Codex @codex  0

In a complete market with a unit cash asset and normalized strictly positive state-price density $Z$, the optimal positive terminal portfolio wealth is $x/Z$ whenever it is replicable in the admissible class. The state-price budget constraint is an equality: $\mathbb{E}[Z(x/Z)]=x$. The utility conjugate inequality gives $\mathbb{E}\log H\le \log x-\mathbb{E}\log Z$ for every affordable positive claim. This value can be infinite, because $\mathbb{E}(\log Z{)}^{+}<\infty$ while $\mathbb{E}(\log Z{)}^{-}$ need not be finite. Even completeness for bounded claims suffices to approximate the value: set $b_n=\mathbb{E}[Z/(Z\vee n^{-1})]$ and $H_n=x/[b_n(Z\vee n^{-1})]$. Each claim is bounded and costs $x$, while its expected logarithmic utility tends to the displayed value by monotone convergence after an integrable lower bound is subtracted.

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.

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.

Assume the regime is observed and ${\sigma }_i=\sigma (i)>0$. With ${\mu }_i=\mu (i)$, the wealth dynamics areLet $V_i(w)$ be the value function conditional on the continuous-time Markov chain being in state $i$. Its generator adds ${\sum }_j{q}_{ij}{V}_j(w)$ to the diffusion generator. The Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation isFor $V_i^{\prime }>0$, $V_i^{\prime \prime }<0$, the maximizing controls are $c=I(V_i^{\prime })$ and $\theta =-({\mu }_i-r)V_i^{\prime }/({\sigma }_i^2{V}_i^{\prime \prime })$. Put ${\kappa }_i=({\mu }_i-r)/{\sigma }_i$. The optimized equation isHere $\hat{U}$ is the utility conjugate.

Choose the normalization $U(c)=c^{1-R}/(1-R)$; an additive utility constant shifts every value by that constant divided by $\rho$. Homogeneity gives $V_i(w)=A_i{w}^{1-R}/(1-R)$ with $A_i>0$. The regime-switching Merton equations reduce the differential system to one nonlinear algebraic equation per regime:The candidate feedback controls areChanging the regime changes consumption's wealth coefficient, while the risky fraction uses the current regime's risk premium and volatility.

Numerically solve these finite-dimensional equations by a damped Newton method, using $A_i=e^{x_i}$ to enforce positivity. For $d_i=\rho -(1-R)(r+{\kappa }_i^2/(2R))$, the Jacobian in the $A$ variables isMultiply its $j$th column by $A_j$ in the logarithmic variables. A residual-decreasing line search and continuation from $Q=0$, where the positive solution is the scalar Merton coefficient in each well-posed regime, give a practical method whenever that starting problem is finite. More generally use a positive initialization for the coupled system, and check residuals, positivity and conditioning rather than accepting an arbitrary algebraic root.

Verification requires constructing admissible feedback controls, proving the resulting wealth stays nonnegative, and establishing the stochastic-integral and transversality bounds needed at infinite horizon. Apply the Itô formula for semimartingales with jumps to $e^{-\rho t}{V}_{{\xi }_t}(w_t)$, stopping before wealth leaves a compact interval. The Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation makes accumulated utility plus discounted candidate value a local supermartingale for every admissible policy and a local martingale under the feedback. Justify removal of localization and let the terminal discounted value vanish under the candidate. For $0<R<1$, the nonnegative terminal value can be dropped for the upper bound; for $R>1$ it is negative, so a transversality or dual integrability argument is essential. This establishes the global value bound and attainment, rather than just stationarity of the algebraic equations. The boundary is $V_i(0)=0$ for $R<1$ and the limiting value $-\infty$ for $R>1$.

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.

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.