or CTO or Director of Information Techology or Vice PresidenUploaded byapi-78685323
- Mark to Market AccountingUploaded byalex_edmans
- Project Appraisal Preesbi FINALUploaded byKhush Mehta
- 21936mtp-cptvolu1-part4Uploaded byNoman Areeb
- Ameriprise Financial Advisor StudyUploaded byN Narendra Sharma
- Oracle Ppm and Xp Webinar Final 28th May 2014Uploaded byPoorna Sethuraman
- General Insurance Corporation of India DRHPUploaded byAshok Yadav
- Thesis ProposalUploaded byBettina Maynard
- Knowledge Management and Value of the FirmUploaded byMegat Zainurul Anuar bin Megat Johari
- BEC Vantage - GlossaryUploaded byJohn Burns
- NVS q1 2017 Ir PresentationUploaded bymedtechy
- Who is Who-BahrainUploaded byJomy Augustine
- Risk Adjusted Performance AnalysisUploaded bymorrisonkaniu8283