I. INTRODUCTION
The study of non-arbitrage markets was begun for the first time in Bachelier's work [1]. Then, in the famous works of Black F. and Scholes M. [2] and Merton R. S. [3] the formula was found for the fair price of the standard call option of European type. The absence of arbitrage in the financial market has a very transparent economic sense, since it can be considered reasonably arranged. The concept of non arbitrage in financial market is associated with the fact that one cannot earn money without risking, that is, to make money you need to invest in risky or risk-free assets. The exact mathematical substantiation of the concept of non arbitrage was first made in the papers [4], [5] for the finite probability space and in the general case in the paper [6]. In the continuous time evolution of risky asset, the proof of absent of arbitrage possibility see in [7]. The value of the established Theorems is that they make it possible to value assets. They got a special name "The First and The Second Fundamental Asset Pricing Theorems." Generalizations of these Theorems are contained in papers [8], [9], [10].
If the martingale measure is not the only one for a given evolution of a risky asset, then a rather difficult problem of describing all martingale measures arises in order to evaluate, for example, derivatives.
Assessment of risk in various systems was begun in papers [11], [12], [13], [14].
Statistical studies of the time series of the logarithm of the price ratio of risky assets contain heavy tails in distributions with strong elongation in the central region. The temporal behavior of these quantities exhibits the property of clustering and a strong dependence on the past. All this should be taken into account when building models for the evolution of risky assets.
In this paper, we generalize the results of the papers , , and construct the evolution of risky assets for which we completely describe the set of equivalent martingale measures.
The aim of this study is to describe the family of martingale measures for a wide class of risky asset evolutions. The paper proposes the general concept for constructing the family of martingale measures equivalent to a given measure for a wide class of evolutions of risky assets. In particular, it also contains the description
First, we show an integral inequality for a nonnegative random variable under the inequality for this nonnegative random variable with respect to the constructed family of measures. Further, using this integral inequality for the non-negative random variable, a pointwise system of inequalities is obtained for this non-negative random variable for a particular case. After that, the pointwise system of inequalities is obtained for the non-negative random variable in the general case. Then, using the resulting pointwise system of inequalities, an inequality is established for this non-negative random variable whose right-hand side is such that its conditional mathematical expectation is equal to one.
On the basis of the results of Section 4, in Section 5, we prove the optional decomposition for the non negative super-martingales. In Section 6, we introduce the spot measures by the recurrent relations and find the representation for them. Using these facts under certain conditions we prove integral representation for every martingale measure over the set of spot measures.
First, the optional decomposition for diffusion processes super-martingale was opened by El Karoui N. and Quenez M. C. [21]. After that, Kramkov D. O. and Follmer H. [22], [23] proved the optional decomposition for the nonnegative bounded super-martingales. Folmer H. and Kabanov Yu. M. [24], [25] proved analogous result for an arbitrary super-martingale. Recently, Bouchard B. and Nutz M. [26] considered a class of discrete models and proved the necessary and sufficient conditions for the validity of the optional decomposition.
Section 7 contains applications of the results obtained. A class of random processes is considered, which contains well-known processes of the type ARCH and GARCH ones. Two types of random processes are considered, those for which the price of an asset cannot go down to zero and those for which the price can go down to zero during the period under consideration. The first class of processes describes the evolution of well-managed assets. We will call these assets relatively stable. For the evolution of relatively stable assets in the period under consideration, the family of martingale measures is one and the same. The family of martingale measures for the evolution of risky assets whose price can drop to zero is contained in the family of martingale measures for the evolution of relatively stable assets. Each of the martingale measures for the considered class of evolutions is an integral over the set of spot martingale measures.
The interval of non-arbitrage prices is found for a wide class of payoff functions in the case when evolution describes relatively unstable assets. This range is quite wide for the payoff functions of standard put and call options. The fair price of the super hedge is in this case the starting price of the underlying asset. The estimates are found for the fair price of the super-hedge for the introduced class of evolutions with respect to stable assets. The formulas are found for the fair price of contracts with call and put options for the evolution of assets described by parametric processes.
The same formulas are found for Asian-type put and call options. A characteristic feature of these estimates is that for the evolution of relatively stable assets the fair price of the super hedge is less than the price of the underlying asset.
In Section 8, the estimates of the parameters of risky assets included in the evolution are obtained. The formulas are found for the fair price of contracts with call and put options for the obtained parameter estimates, and the interval of non-
Let be a direct product of the probability spaces , , , , , where the -algebra is a minimal -algebra, generated by the sets , . On the measurable space , under the filtration , , we understand the minimal -algebra generated by the sets , , where for . We also introduce the probability spaces , , where , , . There is a one-to-one correspondence between the sets of the -algebra , belonging to the introduced filtration, and the sets of the -algebra of the measurable space , . Therefore, we don't introduce new denotation for the -algebra of the measurable space , since it always will be clear the difference between the above introduced -algebra of filtration on the measurable space and the -algebra of the measurable space , .
We assume that the evolution of risky asset , given on the probability space , is consistent with the filtration , that is, is a -measurable. Due to the above one-to-one correspondence between the sets of the -algebra , belonging to the introduced filtration, and the sets of the -algebra of the measurable space , we give the evolution of risky assets in the form , where is an -measurable random variable, given on the measurable space . It is evident that such evolution is consistent with the filtration on the measurable space .
Further, we assume that
where .
The number may be finite or infinite. Since , , and , , we have
Further, in this paper, we assume that , , , . We also assume some technical suppositions: there exist subsets , , , and , , , satisfying the conditions
Below, we give the examples of evolutions for which the representations (5) are true.
Suppose that the random values , satisfy the inequalities , , , , . If is given by the formula
where the random values , satisfy the inequalities
, , and , , . Then, if to put
we obtain
III. CONSTRUCTION OF THE SET OF MARTINGALE MEASURES
In this section, we present the construction of the set of measures on the basis of evolution of risky assets given by the formulas (9), (11) on the measurable space . For this purpose, we use the set of nonnegative random values , given on the probability space , , where , . The measure is a contraction of the measure on the -algebra and the measure is a contraction of the measure on the -algebra . After that, we prove that this set of measures, defined the above set of random values, is equivalent to the measure . At last, Theorem 1 gives the sufficient conditions under that the constructed set of measures is a set of martingale measures for the considered evolution of risky assets. Sometimes, we use the abbreviated denotations .
We assume that the set of random values , satisfies the following conditions:
In the next Lemma 1, we give the sufficient conditions under which the conditions (14) - (16) are valid.
Lemma 1. Suppose that for , the representations (5) are true. If the conditions
are true, then the set of bounded random values , satisfying the conditions (14) - (16), is a nonempty set.
If to introduce the nonnegative set of real numbers
then
satisfies the condition (14) - (16).
Really, due to the Lemma 1 conditions, the random values , , are strictly positive by construction. Therefore, the conditions (14) are true.
Due to the boundedness of , , , the inequalities
On the basis of the set of random values , , constructed in Lemma 1, let us introduce into consideration the family of measure on the measurable space by the recurrent relations
is true and , that is, the measure is a probability measure being equivalent to the measure , where we put
Proof. Due to Lemma 1 conditions, the set of the strictly positive bounded random values , , satisfying the conditions (14)-(16), is a non empty set. We prove Lemma 2 by induction down. Let us denote
Then,
Substituting , into (32), we obtain
Suppose that we are proved that
\int \liminfits_{N}\prod_{\substack{i = n + 1\\\Omega_{i}^{0}}}\sum_{i = n + 1}^{N}\psi_{i}(\omega_{1},\ldots ,\omega_{i})\chi_{A}(\omega_{1},\ldots ,\omega_{N})\prod_{i = n + 1}^{N}dP_{i}^{0}(\omega_{i}).\tag{34}Let us calculate
Substituting into (35), we obtain
From the recurrent relations (23) - (25), we have
To prove that , let us prove the equality
We have
The last equality follows from the fact that the set of random values , , satisfies the condition (16). The equalities (40) proves that every measure (27), defined by the set of random values , , satisfying the conditions (14), (16), is a probability measure being equivalent to the measure .
Further, we also use the probability spaces , , where under the measure , we understand the measure, given by the formula
Note 2. Assume that for , constructed in Lemma 1, the inequalities
are true. Suppose that the conditions
are valid, where , , are constant, then the set of equivalent measures to the measure , described in Lemma 2, is nonempty one.
Proof. Due to Lemma 2 conditions, the equality (14) is true. Further,
From the formula (27) of Lemma 2, it follows that
for every nonnegative -measurable random value .
Theorem 1. Suppose that the conditions of Lemma 1 are true. Then, the set of nonnegative random values , satisfying the conditions
Since the conditions of Lemma 1 are true, then the set of bounded random values , , constructed in Lemma 1, satisfy the conditions (14) - (16).
From the equality (50) for the set of bounded random values , , satisfying the conditions (14) - (16), we obtain the inequality
for a certain constant . This proves that the set of nonnegative random values , , satisfying the conditions (49), is a non empty set.
Let us prove that
due to the condition (15).
To complete the proof of Theorem 1, let A belongs to the filtration , then , where B belongs to the -algebra of the measurable space . Taking into account the equality (41), (53), we have, due to Foubini theorem,
The last means that . Since every measure, belonging to the convex linear span of the measures considered above, is a finite sum of such measures, then it is a martingale measure being equivalent to the measure . Theorem 1 is proved.
Our aim is to describe this convex span of martingale measures in particular cases.
Definition 1. Let be a measurable space. The decomposition , , of the space we call exhaustive one, if the following conditions are valid:
the-th decomposition is a sub-decomposition of the-th one, that is, for every,for a certain;
the minimal -algebra containing all , , coincides with .
Lemma 3. Let be a measurable space with a complete separable metric space and Borel -algebra on it. Then, has an exhaustive decomposition.
The proof of Lemma 3 see, for example, in [15], [16].
For the proof of integral inequalities, we cannot require the fulfillment for the random values , , the condition (15) in the Lemma 4.
Lemma 4. Suppose that is a complete separable metric space, is a corresponding Borel -algebra on , , and the conditions of Lemma 1 are valid. If, on the probability space , for each , , the nonnegative random value satisfies the inequality
then the inequality
is true almost everywhere relative to the measure .
Proof. The metric space is a complete separable metric space with the metric , where , , is a metric in . This means that the metric space has an exhaustive decomposition . Suppose that for a certain , depending on , and there exists an infinite number
Denote those sets for which for a certain k, depending on m, and . Then, for every integrable finite valued
almost everywhere relative to the measure . If to put
then we obtain the proof of Lemma 4.
In Theorem 2, we assume that for , , the representation
is true, where the random values , , , , given on the probability space , satisfy the conditions
From these conditions we obtain = , , where , .
From the suppositions above, it follows that , . The measure is a contraction of the measure on the -algebra , is a contraction of the measure on the -algebra .
are true almost everywhere relative to the measure on the measurable space .
Proof. Under Theorem 2 conditions, the set of martingale measures is a nonempty one. Due to the equality (40), we obtain
Further,
is true almost everywhere relative to the measure on the -algebra . Let us put
where satisfy the condition
Since, on the probability space , there exists an exhaustive decomposition , let us put
where , , and we assume that , . Suppose that and for the infinite number of and . Then,
Going to the limit as and then as , we obtain the inequality
is valid almost everywhere relative to the measure on the measurable space .
Proof. Due to the conditions for , , the representation
is true. Owing to Lemma 5 conditions, there exists an exhaustive decomposition , , such that , . Let us denote . It is evident that forms an exhaustive decomposition of sets , , , , correspondingly. Due to Lemma 4, the inequality
is true almost everywhere relative to the measure . The equality
is true almost everywhere relative to the measure on the -algebra . Let us put
where
In the formulas (78), we assume that the inequalities
are true. Let us consider
Suppose that for a certain . Then,
Substituting (81) into (76) and going to the limit as , and then as , we obtain the needed inequality. Lemma 5 is proved.
Theorem 3. Suppose that the conditions of Theorem 2 are true. If for a certain and the inequalities
are true, then the nonnegative random values , , satisfy the inequalities
where is a bounded -measurable random value.
Proof. From the inequality (71), it follows the inequality
then, taking into account the inequality (84), we obtain the inequality
From the definition of , we obtain the inequality
Due to Theorem 3 conditions, we obtain the boundedness of . The measurability of the random value follows from the fact that is separable metric space and infimum is reached on the countable set, which is dense in . Theorem 3 is proved.
Theorem 4. Let the conditions of Lemma 5 be valid. If there exist , , and the real numbers , , , such that
then there exists a bounded -measurable random value such that the inequalities
are true.
Proof. For , and , we have that , . Then, from the inequality (72), we obtain the inequality
then, taking into account the inequality (93), we have the inequality