Skip to content
All library documents

Entropy-Dual Utility Pricing for Contingent Claims

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Ivan

Summary

The document presents exponential-utility valuation as a minimization over portfolio strategies, then uses the dual relationship between log moment-generating functions and relative entropy to recast the problem as a game between an investor and the market. It gives a proposed claim-price formula as the difference between two entropy-penalized suprema, one including the claim payoff and one without it.

A Brownian market model with a riskless asset, risky assets, a wealth process, and a bond numeraire is provided as context. The author asks how the stated price follows from the utility indifference definition, either generally or in that model. The document does not supply a derivation, assumptions ensuring the relevant extrema or probability measures exist, or a worked example. It is therefore a question about connecting the dual representation to indifference pricing, rather than a complete pricing recipe or empirical study.

Key ideas

  • Exponential utility turns claim valuation into an optimization over terminal wealth and payoff.
  • The log-exponential objective can be represented using expectations penalized by relative entropy.
  • This dual form frames valuation as a game between the portfolio agent and a worst-case probability measure.
  • The proposed claim price subtracts the no-claim entropy value from the value that includes the payoff.
  • The document poses the derivation as an open question and does not establish the formula.

Tags

Full text
# Price of a stochastic game between an agent and the market


# Price of a stochastic game between an agent and the market












In the article Pricing via utility maximization and entropy from Richard Rouge and Nicole El Karoui, they define the value function of the optimization problem as

\begin{align} V(x,C) = \dfrac{1}{\gamma} \ln E\left[ -\hat{U}(x,-C) \right] = \inf_{\pi \in \mathcal{A}} \dfrac{1}{\gamma} \ln E[\exp -\gamma ( X_{T}^{x, \pi} - C)], \end{align}

where $X_{t}^{x, \pi}$ is the wealth process with an initial endowment $x$ and portfolio strategy $\pi$. $C$ is the payoff of the contingent claim at time $T$. $\mathcal{A}$ is a closed convex cone, and $\hat{U}$ is the maximal expected utility function that is defined as \begin{align} \hat{U}(x,C) = \max_{\pi \in \mathcal{A}}E[U(X_{T}^{x, \pi} + C)], \end{align} where $U(y):= - \exp(-\gamma y)$, the negative exponential utility.

They use the duality between free energy and the relative entropy that is \begin{align} \ln E[\exp B] = \sup_{Q \ll P} [E^{Q}[B] -h(Q \vert P)] \end{align}

to conclude that

\begin{align} V(x,C) = \inf_{\pi \in \mathcal{A}} \sup_{Q \ll P}\left\lbrace E^{Q}[-X_{T}^{x, \pi}+C] - \dfrac{1}{\gamma}h(Q \vert P)\right\rbrace \end{align} that is the value of a stochastic game between an agent and the market.

> The authors claim in Theorem 2.1 that the price of the contingent claim is given by \begin{align} p(x,C) /B_{0,T} = \sup_{Q_{T}}\left\lbrace E^{Q_{T}}[C] - \dfrac{1}{\gamma}h(Q_{T} \vert P)\right\rbrace - \sup_{Q_{T}}\left\lbrace - \dfrac{1}{\gamma}h(Q_{T} \vert P)\right\rbrace \end{align} where $Q_{T}$ runs trough the set of probabilities $Q_{T} \sim P$. The authors claim this result holds in a general setting but they do not explicitly show how they deduce this price. Does anyone know how to deduce this result under the general setting or under the Brownian motion setting mentioned below (that appears in the article)? or any reference?

By the way, the authors define the price $p(x,C)$ of a contingent claim as the smallest $p$ such that \begin{align} \sup_{\pi \in \mathcal{A}}E[U(X_{T}^{x+p, \pi}- C)] \geq E[U(X_{T}^{x, \pi})] \end{align}

Even under the the following Brownian motion model that they provide, they do not explicitly show how to deduce the price.

> \begin{align} dP_{t}^{0} =r_{t}P_{t}^{0}dt, \ \ \ P_{0}^{0}=1, \end{align} is the dynamics of the riskless asset price. \begin{align} dP_{t}^{i} = P_{t}^{i}\left[ b_{t}^{i}dt + \sum_{j=1}^{d} \sigma_{t}^{i j} dW_{t}^{j}\right] \end{align} are the dynamics of the risky assets, where $P_{t}^{i}$ is the price of the risky ith risky asset at time $t$. \begin{align} X_{0}^{x, \pi}=x \ \ \ \ dX_{t} = \left( X_{t} - \sum_{i=1}^{d} \pi_{t}^{i} \right)r_{t} dt + \sum_{i=1}^{d}\pi_{t}^{i}\left[ b_{t}^{i}dt + \sum_{j=1}^{d} \sigma_{t}^{i j} dW_{t}^{j}\right] \end{align} is the equation of the wealth process $X^{x, \pi}$ where $\pi_{t}^{i}$ is the amount invested in the ith risky asset with $i =1,...,d$. and the zero coupon bond $B_{t,T}$ is used as numeraire and follow the equation \begin{align} dB_{t,T} = B_{t,T} [(r_{t} + \sigma_{t}^{T^{*}}\sigma_{t})dt + \sigma_{t}^{T^{*}} \sigma_{t} dW_{t}] \end{align} where $\sigma_{t}^{T}$ is an $\mathbb{R}^{d}$-valued progressively measurable process, and $*$ denotes transpose.

This is the only result that I have not been able to prove. Thanks in advance.

Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)

This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.