Put , assuming , and let
This state-price density prices the bank account and the risky asset. The Itô formula gives
Nonnegative 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 .
Write for the inverse marginal utility. The Inada conditions make decreasing from infinity to zero. A positive Lagrange multiplier for the budget gives the pointwise condition . 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 with the deflated wealth equation yields
This constructs the portfolio without assuming extra smoothness of the value function. If the stationary value is twice differentiable with , optimization of its Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation instead gives and .
For constant relative risk aversion utility, . Define the Merton consumption constant
The Gaussian exponential moment gives
When , the budget is . Conditional pricing then gives , and the Merton consumption-investment problem has
The resulting wealth is a geometric Brownian motion, so positive initial wealth remains positive. Substitution in the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation verifies the first-order conditions and the value; the budget argument in part (a) supplies global optimality.
The problem has a finite value precisely when . For and , the supremum is . Indeed, use the displayed risky fraction and consumption , . Its expected utility is
For , sufficiently small already gives infinite utility. For , the finite values tend to infinity as .
For and , every admissible stream has utility . To see this, put and apply Holder inequality on :
The left side diverges as , forcing the positive utility-cost integral to diverge. Thus there is no finite-value optimization problem in either ill-posed case.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.