Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2003 / iii / Paper 32 / 1 / b / Solution

We prove exhaustiveness, including existence of the positive density when neither form of arbitrage occurs. Use the subspace $L$ from part (a)(ii), and considerThis is a nonempty convex cone closed under positive scaling: ${\nu }_0=(1+\Vert A_1\Vert {)}^{-1}$ supplies one element and guarantees weighted integrability even when $A_1$ itself has no first moment. Crucially, $\mathcal{K}$ is relatively open in $L$; it need not be closed.

To prove openness at a point $z=\mathbb{E}[\nu A_1]$, put $Z=\nu A_1$. The vectors $\mathbb{E}[hZ]$, for bounded real measurable $h$, span $L$. Indeed, a vector orthogonal to all of them would satisfy $\mathbb{E}[h{u}^{\top }Z]=0$ for every such $h$, forcing $u^{\top }Z=0$ almost surely. Since $\nu >0$, this says $u\in L^{\perp }$. Choose finitely many bounded $h_j$ for which $\mathbb{E}[h_{j}Z]$ form a basis of $L$. For coefficients $t_j$ sufficiently small,This gives a relative neighbourhood of $z$. It also proves the openness step behind the strictly positive barycentre cone lemma without assuming a closed moment cone.

If $A_0\notin L$, the second arbitrage form was already constructed. If $A_0\in L\setminus \mathcal{K}$, the separation of a point and an open convex set, applied inside the finite-dimensional space $L$, gives a nonzero $x\in L$ with $x^{\top }{A}_0\le {\inf }_{z\in \mathcal{K}}{x}^{\top }z$. Positive scaling in the cone forcesWe claim $x^{\top }{A}_1\ge 0$ almost surely. Otherwise $E=\{x^{\top }{A}_1<0\}$ has positive probability, and the admissible positive weights ${\nu }_m={\nu }_0(1+m{1}_E)$ givecontradicting the separation inequality. Since $x\in L$ is nonzero, $x^{\top }{A}_1$ cannot vanish almost surely; thus it is strictly positive on an event of positive probability. This is the first arbitrage form.

Consequently absence of both forms forces $A_0\in \mathcal{K}$, which supplies the required $\nu$. Conversely either form excludes every such density by part (a). We have proved exactly one of arbitrage or a strictly positive pricing density holds. If $L=\{0\}$, the same argument reduces to the elementary cases $A_0=0$ and $A_0\ne 0$, so no nondegeneracy assumption has been hidden.