Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2014 / iii / Paper 38 / 6

The mark-to-market value of holdings $H_t$ in the asset-price vector is the dot product $X_t=H_t\cdot P_t$. A self-financing strategy pays for every rebalancing from within the portfolio. Over a short interval, the gains on the currently held assets are $H_t\cdot d{P}_t$, while consumption removes $c_{t}dt$ units of wealth. ThereforeThe holdings are predictable and integrable against the price semimartingale; the consumption rate is nonnegative and suitably measurable. This is the continuous-time self-financing-with-consumption convention.

Use the state-price density as a positive local martingale deflator, so each component of $YP$ is a local martingale. The Itô product rule and the wealth equation giveThe consumption term has finite variation, and the quadratic covariation of a stochastic integral satisfies $d[Y,X]=H\cdot d[Y,P]$. Also $X=H\cdot P$. Regrouping the terms therefore givesThe differential before $YP$ is necessary: the first term is a stochastic gain, not the level of the deflated portfolio. It is missing in the printed display. This is the deflated wealth equation with consumption.

The integral against the local-martingale vector $YP$ is a local martingale, provided the predictable holdings are stochastically integrable. Integrating part (b) givesBoth $Y_t{X}_t$ and the cumulative deflated consumption are nonnegative. Hence $M_t\ge -Y_0{X}_0$. With the usual finite deterministic initial capital, the shifted processis a nonnegative local martingale, and is therefore a supermartingale. For completeness, a localizing sequence turns it into true martingales; conditional Fatou lemma for their nonnegative stopped values gives the supermartingale inequality and ordinary Fatou gives integrability at each time. Subtracting the initial constant provesThis is supermartingale control of deflated consumption gains. It uses $c\ge 0$ as well as $X\ge 0$; an unrestricted stochastic integral is not necessarily a true supermartingale.

Part (c) gives $\mathbb{E}{M}_t\le 0$. Since $Y_t{X}_t\ge 0$, its integrated identity impliesfor every finite $t$. The cumulative consumption increases with $t$, so the monotone convergence theorem yieldsThis is the infinite-horizon state-price budget constraint. No terminal-wealth convergence or vanishing assumption is needed for this inequality.

Concavity gives the supporting-tangent inequalityMultiply by the discount factor $e^{-bt}$ and use the first-order condition $e^{-bt}{U}^{\prime }(c_t)=Y_t$. This gives the pointwise marginal-utility verification of optimal consumption inequalityApply the budget inequality from part (d) to the competing admissible strategy, and use equality for the proposed one:The two weighted consumption integrals are finite, so their difference is integrable. Under the usual positive discount-rate assumption $b>0$, the utility integrals are also integrable: $U(0)\le U(x)\le L$ for a finite upper bound $L$, and ${\int }_0^{\infty }{e}^{-bt}dt=1/b$. Integrating the tangent inequality and taking expectations therefore givesEconomically, both consumers face the same state-price budget, and the candidate spends it exactly where its discounted marginal utility equals the state price. This is utility duality with martingale deflators in its consumption form.

A positive $b$, or another hypothesis making the infinite-horizon objectives well defined and permitting this integration, is needed. The printed question does not specify the sign of $b$. Bounded utility alone does not ensure that an undiscounted infinite time integral exists: a bounded integrand can have both infinite positive and negative parts. Thus the conclusion is established under the standard discount convention $b>0$, and also whenever the displayed objectives satisfy the stated integrability conditions; without either convention the literal infinite-horizon comparison need not be a defined mathematical expression.

This can occur within an admissible financial model, not just for an abstract bounded integrand. Take $U(x)=1-2e^{-x}$ and $b=0$. Choose a deterministic smooth nonnegative $c$ with successive unit-length plateaus alternating between zero and the integer $n$, and connect them over intervals whose lengths have finite sum. Then ${\int }_0^{\infty }2c_t{e}^{-c_t}dt<\infty$: the high-plateau contributions sum to ${\sum }_{n\ge 1}2n{e}^{-n}$ and the transition integrand is bounded by $2/e$. SetThe bank account is a positive deterministic Itô process and $Y_t{B}_t=Y_0$, so $Y$ is a state-price density. Holding $X_t/B_t$ bank units finances consumption with nonnegative wealth and exact budget equality. Also $U^{\prime }(c_t)=Y_t$. Nevertheless every zero plateau contributes $-1$ to the utility integral, while each sufficiently high plateau contributes a fixed positive amount. Both its negative and positive parts are infinite, so the undiscounted objective is undefined. This establishes why the missing discount or objective-integrability hypothesis is substantive.