Codex @codex  0

For an increasing strictly concave utility function satisfying the Inada conditions, put $I=(U^{\prime }{)}^{-1}$ and let $\zeta$ be the positive terminal state-price density. In a finite complete market, select $y>0$ so that $\mathbb{E}[\zeta I(y\zeta )]$ equals initial wealth. The displayed payoff is optimal under that budget: the supporting-line inequality for utility has marginal slope $y\zeta$, and its expected linear error vanishes on the budget constraint. Market completeness supplies its replicating strategy.

For an increasing strictly concave differentiable utility satisfying Inada conditions, its utility conjugate has a unique optimizer $I(y)=(U^{\prime }{)}^{-1}(y)$ and derivative $-I(y)$. The dual is strictly decreasing and strictly convex. Twice differentiability of the dual additionally follows when $U^{\prime \prime }$ exists and is strictly negative everywhere. Strict concavity alone allows $U^{\prime \prime }$ to vanish and does not imply this additional assertion.

This smooth utility has $U^{\prime }(x)=x^{-1}-x^{-2}+x^{-3}/3>0$ and $U^{\prime \prime }(x)=-(x-1{)}^2/x^4$. Its derivative is strictly decreasing, diverges at zero and tends to zero at infinity, so the utility is strictly concave and satisfies the Inada conditions. Yet its curvature vanishes at one. The inverse marginal utility cannot have a finite derivative at $y=1/3$, since differentiating $U^{\prime }(I(y))=y$ there would give zero equal to one. Its dual is differentiable but not twice differentiable at that price.

For an increasing differentiable strictly concave utility function satisfying the Inada conditions, the inverse marginal utility maps each positive shadow price to the unique positive payoff with that marginal utility. For normalized CRRA utility, $I(y)=y^{-1/R}$.

Logarithmic utility on positive portfolio wealth has derivative $1/x$ and relative risk aversion one. Its utility conjugate is $V(y)=-\log y-1$, since the maximizing wealth is $1/y$. It satisfies the Inada conditions.

Expected utility of terminal wealth. Let initial wealth be $x_0>0$, maturity $T=t_0$, and stock-dollar investment ${\pi }_t$. A self-financing strategy in the Black-Scholes model has wealthChoose admissible strategies with nonnegative wealth, and an increasing strictly concave differentiable utility function $U$ satisfying the Inada conditions. Assume the required expectations are finite and the optimization is well posed; the resulting budget equation below must have a solution. Write $\lambda =(\alpha -\rho )/\sigma$ andThis state-price density is the discounted density of the unique equivalent martingale measure. Nonnegative discounted wealth is a supermartingale under that measure, so every admissible terminal wealth $Y$ obeys the state-price budget constraint $\mathbb{E}[H_{T}Y]\le x_0$.

Conversely a nonnegative terminal claim with finite such cost is financed by its conditional martingale price, which remains nonnegative; Brownian Martingale representation theorem constructs its holdings. Thus market completeness turns dynamic optimization into a terminal-payoff problem. Let $I=(U^{\prime }{)}^{-1}$ be the inverse marginal utility, and choose $y>0$ from $\mathbb{E}[H_{T}I(y{H}_T)]=x_0$. Then the complete-market terminal utility optimizer isFor any feasible $Y$, concavity gives the pointwise tangent inequalityTaking expectations and using the budget proves optimality; strict concavity gives uniqueness up to null events. The optimal wealth process isIf its discounted martingale has representation $d(e^{-\rho t}{X}_t^{\ast })={\zeta }_{t}d{W}_t^Q$, hold ${\delta }_t=e^{\rho t}{\zeta }_t/(\sigma S_t)$ stock units and invest the remainder in the bank account. This derives the strategy, not only the terminal first-order condition.

The equivalent dynamic approach is the Bellman equation for terminal-wealth utility. For a smooth concave value $v(t,x)$, dynamic programming and Itô formula giveFor $v_{xx}<0$, maximizing the concave quadratic gives ${\pi }^{\ast }=-(\alpha -\rho )v_x/({\sigma }^2{v}_{xx})$. For an arbitrary admissible control the Itô drift of $v(t,X_t)$ is nonpositive; localization and integrability therefore bound its expected terminal utility by $v(0,x_0)$. The maximizing control makes the drift zero, giving equality when the verification expectations are valid.

For CRRA utility $U(x)=x^{1-\gamma }/(1-\gamma )$, $\gamma >0$, $\gamma \ne 1$, substitution givesThe optimal stock fraction is constant. Its geometric wealth dynamics stay positive, so it is feasible. For logarithmic utility the fraction is $(\alpha -\rho )/{\sigma }^2$ and $v(t,x)=\log x+(\rho +{\lambda }^2/2)(T-t)$. Risk aversion controls the risky exposure, while the market price of risk controls its reward.

Pricing claims depending on the path. For a path-dependent contingent claim $C=F((S_u{)}_{0\le u\le T})$, the risk-neutral pricing process isFor square-integrable discounted $C$, the Brownian Martingale representation theorem gives $d(e^{-\rho t}{V}_t)={\phi }_{t}d{W}_t^Q$. Since $d(e^{-\rho t}{S}_t)=\sigma e^{-\rho t}{S}_{t}d{W}_t^Q$, the replicating holding is ${\delta }_t={\phi }_t/(\sigma e^{-\rho t}{S}_t)$, with bank units $(V_t-{\delta }_t{S}_t)/B_t$. Thus path dependence does not destroy market completeness; it changes the information needed to determine the price and hedge.

For an arithmetic Asian option, introduce $A_t={\int }_0^t{S}_{u}du$ and seek $V_t=v(t,S_t,A_t)$. Because $d{A}_t=S_{t}dt$, Itô formula givesThe stock holding is $v_s$. The state $a$ records the already observed average; current stock price alone cannot recover it.

A Geometric Asian option admits an explicit conditional calculation. Let $I_t={\int }_0^t\log S_{u}du$ and $G_T=e^{I_T/T}$. Conditional on time $t$, the normal law of $\log G_T$ has mean and varianceIndeed its random part is $\sigma T^{-1}{\int }_t^T(T-u)d{W}_u^Q$, by stochastic Fubini; the Itô isometry gives $q_t$. Completing the square in a normal exponential integral proves the conditional geometric-average Asian option formulafor $K>0,t<T$. This explicitly includes the known past log-average. Holding that past integral fixed when differentiating the price gives the stock holdingThe normal-density derivative terms cancel because $e^{m_t+q_t/2}\phi (d_1)=K\phi (d_2)$.

For a lookback option use $M_t={\max }_{u\le t}{S}_u$. A floating-strike put pays $M_T-S_T$. Its price $v(t,s,m)$ obeys the ordinary Black-Scholes equation in $0<s<m$, with terminal value $m-s$. The extra Itô term is $v_{m}d{M}_t$; since $d{M}_t$ is carried by $S_t=M_t$, self-financing requires the running-maximum boundary for a lookback option $v_m(t,m,m)=0$ before maturity. Equivalently its price follows from the upper-hitting probabilities in Question 3:This uses $\mathbb{E}\max (m,Z)=m+{\int }_m^{\infty }P(Z\ge z)dz$ and ${\mathbb{E}}_Q{S}_T=s{e}^{\rho (T-t)}$. For a barrier option, the state must additionally record whether the barrier has already been hit; a no-rebate knockout price has an absorbing zero boundary. These augmentations give tractable PDEs or conditional-expectation computations while retaining the same martingale pricing and claim replication principle.

In a complete market, terminal-wealth optimization can first be solved over terminal payoffs and then implemented by replication. Let initial wealth be $x_0>0$, and take an increasing differentiable strictly concave utility function $U$ on $(0,\infty )$ satisfying the Inada conditions. The state-price budget constraint for a terminal wealth $X$ is ${\mathbb{E}}_P[{\zeta }_{n}X]\le x_0$. Monotonicity spends the whole budget at the optimum.

Let $I=(U^{\prime }{)}^{-1}$ be the inverse marginal utility. Choose $y>0$ to satisfy ${\mathbb{E}}_P[{\zeta }_{n}I(y{\zeta }_n)]=x_0$. In a finite tree with positive state probabilities, this left side is continuous and strictly decreasing from infinity to zero, so $y$ exists uniquely. The complete-market terminal utility optimizer isTo prove optimality, concavity gives $U(X)\le U(X^{\ast })+U^{\prime }(X^{\ast })(X-X^{\ast })=U(X^{\ast })+y{\zeta }_n(X-X^{\ast })$. Taking expectations and using the budget proves $\mathbb{E}U(X)\le \mathbb{E}U(X^{\ast })$. Strict concavity gives uniqueness of the optimal terminal wealth. The finite-market setting avoids additional infinite-state existence and integrability issues.

Replicate $X^{\ast }$ using the backward recursion of part (i). Its wealth process is $V_k=B_k{\mathbb{E}}_Q[X^{\ast }/B_n\mid {\mathcal{F}}_k]$, and the two-successor difference quotient gives its stock holdings. This self-financing strategy starts with $x_0$ by the budget equality and remains positive at every node, since it is the discounted conditional expectation of a strictly positive terminal wealth.

For logarithmic utility, $U(x)=\log x$, $I(z)=1/z$, the multiplier is $y=1/x_0$ and $X^{\ast }=x_0/{\zeta }_n=x_0{B}_n/L_n$. For CRRA utility with risk aversion $\gamma >0$, $\gamma \ne 1$, the normalized payoff isConstraints such as prohibiting short sales change the attainable terminal-payoff set and require a constrained optimization; the unconstrained complete-market formula uses the stated assumptions.

Let $I=(U^{\prime }{)}^{-1}$ be the inverse marginal utility. The derivative $U^{\prime }$ is continuous and strictly decreasing: concavity makes it nonincreasing, and equality at two distinct points would make $U$ affine between them, contradicting strict concavity. The Inada conditions therefore make $U^{\prime }$ a bijection from $(0,\infty )$ onto $(0,\infty )$. For each $y>0$, the derivative of $U(x)-xy$ is positive below $I(y)$ and negative above it. Consequently its unique global maximum is finite andThere is no need to differentiate $I$ to find the first derivative of this utility conjugate. Comparing the maxima at $y$ and $y+h$ gives, for $h>0$,Continuity of $I$, together with the corresponding inequalities for $h<0$, givesThus $V$ is strictly decreasing and strictly convex, since its derivative is strictly increasing. This proves all the asserted properties except the second differentiability, which does not follow from the printed hypotheses.

Here is an explicit Inada utility with vanishing curvature. PutThe positive integral defining $p$ makes $U$ strictly increasing. Also $p^{\prime }=-w$ is negative except at one point, so $p$ is strictly decreasing and $U$ is strictly concave. Near zero $w(s)$ is asymptotic to $s^{-2}$, and at infinity it is asymptotic to $s^{-2}$; thus $p(0+)=\infty$ and $p(\infty )=0$. This smooth utility function satisfies every printed positive-domain assumption, but $U^{\prime \prime }(1)=0$. At $y_0=p(1)=3-4\log 2$, differentiability of $I$ would imply, by differentiating $p(I(y))=y$,which is impossible. Hence $V^{\prime }=-I$ has no finite derivative there. More explicitly, $p(x)-p(1)=-(x-1{)}^3/12+o((x-1{)}^3)$, so its inverse function has a cube-root singularity. The twice-differentiable conclusion is false as printed. With the additional assumption $U^{\prime \prime }(x)<0$ everywhere, the inverse function theorem proves the intended dual differentiability with nonvanishing utility curvature:

For the financial assertions, use the positive-wealth admissible trading strategy class appropriate to the positive-domain utility function, and expectations for which the expressions are defined. A normalized terminal state-price density satisfies $Z_N>0$, $\mathbb{E}{Z}_N=1$, and defines an equivalent martingale measure $Q$ by $dQ=Z_{N}dP$. A self-financing portfolio obeyswhere the holdings are measurable before the next price increment. Under $Q$ the gains are a martingale when integrable; for the usual lower-bounded admissible class, localization gives a supermartingale. In particular the state-price budget constraint is $\mathbb{E}[Z_N{X}_N]\le x$. The positive-domain qualification matters: assumptions only on $U$ at positive arguments do not control its values at nonpositive wealth.

The definition of the utility conjugate gives the pointwise inequalityTaking expectations, using the state-price budget constraint, and then taking the supremum over strategies gives $u(x)\le \mathbb{E}V(y{Z}_N)+yx$ for every $y>0$ and every state-price density. Taking the two infima proves the utility duality with martingale deflators upper bound:If an expectation is infinite, use the same inequality in the extended-real sense whenever the negative parts make it well defined; no subtraction of two infinities is needed.

A complete market is one in which every terminal contingent claim in the specified claim class is attainable by a self-financing portfolio. Bounded terminal claims suffice for the uniqueness argument. In the standard finite-horizon discrete-time market, absence of arbitrage gives existence of an equivalent martingale measure by the fundamental theorem of asset pricing. To prove uniqueness, let $Z_N$ and ${\tilde{Z}}_N$ be two normalized state-price densities. Every bounded claim $H$ has a replicating price $p(H)$, and its replication has the same price under either equivalent martingale measure:Take $H=1_A$ for every terminal event $A$. The integrable difference $Z_N-{\tilde{Z}}_N$ has zero integral over every event, hence vanishes almost surely: its positive and negative sets would otherwise give a nonzero integral. The normalized terminal state-price density is unique up to null sets. Its density process is then uniquely $Z_n=\mathbb{E}[Z_N\mid {\mathcal{F}}_n]$. This uses the usual pricing replication class, where bounded claims have bounded replicating value processes; arbitrary doubling strategies are not an admissible definition of completeness.

For logarithmic utility, direct maximization gives $V(y)=-\log y-1$. In the complete market, write $Z=Z_N$. The unique-density utility conjugate bound is minimized at $y=1/x$, givingThe candidate terminal portfolio wealth is $H^{\ast }=x/Z$, whose cost is exactly $\mathbb{E}[Z{H}^{\ast }]=x$. If completeness includes nonnegative $Q$-integrable claims, it is replicable and attains the bound. There is also an approximation proof using only bounded-claim completeness. DefineThen $0<b_n\le 1$, $b_n\uparrow 1$, $H_n$ is positive and bounded, and $\mathbb{E}[Z{H}_n]=x$. Replicating $H_n$ therefore gives an admissible terminal claim of initial cost $x$. Since $\mathbb{E}(\log Z{)}^{+}\le \mathbb{E}Z=1$, the negative parts of $-\log (Z\vee n^{-1})$ have an integrable common bound. Monotone convergence after adding this lower bound givesConsequently the logarithmic terminal wealth in a complete market isThe value may be $+\infty$ if $\mathbb{E}(\log Z_N{)}^{-}=\infty$; the displayed formula remains meaningful, while attainment by $H^{\ast }$ depends on the precise admissible claim class.

Put $\kappa =(\mu -r)/\sigma$, assuming $\sigma >0$, and letThis state-price density prices the bank account and the risky asset. The Itô formula givesNonnegative wealth and consumption make the deflated cumulative gains a nonnegative local martingale, hence a supermartingale. Every admissible consumption stream therefore satisfies the state-price budget constraint $\mathbb{E}{\int }_0^{\infty }{\xi }_t{c}_{t}dt\le w_0$.

Write $I=(U^{\prime }{)}^{-1}$ for the inverse marginal utility. The Inada conditions make $I$ decreasing from infinity to zero. A positive Lagrange multiplier $y$ for the budget gives the pointwise condition $e^{-\rho t}{U}^{\prime }(c_t)=y{\xi }_t$. Thus, whenever a finite optimum exists and a multiplier exhausts the budget,The concave supporting-tangent inequality, integrated against the budget, proves optimality. These curvature and endpoint assumptions alone do not ensure that the infinite-horizon value is finite; part (b) gives the exact additional condition for power utility.

The optimal wealth is the conditional price of remaining consumption:It is nonnegative. Apply the Martingale representation theorem to the integrable total discounted consumption claim:Comparing $M_t={\xi }_t{w}_t^{\ast }+{\int }_0^t{\xi }_s{c}_s^{\ast }ds$ with the deflated wealth equation yieldsThis constructs the portfolio without assuming extra smoothness of the value function. If the stationary value $V$ is twice differentiable with $V^{\prime \prime }<0$, optimization of its Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation instead gives ${\theta }^{\ast }(w)=-(\mu -r)V^{\prime }(w)/({\sigma }^2{V}^{\prime \prime }(w))$ and $c^{\ast }(w)=I(V^{\prime }(w))$.

The Inada conditions give $U^{\prime }(0+)=\infty$ and $U^{\prime }(\infty )=0$. Differentiability and strict concavity make $U^{\prime }$ continuous and strictly decreasing, with range $(0,\infty )$. Hence the inverse marginal utility $I=(U^{\prime }{)}^{-1}$ exists. The unique maximizer in the utility conjugate is $x=I(y)$, andThe derivative formula does not require differentiability of $I$: compare the optimizing values at $y$ and $y+h$ to squeeze the difference quotient between $-I(y)$ and $-I(y+h)$, and use continuity of $I$. Thus the dual is continuously differentiable, strictly decreasing, and strictly convex, since $-I$ is strictly increasing.

For the requested second-derivative assertion, a curvature hypothesis is missing. Under the intended nondegeneracy $U^{\prime \prime }(x)<0$ for every $x>0$, inverse differentiation givesThis proves the intended dual differentiability with nonvanishing utility curvature. If $U$ is only twice differentiable, it gives pointwise twice differentiability of the dual; continuous second derivatives additionally follow when $U\in C^2$.

Literal strict concavity does not imply nonvanishing curvature. An explicit Inada utility with vanishing curvature isIts derivative is positive, strictly decreasing, tends to infinity at zero and to zero at infinity. It is smooth and strictly concave, but $U^{\prime \prime }(1)=0$. At $y_0=U^{\prime }(1)=1/3$, a finite derivative of $I$ would contradict differentiation of $U^{\prime }(I(y))=y$, giving $0\cdot I^{\prime }(y_0)=1$. Hence ${\hat{U}}^{\prime }$ is not differentiable there. As printed, the twice-differentiable-dual claim is false; it is valid with $U^{\prime \prime }<0$. The remaining differentiability, monotonicity and strict-convexity conclusions above hold under the printed hypotheses.

Pricing kernel and replication. In the nondegenerate Black-Scholes model, put $\kappa =(\mu -r)/\sigma$ and normalize the state-price density by ${\zeta }_0=1$. The process isThe density $e^{rt}{\zeta }_t$ changes probability to the risk-neutral measure. Under that measure $W_t+\kappa t$ is a Brownian motion and the stock drift is $r$. Thus an integrable contingent claim $H$ has time-$t$ priceIn the usual augmented natural Brownian filtration, the Brownian martingale representation theorem supplies a replicating strategy; this is the complete market assumption. For a nonnegative admissible trading strategy without intermediate consumption, the state-price budget constraint is $\mathbb{E}[{\zeta }_T{w}_T]\le w_0$, with equality for a fully invested replicated claim. In particular

Feasibility and the largest slope. First take the intended regime $r>0$, $T>0$, $w_0,S_0>0$, and the usual nonnegative portfolio wealth constraint. The terminal wealth floor isFor any feasible claim the state-price budget constraint impliesTherefore $\alpha \le w_0/S_0$. Conversely, when $0\le \alpha \le w_0/S_0$, hold $\alpha$ shares and put the remaining $w_0-\alpha S_0$ in the continuous-time bank account. Its terminal portfolio wealth isHenceAt equality, $\xi =\bar{\alpha }{S}_T$ has cost exactly $w_0$. Positivity of the state-price density forces $w_T=\bar{\alpha }{S}_T$ almost surely: any strict improvement would cost more. Invest all initial portfolio wealth in $w_0/S_0$ shares and hold them until $T$.

Optimal payoff below the feasibility limit. For $\alpha <\bar{\alpha }$ the floor is strictly positive, and its price is strictly less than $w_0$. Assume the utility function is increasing, differentiable and strictly concave, satisfies the Inada conditions, and has the integrability needed for the finite-budget optimization. These are the usual hypotheses implicit in using inverse marginal utility. For each positive multiplier $\lambda$, maximizeseparately in every state. Its derivative decreases through zero at $I(\lambda {\zeta }_T)$, so the floored marginal utility optimizer isThe multiplier is characterized byUnder the stated integrability hypotheses the left side is continuous and decreasing, tends to the floor cost as $\lambda \uparrow \infty$, and tends to infinity as $\lambda \downarrow 0$. It is strictly decreasing wherever it exceeds the floor cost: on the event where the inverse-marginal-utility payoff exceeds the floor, a larger multiplier strictly reduces that payoff. Therefore the budget determines a unique finite multiplier. For CRRA utility the inverse marginal utility is $I(y)=y^{-1/R}$; lognormal moments provide the needed integrability.

For completeness, pointwise maximality gives, for any feasible competing terminal portfolio wealth $Y$,Taking expectations and using $\mathbb{E}[{\zeta }_{T}Y]\le w_0=\mathbb{E}[{\zeta }_T{w}_T^{\ast }]$ proves optimality. Strict concavity gives uniqueness of the terminal claim. Its price processis nonnegative and starts from $w_0$; claim replication therefore turns the payoff optimizer into an admissible portfolio.

What the missing interest-rate hypothesis changes. The PDF does not explicitly assume $r>0$ or give the utility and admissibility hypotheses above. These omissions matter. At $r=0$, under nonnegative admissibility, the largest feasible slope remains $w_0/S_0$: for larger slopes the positive-part floor costs strictly more than $w_0$, since $S_T$ has support $(0,\infty )$. But every $\alpha \le w_0/S_0$ already gives floor cost exactly $w_0$, so the only feasible terminal claim is $\xi$. There is no spare budget for an inverse-marginal-utility improvement. For example $\alpha =0$, $\kappa \ne 0$ and CRRA utility make $\mathbb{E}[{\zeta }_T\max \{w_0,I(\lambda {\zeta }_T)\}]>w_0$ for every finite $\lambda$. The prescribed positive finite multiplier then does not exist.

For negative $r$, nonnegative admissibility requires the effective floor ${\xi }_{+}=\max \{\xi ,0\}$. Define its costThis is continuous and convex. For $\alpha \le w_0/S_0$ it equals $w_0{e}^{-rT}+\alpha S_0(1-e^{-rT})$, exceeding $w_0$ below the endpoint. At ${\alpha }_0=w_0/S_0$, $G({\alpha }_0)=w_0$ and $G^{\prime }({\alpha }_0)=S_0(1-e^{-rT})<0$. Above that endpoint the lognormal stock gives strict convexity, and $G(\alpha )\to \infty$. Thus there is a unique second root ${\alpha }_1>{\alpha }_0$ of $G({\alpha }_1)=w_0$, the feasible slopes are $[{\alpha }_0,{\alpha }_1]$, and the largest is ${\alpha }_1$. Equivalently, for $\alpha >{\alpha }_0$ the floor price is $\alpha$ times the European call option price with strike $S_0-w_0/\alpha$. At the upper endpoint replicate ${\xi }_{+}$; in the interval with strict budget slack the same floored marginal utility optimizer applies with ${\xi }_{+}$.

If instead portfolio wealth may be negative and utility is defined on all real portfolio wealth, the floor itself has its affine replication cost: at $r=0$ every slope is feasible, and at negative $r$ every $\alpha \ge w_0/S_0$ is feasible. There is then no largest finite slope. The intended stock-only endpoint and strict-slack optimizer use positive interest and standard nonnegative admissibility.

Assume $\sigma \ne 0$ and the usual Brownian filtration, so the single-risky-asset market is a complete market. With market price of risk $\kappa =(\mu -r)/\sigma$, the normalized state-price density isThe Itô formula shows that ${\zeta }_t{w}_t$ is a local martingale for a self-financing portfolio. For nonnegative admissible wealth it is a supermartingale, yielding the state-price budget constraintEvery integrable nonnegative terminal claim with equality is attainable in the complete market, by the Brownian martingale representation theorem. Its wealth process is $w_t={\zeta }_t^{-1}\mathbb{E}[{\zeta }_{T}X\mid {\mathcal{F}}_t]\ge 0$.

The Inada conditions $u^{\prime }(0+)=\infty$ and $u^{\prime }(\infty )=0$, together with strict concavity, make $I=(u^{\prime }{)}^{-1}$ a decreasing map from $(0,\infty )$ onto $(0,\infty )$. Pointwise optimization of $u(x)-y{\zeta }_{T}x$ gives the optimal terminal wealthwith scalar multiplier $y>0$. The question assumes a multiplier giving the required budget; utility expectations must also be well defined.

For any admissible terminal wealth $X$, the supporting-line inequality for a concave function givesTaking expectations and using the state-price budget constraint proves optimality:Strict concavity makes the optimal terminal wealth unique up to almost-sure equality.

For an increasing concave utility on positive wealth, its utility conjugate uses the indicated supremum and is a convex function of the positive price variable. If $F(x)=-U(x)$ on positive $x$, extended by infinity elsewhere, then $\hat{U}(y)=F^{\ast }(-y)$. Under the Inada conditions its optimizer is the inverse marginal utility, and its derivative is the negative of that optimizer. The sign convention is part of the definition.