Investment-consumption problem ($V=\sup \mathbb{E}{\int }_0^{\infty }{e}^{-\rho t}U(c_t)dt$)

An investment-consumption problem chooses portfolio holdings and consumption to maximize discounted expected utility maximization subject to a self-financing portfolio wealth equation and admissibility constraints. A Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation or utility duality with martingale deflators characterizes the optimum when the value is finite.

A discounted-value transversality condition rules out residual value at infinity in an infinite-horizon Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation verification. Under appropriate integrability, admissibility, and localization assumptions, $\mathbb{E}[e^{-\rho T}V(w_T,s_T)]\to 0$ identifies the economic value among formal differential-equation solutions.

When asset correlation varies with a traded market index, the index is both an asset and a state variable. Writing $m=\log M$ and optimizing Brownian portfolio exposures accounts for the cross derivative between wealth and $m$. Power homogeneity reduces the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation to an ordinary differential equation in $m$.

For a complete-market investment-consumption problem with constant relative risk aversion utility, the nonlinear wealth-homogeneity coefficient equation may contain $f^{\prime 2}/f$. Writing $f=g^R$ cancels this gradient square against the one from $f^{\prime \prime }$. In the index-driven correlation model the result is ${\sigma }_0^2{g}^{\prime \prime }/2+B{g}^{\prime }-\delta (m)g+1=0$, a linear differential equation; the positive economic solution gives consumption $w/g$.

Intertemporal hedging demand adjusts the myopic risky position when investment opportunities depend on a stochastic state. Shared noise between wealth and that state contributes a cross derivative to the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation. In a complete diffusion market the optimal exposures combine the myopic market price of risk term and the value-gradient hedge term.

A high-water mark investment tax charges increments of historical maximum wealth ${\bar{w}}_t=\max ({\bar{w}}_0,{\sup }_{s\le t}{w}_s)$ rather than every positive instantaneous return. For the convention charging $\tau d\bar{w}$, the high-water mark tax boundary condition is $V_{\bar{w}}=\tau V_w$ when the optimal policy raises the maximum. At sufficiently high tax, a wealth-cap investment boundary can make further maximum increases suboptimal.

A wealth-cap investment boundary prevents wealth from exceeding a fixed historical maximum. In the wealth-variable Legendre dual for wealth normalized by that maximum, $J^{\prime }(z_{\ast })=-1$ and vanishing optimal portfolio volatility gives $J^{\prime \prime }(z_{\ast })=0$. For power utility and a high-water tax, the smooth tax-paying solution has boundary dual curvature $(1-\alpha \tau )/(R{z}_{\ast })$, so it cannot be admissible when $\alpha \tau >1$.

At an active maximum-raising boundary in high-water mark investment taxation, the finite-variation part of the Itô formula is $(V_{\bar{w}}-\tau V_w)d\bar{w}$, so smooth optimality sets this coefficient to zero. If the maximizing policy avoids increasing the maximum, the corresponding inequality $V_{\bar{w}}-\tau V_w\le 0$ is compatible with a wealth-cap investment boundary instead.

For a constant-coefficient single-asset investment-consumption problem with constant relative risk aversion utility, put $\kappa =(\mu -r)/\sigma$ and $\delta =[\rho -(1-R)(r+{\kappa }^2/(2R))]/R$. When $\delta >0$, the infinite-horizon value is ${\delta }^{-R}{w}^{1-R}/(1-R)$ and the optimal controls are $c^{\ast }=\delta w$ and ${\theta }^{\ast }=(\mu -r)w/(R{\sigma }^2)$. The case $R=1$ uses logarithmic utility.