IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/finsto/v17y2013i3p587-613.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamic no-good-deal pricing measures and extension theorems for linear operators on L ∞

Author

Listed:
  • Jocelyne Bion-Nadal
  • Giulia Nunno

Abstract

In an L ∞ -framework, we present majorant-preserving and sandwich-preserving extension theorems for linear operators. These results are then applied to price systems derived by a reasonable restriction of the class of applicable equivalent martingale measures. Our results prove the existence of a no-good-deal pricing measure for price systems consistent with bounds on the Sharpe ratio. We treat both discrete- and continuous-time market models. Within this study we present definitions of no-good-deal pricing measures that are equivalent to the existing ones and extend them to discrete-time models. We introduce the corresponding version of dynamic no-good-deal pricing measures in the continuous-time setting. Copyright Springer-Verlag 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Jocelyne Bion-Nadal & Giulia Nunno, 2013. "Dynamic no-good-deal pricing measures and extension theorems for linear operators on L ∞," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 587-613, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:finsto:v:17:y:2013:i:3:p:587-613
    DOI: 10.1007/s00780-012-0195-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00780-012-0195-y
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00780-012-0195-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Freddy Delbaen & Shige Peng & Emanuela Rosazza Gianin, 2010. "Representation of the penalty term of dynamic concave utilities," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 449-472, September.
    2. John H. Cochrane & Jesus Saa-Requejo, 2000. "Beyond Arbitrage: Good-Deal Asset Price Bounds in Incomplete Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(1), pages 79-119, February.
    3. Klöppel Susanne & Schweizer Martin, 2007. "Dynamic utility-based good deal bounds," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 25(4/2007), pages 1-25, October.
    4. Tomas Björk & Irina Slinko, 2006. "Towards a General Theory of Good-Deal Bounds," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 10(2), pages 221-260.
    5. Bion-Nadal, Jocelyne, 2009. "Time consistent dynamic risk processes," Stochastic Processes and their Applications, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 633-654, February.
    6. Jocelyne Bion-Nadal, 2008. "Dynamic risk measures: Time consistency and risk measures from BMO martingales," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 219-244, April.
    7. Jocelyne Bion-Nadal & Magali Kervarec, 2010. "Risk measuring under model uncertainty," Papers 1004.5524, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2010.
    8. Jeremy Staum, 2004. "Fundamental Theorems of Asset Pricing for Good Deal Bounds," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 141-161, April.
    9. Stefan Jaschke & Uwe Küchler, 2001. "Coherent risk measures and good-deal bounds," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 181-200.
    10. Bion-Nadal, Jocelyne, 2009. "Bid-ask dynamic pricing in financial markets with transaction costs and liquidity risk," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(11), pages 738-750, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Takuji Arai, 2015. "Good deal bounds with convex constraints," Papers 1506.00396, arXiv.org.
    2. Dirk Becherer & Klebert Kentia, 2017. "Hedging under generalized good-deal bounds and model uncertainty," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 86(1), pages 171-214, August.
    3. Maria Arduca & Cosimo Munari, 2020. "Fundamental theorem of asset pricing with acceptable risk in markets with frictions," Papers 2012.08351, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2022.
    4. Maria Arduca & Cosimo Munari, 2023. "Fundamental theorem of asset pricing with acceptable risk in markets with frictions," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 831-862, July.
    5. Patrick Cheridito & Michael Kupper & Ludovic Tangpi, 2016. "Duality formulas for robust pricing and hedging in discrete time," Papers 1602.06177, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2017.
    6. Takuji Arai, 2016. "Good deal bounds with convex constraints: --- examples and proofs ---," Keio-IES Discussion Paper Series 2016-017, Institute for Economics Studies, Keio University.
    7. Ludovic Tangpi, 2018. "Efficient hedging under ambiguity in continuous time," Papers 1812.10876, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2019.
    8. Takuji Arai, 2017. "Good Deal Bounds With Convex Constraints," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(02), pages 1-15, March.
    9. Dirk Becherer & Klebert Kentia, 2016. "Hedging under generalized good-deal bounds and model uncertainty," Papers 1607.04488, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2017.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jocelyne Bion-Nadal & Giulia Di Nunno, 2011. "Extension theorems for linear operators on $L_\infty$ and application to price systems," Papers 1102.5501, arXiv.org.
    2. Bion-Nadal, Jocelyne, 2009. "Bid-ask dynamic pricing in financial markets with transaction costs and liquidity risk," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(11), pages 738-750, December.
    3. Takuji Arai & Masaaki Fukasawa, 2011. "Convex risk measures for good deal bounds," Papers 1108.1273, arXiv.org.
    4. Takuji Arai, 2016. "Good deal bounds with convex constraints: --- examples and proofs ---," Keio-IES Discussion Paper Series 2016-017, Institute for Economics Studies, Keio University.
    5. Tomasz R. Bielecki & Igor Cialenco & Marcin Pitera, 2016. "A survey of time consistency of dynamic risk measures and dynamic performance measures in discrete time: LM-measure perspective," Papers 1603.09030, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2017.
    6. Takuji Arai, 2017. "Good Deal Bounds With Convex Constraints," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(02), pages 1-15, March.
    7. Cohen, Samuel N., 2012. "Representing filtration consistent nonlinear expectations as g-expectations in general probability spaces," Stochastic Processes and their Applications, Elsevier, vol. 122(4), pages 1601-1626.
    8. Ji, Ronglin & Shi, Xuejun & Wang, Shijie & Zhou, Jinming, 2019. "Dynamic risk measures for processes via backward stochastic differential equations," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 43-50.
    9. Zachary Feinstein & Birgit Rudloff, 2018. "Scalar multivariate risk measures with a single eligible asset," Papers 1807.10694, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2021.
    10. Yanhong Chen & Zachary Feinstein, 2022. "Set-valued dynamic risk measures for processes and for vectors," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 505-533, July.
    11. Leitner Johannes, 2005. "Optimal portfolios with expected loss constraints and shortfall risk optimal martingale measures," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 23(1/2005), pages 49-66, January.
    12. Tomasz R. Bielecki & Igor Cialenco & Ismail Iyigunler & Rodrigo Rodriguez, 2012. "Dynamic Conic Finance: Pricing and Hedging in Market Models with Transaction Costs via Dynamic Coherent Acceptability Indices," Papers 1205.4790, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2013.
    13. Elisa Mastrogiacomo & Emanuela Rosazza Gianin, 2019. "Time-consistency of risk measures: how strong is such a property?," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 42(1), pages 287-317, June.
    14. Ji, Ronglin & Shi, Xuejun & Wang, Shijie & Zhou, Jinming, 2022. "Convexity and sublinearity of g-expectations," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    15. Takuji Arai, 2015. "Good deal bounds with convex constraints," Papers 1506.00396, arXiv.org.
    16. Zachary Feinstein & Birgit Rudloff, 2012. "Multiportfolio time consistency for set-valued convex and coherent risk measures," Papers 1212.5563, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2014.
    17. Bellini, Fabio & Laeven, Roger J.A. & Rosazza Gianin, Emanuela, 2021. "Dynamic robust Orlicz premia and Haezendonck–Goovaerts risk measures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(2), pages 438-446.
    18. Samuel N. Cohen, 2011. "Representing filtration consistent nonlinear expectations as $g$-expectations in general probability spaces," Papers 1102.5287, arXiv.org.
    19. Maria Arduca & Cosimo Munari, 2020. "Fundamental theorem of asset pricing with acceptable risk in markets with frictions," Papers 2012.08351, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2022.
    20. Frank Bosserhoff & Mitja Stadje, 2019. "Robustness of Delta Hedging in a Jump-Diffusion Model," Papers 1910.08946, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2022.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Price operator; Dynamic risk measure; Extension theorem; Representation theorem; Fundamental theorem; Equivalent martingale measure; Good deal; 46E30; 91B70; G12; G13;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G12 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Asset Pricing; Trading Volume; Bond Interest Rates
    • G13 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Contingent Pricing; Futures Pricing

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:finsto:v:17:y:2013:i:3:p:587-613. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.