 Solution

Normalize the constant relative risk aversion utility as $U(c)=c^{1-R}/(1-R)$. The printed specification of $U^{\prime }$ alone also permits an additive constant $K$; that would add $K/\rho$ to the value, so the stated homogeneity holds for the normalized value. SetMultiplying initial wealth, the historical maximum, dollar investments, and consumption by $a>0$ multiplies every term of the wealth equation by $a$, including the tax term. It maps admissible policies bijectively and multiplies the normalized reward by $a^{1-R}$. Therefore the value scales asThe historical maximum means ${\bar{w}}_t=\max ({\bar{w}}_0,{\sup }_{0\le s\le t}{w}_s)$ when initially $w<\bar{w}$.

Inside the state region $w<\bar{w}$, the maximum is locally constant. The Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation isAt $w=\bar{w}$, the finite-variation contribution in the Itô formula is $(V_{\bar{w}}-\tau V_w)d\bar{w}$. The high-water mark tax boundary condition is consequentlyFor an increasing, strictly concave function of wealth, optimizing the two controls givesThe consumption convex conjugate isSubstitution of the homogeneity derivatives gives the reduced equation and boundary conditionThe controls in scaled variables are $c^{\ast }/\bar{w}=(v^{\prime }{)}^{-1/R}$ and ${\theta }^{\ast }/\bar{w}=-(\mu -r)v^{\prime }/({\sigma }^2{v}^{\prime \prime })$.

Use the wealth-variable Legendre dualSince $v^{\prime \prime }<0$, the inverse map satisfies $J^{\prime }=-x$ and $J^{\prime \prime }=-1/v^{\prime \prime }>0$. Inserting $v=J-z{J}^{\prime }$ into the reduced Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation gives a linear Euler equationFor the Euler differential equation operator on the left, its action on $z^t$ is $Q(t)z^t$. Write $b=1-1/R$. Under ${\gamma }_M=-Q(b)>0$, the particular solution is $-\tilde{U}(z)/Q(b)$. For the nondegenerate case $\kappa \ne 0$, the two characteristic roots are $-\alpha <0<t_{+}$, with $t_{+}>1$ because $Q(0)=-\rho$ and $Q(1)=-r$. Thus the general solution also contains $A(z/z_{\ast }{)}^{-\alpha }+B{z}^{t_{+}}$.

Here $z_{\ast }=v^{\prime }(1)$ and the relevant dual domain is $z\ge z_{\ast }$. The inverse wealth ratio must have $x=-J^{\prime }(z)\to 0$ as $z\to \infty$. The particular solution and the negative-root term have derivatives tending to zero, whereas $B{z}^{t_{+}}$ has an unbounded derivative unless $B=0$. Hence the admissible dual solution has the claimed formThe quadratic-root formulation presupposes a nonzero market price of risk. If $\kappa =0$, the dual equation becomes first order; it is treated directly or by an appropriate nondegenerate limit rather than by assuming two quadratic roots.

The inverse map and the tax boundary provide two equations at $z_{\ast }$:Because ${\tilde{U}}^{\prime }(z)=-z^{-1/R}$, these becomeLet $D=\alpha R+R-1$. Eliminating $z_{\ast }^{1-1/R}/{\gamma }_M$ gives $-DA=\tau z_{\ast }$. Also $D=R(\alpha +b)>0$, since $Q(b)<0$ puts $b$ strictly between the two roots. The derivative boundary then gives $z_{\ast }^{-1/R}/{\gamma }_M=(D+\alpha \tau )/D$. Therefore the constants areThere is an important admissibility qualification in the printed conclusion. With $x(z)=-J^{\prime }(z)$,The second term is negative, but decays faster than the first because $\alpha +1>1/R$. Direct differentiation at the boundary givesA wealth-variable Legendre dual of a concave value must be a convex function. Thus the printed smooth tax-paying solution requires $\alpha \tau <1$, with the limiting case $\alpha \tau =1$ allowed as a degenerate boundary. The assumptions ${\gamma }_M>0$ and $0<\tau <1$ do not imply this: for example $R=2$, $r=0.03$, $\rho =0.1$, $\kappa =0.2$, and $\tau =0.5$ give $\alpha =(5+\sqrt{105})/4>2$ and ${\gamma }_M=0.07$, hence negative boundary dual curvature.

For higher tax the investor can avoid raising the historical maximum. The wealth-cap investment boundary replaces the tax-paying equality by $J^{\prime \prime }(z_{\ast })=0$, alongside $J^{\prime }(z_{\ast })=-1$. Solving these equations givesThese are the same constants with $\tau$ replaced by ${\tau }_{\mathrm{eff}}=1/\alpha$. More generally the admissible two-regime expression usesin the constants, while the claimed formulas themselves describe the tax-paying regime. In the cap regime the portfolio volatility vanishes at $x=1$ and the consumption rate there is $r+{\kappa }^2(\alpha +1)/(2R)>r$, so the wealth drift points inward and no new maximum is required. The remaining boundary inequality is $(V_{\bar{w}}-\tau V_w)/V_w=1/\alpha -\tau \le 0$, consistent with avoiding costly maximum increases. For $z>z_{\ast }$, dual curvature is positive because the negative term in $J^{\prime \prime }$ decays faster than the positive term. Thus this qualification repairs an actual missing parameter restriction rather than a TeX transcription error.