Why Trading Gains from Local Martingales Remain Local Martingales
Summary
The document asks why a self-financing strategy’s discounted wealth remains a local martingale when the discounted asset price is a local martingale under an equivalent martingale measure. It frames the gain process as a stochastic integral of the trading strategy against the discounted price process. The author understands a Brownian-integral criterion involving square-integrability, but is unsure how to apply it because the discounted price is not itself Brownian motion under the measure in question.
The central issue is the conditions for stochastic integration with respect to a local martingale, including the role of admissibility and integrability. The question cites a lower bound on wealth and a pathwise condition involving the volatility and strategy, but does not provide an answer or establish that these assumptions suffice. It therefore identifies a useful mathematical point for understanding martingale pricing and no-arbitrage arguments, while leaving the proof unresolved and specific to the stated setup.
Key ideas
- A self-financing discounted wealth process can be expressed as an integral against discounted asset prices.
- The question concerns when a stochastic integral with respect to a local martingale is itself a local martingale.
- The discounted asset price need not be Brownian motion for local-martingale integration to be relevant.
- Admissibility and the integrability condition on the strategy are central to justifying the claim.
- The document poses the proof question but does not resolve it.
Tags
Full text
# 61576
# Why does it hold true that $\theta_{t} d\overline{X}_{t}$ is a local $Q$ martingale if $\overline{X}$ is a local $Q$ martingale
I am learning from Bernt Oksendal's Stochastic Differential Equations and on page 276 Lemma 12.1.6, it is stated that:
The existence of an equivalent martingale measure $Q$ on the discounted price process $\overline{X}$ implies that the market is arbitrage-free.
A statement in the proof has come up, that I cannot justify (I will only look at dimension $1$ for simplicity of notation):
Let $\theta$ be an admissible trading strategy, then we have $d\overline{V}_{t}^{\theta}=\theta_{t}d\overline{X}_{t}$ which is clear by the self-financing property. Next, since $\overline{X}$ is a local $Q$ martingale, it must follow that $\overline{V_{t}}=\overline{V_{0}}+\int_{0}^{t}\theta_{s}d\overline{X}_{s}$ is also a local $Q$ martingale $(*)$.
This last sentence is the part I do not understand. The assumptions that could be relevant are:
$dX_{t}=\mu_{t} dt+\sigma _{t}dB_{t}$
$d\overline{X_{t}}=\overline{X}_{t}((\mu_{t}-r_{t})dt+\sigma_{t}dB_{t})$
and $\theta$ is admissible if it is self-financing, lower bounded and
$\int_{0}^{T}\sigma^{2}_{t}\theta_{t}^{2}dt< \infty \; a.s. $ where $\sigma$ is fixed, progressive and satisfies $\int_{0}^{T}\sigma^{2}_{t}dt< \infty\; a.s.$
Now I have
What I know thus far: If $\Phi$ is a progressive process such that $\int^{T}_{0}(\Phi_{t})^{2}dt<\infty\; a.s.$, then for a brownian motion $B$, the stochastic integral:
$\int_{0}^{t}\Phi_{s}dB_{s}$ is a local martingale on $[0,T]$.
Now to prove $(*)$ I think I need to show $\int^{T}_{0}(\Phi_{t})^{2}dt<\infty\; a.s.$ , which I have been unable to do thus far. And even then, $\overline{X}$ is certainly not necessarily a Brownian motion, so I am lost as to how I can justify why $\theta_{t}d\overline{X}_{t}$ is indeed a local $Q$ martingale. Any ideas that I am missing?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.