Skip to content
All library documents

Viable Price Systems and Budget Constraints in Securities Markets

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Ramesh Kadambi

Summary

The document explains a definition from a paper on martingales and arbitrage in multiperiod securities markets. A price system assigns a linear price to attainable future consumption bundles, while a viable system requires that some agent have a preferred optimal net trade subject to a budget constraint. The constraint says the total cost of the chosen bundle, including current consumption, cannot be positive; the accompanying answer paraphrases this as preventing an agent from committing to spend more than they can afford.

The preference relation belongs to a particular agent whose existence establishes viability, rather than being shared across all agents. The source points to the paper’s discussion and an answer that clarifies this interpretation. It addresses the meaning of the definition, not the full theorem connecting viable price systems, martingales, and arbitrage, so broader conclusions require consulting the original paper.

Key ideas

  • A price system assigns linear prices to attainable future consumption bundles.
  • Viability requires at least one agent with an optimal preferred trade under the budget constraint.
  • The budget constraint limits a chosen trade to bundles with nonpositive total cost.
  • The preference relation describes the specific agent used to establish viability, not every agent.

Tags

Full text
# Martingales and Arbitrage in Multiperiod Securities Markets


# Martingales and Arbitrage in Multiperiod Securities Markets












I have been reading the paper "Martingales and Arbitrage in Multiperiod Securities Markets".

The paper works in the probability space $(\Omega, F, \mathbf{P})$. $X$ is defined as the set of all random variables on $(\Omega, F)$. $M$ is a subspace of $X$.

The paper defines a consumption bundle $(r, x) \in (\mathbb{R}, X)$ where $r$ is consumed today and $x$ at a later time $T$ based on a random state of the world ($\omega \in \Omega$).

A price system is a pair $(M, \pi)$ where $\pi$ is a linear functional on $M$. The agents can purchase a bundle $(r,m)$ for a time $0$ units of date zero consumption of $r + \pi(m)$.

A viable price system $(M, \pi)$ is viable if there exists an agent with preference $\succsim$ and a bundle $(r^*,m^*) \in \mathbb{R} \times M$ such that,

$r^* + \pi(m^*) \le 0$ and $(r^*,m^*) \succsim (r,m)$ for all $(r, m) \in \mathbb{R} \times M$ such that $r + \pi(m) \le 0$.

Note that $\succsim$ is a preference relation that is transitive, continuous and convex. The continuity is based on a topology defined later.

My Question:

why is $r^* + \pi(m^*)$ less than equal to zero? The author states that it is a budget constraint.

Also is the preference across all agents? Or is it specific to an agent. The fact that he uses there exists seems to imply $(r^*, m^*)$ is preferred by all agents?

Thank you in advance.

## Answer by William Wu (score 1, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/71564

It is assumed that the agent's trades cannot have positive cost. In other words, the agent cannot promise to spend more than they make.

(cf. this slides, pg. 9)

For the second part, it should be for a specific agent only. It is mentioned in page 5 of the paper (after equation 2.4):

> This says that there is some agent from the class $\mathbf{A}$ who, when choosing a best net trade subject to his budget constraint $r+\pi(m)\leq 0$, is able to find an optimal trade.

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.