Asset-liability management with Epstein-Zin utility  under stochastic interest rate and unknown market price of risk

Abstract.

This paper considers a stochastic control problem with Epstein-Zin recursive utility under partial information (unknown market price of risk), in which an investor is constrained to a liability at the end of the investment period. Introducing liabilities is the main novelty of the model and appears for the first time in the literature of recursive utilities. Such constraint leads to a fully coupled forward-backward stochastic differential equation (FBSDE), which well-posedness has not been addressed in the literature. We derive an explicit solution to the FBSDE, contrasting with the existence and uniqueness results with no explicit expression of the solutions typically found in most related literature. Moreover, under minimal additional assumptions, we obtain the Malliavin differentiability of the solution of the FBSDE. We solve the problem completely and find the expression of the controls and the value function. Finally, we determine the utility loss that investors suffer from ignoring the fact that they can learn about the market price of risk.

1. Introduction

The recent decades have seen the prevalence of asset-liability management (ALM) problems in the financial sector (especially with banks, insurance companies and pension funds). This framework enables institutions to mitigate the risk of failing to meet their financial obligations, particularly under adverse market conditions. Similarly, individual investors aim to determine optimal asset allocation strategies that ensure consistency between assets and liabilities while pursuing their profitability objectives. To this end, they continuously adjust their investment portfolios in response to evolving market dynamics and regulatory requirements (see [14]). However, the literature on ALM problems has so far focused exclusively on either mean-variance criterion or time-additive utilities under full information structure.

The key drawback on the use of time-additive utilities is the fact they restrict the coefficient of risk aversion (which measures the desire to smooth consumption across states of nature) and the coefficient of intertemporal substitutability, EIS, (which measures the desire to smooth consumption over time) to be the inverse of each other, leading to a vast literature on asset pricing paradoxes (see [21, on pp.227-228]). To resolve these paradoxes, Epstein and Zin [7] introduced the recursive utility. Since then the Epstein-Zin utility has been widely used in a variety of different contexts. However, despite the established and rapid growing literature on consumption and portfolio choice problems with recursive utilities, to the best of our knowledge no research has ever solved such problems in presence of liabilities. The present paper starts to bridge this gap by using an extension of a well-known technique proposed by [12] (for time-additive utility) and [21] (for Epstein-Zin utility) to analyse asset-liability management problems with Epstein-Zin preferences under partial information.

There is by now ample evidence in the literature that stock returns are predictable; see [2] for a review. In [20] unobservability of the predictive variables was assumed. Since then this assumption has been widely considered in the literature. However, in contrast to the situation for classical time-additive utility preferences (see [8] for a review), there appears to be only few articles on recursive utility maximisation under partial information. Notable rare exceptions are [4, 15] who study an Epstein-Zin utility maximisation under partial information in different settings with infinite time horizon. Hence, without taking any liability into account.

The main contributions of this paper can summarised to the following:

• We solve, for the first time, an Epstein-Zin utility maximisation problem with liability at terminal time; see (2.10). We would like to highlight that the liability may depend on the entire paths of the risky assets. Typical examples of such liabilities are (European option-style) equity-linked securities, convertible bonds, to mention only few. Moreover, we emphasise that even without liability our model is still new in the literature of Epstein-Zin utilities under partial information because it incorporates stochastic volatility.

• We derive explicit solutions for the optimal consumption, portfolio allocations and value function in a framework featuring recursive utility, stochastic interest rates, stochastic volatility, and return predictability driven by an unobserved factor; see Theorem 3.6. Explicit results under partial information with stochastic volatility are rare in general, as they typically require restrictive assumptions on the underlying filtering structure.

• We determine the utility loss that investors suffer from ignoring the fact that they can learn about the market price of risk; see Section 4. Following [8], we measure the utility loss in terms of the percentage of the initial wealth (the so-called welfare loss). The numerical results show that the welfare loss is an increasing function of the initial wealth of the investors when liabilities are considered, and is independent (meaning, a constant function) of their initial wealth when liabilities are not taken into account. Moreover, the risk aversion coefficient has a negative impact on the welfare loss, whereas the EIS coefficient has a positive impact on the welfare loss.

The remainder of the present paper is structured as follows. We introduce the model and formulate the problem in Section 2. In Section 3 we give the main results of this paper. Finally, in Section 4 we determine the utility loss and perform some numerical analysis.

2. Model and problem formulation

We consider a filtered probability space $(\Omega,\mathbb{F},(\mathcal{F}_{t})_{0\leq t\leq T},\mathbb{P})$ generated by a standard three dimensional Wiener process $W:=(W^{1},W^{2},W^{3})$. The filtration $(\mathcal{F}_{t})_{0\leq t\leq T}$ is assumed to satisfy the usual conditions of completeness and right-continuity.

2.1. The financial market

We consider a dynamic financial environment with three traded assets and one non-traded financial index. The traded assets consist of one money market account $S^{0}$, one stock $S$ and one zero-coupon bond $B$ maturing at time $T$. The money market account follows

$$\mathrm{d}S_{t}^{0} =r_{t}S_{t}^{0}\mathrm{d}t,~S_{0}^{0}>0,$$ (2.1)

with $(r_{t})_{t\in[0,T]}$ being the stochastic short-term interest rate given by an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process; that is

$$\mathrm{d}r_{t} =\kappa_{r}\big(\mu_{r}-r_{t}\big)\mathrm{d}t+\sigma_{r}\Big(\rho_{rS}\mathrm{d}W_{t}^{1}+\sqrt{1-\rho_{rS}^{2}}\mathrm{d}W_{t}^{2}\Big),$$ (2.2)

with correlation coefficient $\rho_{rS}\in(-1,1)$, speed of mean reversion $\kappa_{r}$, long run mean $\mu_{r}$ and volatility $\sigma_{r}>0$.

The zero-coupon bond evolves according to the stochastic differential equation (see [19])

$$\mathrm{d}B_{t}=B_{t}\Big(\big(r_{t}+\mu_{B}(t)\big)\mathrm{d}t+\sigma_{B}(t)\Big(\rho_{rS}\mathrm{d}W_{t}^{1}+\sqrt{1-\rho_{rS}^{2}}\mathrm{d}W_{t}^{2}\Big)\Big),$$ (2.3)

with correlation coefficient $\rho_{rS}\in(-1,1)$, excess rerun of the bond $\mu_{B}(t):=\phi_{B}\sigma_{B}(t)$ and volatility $\sigma_{B}(t):=\sigma_{r}\frac{1-\exp(-\kappa_{r}(T-t))}{\kappa_{r}}$. We assume that the investor follows a roll-over strategy for the bond investment and keeps the maturity of the bond in his portfolio constant. This is a common assumption in the literature on portfolio choice with stochastic interest rates; see [8] and reference therein.

The stock price has dynamics given by

$$\mathrm{d}S_{t}=S_{t}\Big(\big(r_{t}+\beta\sigma(t,r_{t})R_{t}\big)\mathrm{d}t+\sigma(t,r_{t})\mathrm{d}W_{t}^{1}\Big),~S_{0}>0,$$ (2.4)

with $\sigma$ a uniformly positive function and $\beta\neq 0$. (Compare with the setup in [5, 8]).

In (2.4), $R$ is an $\mathbb{R}$-valued non-traded financial index which follows a linear mean-reverting dynamics given by

$$\mathrm{d}R_{t} =\kappa_{R}\big(\mu_{R}-R_{t}\big)\mathrm{d}t+\sigma_{R}\Big(\rho_{RS}\mathrm{d}W_{t}^{1}+\rho_{Rr}\mathrm{d}W_{t}^{2}+\sqrt{1-\rho_{RS}^{2}-\rho_{Rr}^{2}}\mathrm{d}W_{t}^{3}\Big),$$ (2.5)

with correlation coefficients $\rho_{RS},\rho_{Rr}\in[-1,1]$, speed of mean reversion $\kappa_{R}$, long run mean $\mu_{R}$ and volatility $\sigma_{R}>0$. In the sequel, following [8], we assume that $\rho_{Rr}:=\frac{\rho_{0}-\rho_{rS}\rho_{RS}}{\sqrt{1-\rho_{rS}^{2}}}$ for $\rho_{0}\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $\rho_{RS}^{2}+\rho_{Rr}^{2}\in[-1,1]$. Hence, the process $(R_{t})_{t\in[0,T]}$ plays the role of the market price of risk.

Hence, investors choose the consumption rate $c_{t},~t\in[0,T]$, (according to $\mathcal{C}_{a}$) and the amounts $\pi_{t}^{S}$ and $\pi_{t}^{B}$ to be invested in the stock and in the bond, respectively. For such $(c,\pi^{S},\pi^{B})$, the wealth process $X$ of the investors with initial endowment $x$ at time $0$ evolves according to the stochastic differential equation

$$\mathrm{d}X_{t} =\Big(r_{t}X_{t}+\pi_{t}^{S}\beta\sigma(t,r_{t})R_{t}+\pi_{t}^{B}\phi_{B}\sigma_{B}(t)\Big)\mathrm{d}t+\Big(\pi_{t}^{S}\sigma(t,r_{t})+\pi_{t}^{B}\sigma_{B}(t)\rho_{rS}\Big)\mathrm{d}W_{t}^{1}$$

$$\phantom{X}+\pi_{t}^{B}\sigma_{B}(t)\sqrt{1-\rho_{rS}^{2}}\mathrm{d}W_{t}^{2}-c_{t}\mathrm{d}t.$$ (2.6)

Note that the market is incomplete (the number of traded assets being less than the number of Wiener processes).

2.2. The partial information framework

We assume that the risk premium $R_{t},~t\in[0,T]$, is not directly observable by the investors. Hence, the investors have no direct information on the return of the stock. The available information flow comes from past realisations/observation of two processes: the stochastic interest rate $r$ and the stock $S$. We introduce the observation filtration as $\mathbb{F}^{r,S}:=\mathbb{F}^{r}\vee\mathbb{F}^{S}$, with $\mathbb{F}^{r}:=(\mathcal{F}_{t}^{r})_{0\leq t\leq T}$ and $\mathbb{F}^{S}:=(\mathcal{F}_{t}^{S})_{0\leq t\leq T}$ being the natural filtration of $r$ and $S$, respectively. We assume that $\mathbb{F}^{r,S}$ is completed with $\mathbb{P}$-null sets and right-continuous.

We end this section with the definition of some spaces that are used throughout. Let $\mathcal{C}$ be the set of $\mathbb{F}^{r,S}$-non-negative progressively measurable processes on $[0,T]\times\Omega$. For $c\in\mathcal{C}$ and $t<T$, $c_{t}$ denotes the consumption rate at time $t$ and $c_{T}$ represents a lumpsum consumption at the finite time horizon $T$. Let $\mathcal{L}_{\mathbb{P}}^{q},~q\geq 1$, denotes the space of $\mathcal{F}_{T}^{r,S}$-measurable $\mathbb{R}$-valued random variables $X$ such that $\mathbb{E}[|X|^{q}]<\infty$. Let $\mathcal{H}_{\mathbb{P}}^{q},~q\geq 1$, denotes the space of $\mathbb{F}^{r,S}$-predictable $\mathbb{R}$-valued processes $(Y_{t})_{0\leq t\leq T}$ such that $\mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^{T}|Y_{t}|^{q}\mathrm{d}t]<\infty$. Let $\mathbb{H}_{\mathbb{P}}^{q},~q\geq 1$, denotes the space of $\mathbb{F}^{r,S}$-predictable $\mathbb{R}^{2}$-valued processes $(Z_{t})_{0\leq t\leq T}$ such that $\mathbb{E}[(\int_{0}^{T}|Z_{t}|^{2}\mathrm{d}t)^{\frac{q}{2}}]<\infty$. Note that similar spaces can and will be defined under another probability measure $\mathbb{Q}$, by replacing $\mathbb{P}$ with $\mathbb{Q}$ in the subscripts of the corresponding spaces, and taking expectations with respect to $\mathbb{Q}$.

2.3. The Epstein-Zin utility maximisation problem with partial information

An agent’s preference over $\mathcal{C}$-valued consumption is given by the Epstein-Zin recursive preference. To describe this preference, let $\delta>0$ represent the discounting rate, $0<\gamma\neq 1$ be the relative risk aversion, and $0<\psi\neq 1$ be the elasticity of intertemporal substitution coefficient (EIS). Then, the Epstein–Zin aggregator is defined by

$$f(c,v) :=\delta e^{-\delta t}\frac{c^{1-\frac{1}{\psi}}}{1-\frac{1}{\psi}}((1-\gamma)v)^{1-\frac{1}{\theta}},\text{ with }~\theta:=\frac{1-\gamma}{1-\frac{1}{\psi}},$$ (2.7)

and the bequest utility function by $h(c):=e^{-\delta\theta T}\frac{c^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}$. Hence, the Epstein-Zin utility over the consumption stream $c\in\mathcal{C}$ on a finite time horizon $T$ is a process $V^{c}$ which satisfies

$$V_{t}^{c} =\mathbb{E}\Big[h(c_{T})+\int_{t}^{T}f(c_{s},V_{s}^{c})\mathrm{d}s~\big|\mathcal{F}_{t}\Big]~\text{ for }t\in[0,T].$$ (2.8)

We consider the following parameter configuration:

$$\text{either }~\gamma>1,\psi>1~\text{ or }~\gamma\psi=1,\gamma>1.$$ (2.9)

Note that the special case of time-additive Merton CRRA utility corresponds to the condition $\gamma\psi=1$.

Definition 2.1.

A consumption stream $c\in\mathcal{C}$ is said to be admissible if Equation (2.8) admits a unique solution $V^{c}$ within the class of processes of class $(D)$ satisfying $(1-\gamma)V^{c}>0$. The set of all admissible consumption streams is denoted by $\mathcal{C}_{a}$.

The set $\mathcal{C}_{a}$ defined in Definition 2.1 aligns with those considered in [16, 11]. All known sufficient conditions for the existence of Epstein–Zin utility over a finite time horizon are summarised in [16, Prop. 2.1], which, in particular, ensures that $\mathcal{C}_{a}\neq\emptyset$.

In the present paper, we are interested in the optimal consumption and portfolio choice problem of investors with random liabilities $K$ at terminal time $T$ and recursive preferences of Epstein-Zin type. (Note that $K$ is not necessarily positive). Specifically, we consider liabilties at maturity $T$ which may depend on the entire paths of the bond $B$ and the stock $S$ (such as equity-linked securities, convertible bonds, to mention only few). We assume that the investors only observe the stock with the market price of risk remaining unknown. Therefore, we want to find the best strategy $(c^{*},\pi^{S,*},\pi^{B,*})$ solution to the optimisation problem

$$\mathcal{V}:=\sup_{(c,\pi^{S},\pi^{B})\in\mathcal{A}}~\mathbb{E}\Big[h(X_{T}-K)+\int_{0}^{T}f(c_{t},V_{t}^{c})\mathrm{d}t\Big],$$ (2.10)

where $\mathcal{A}$ is a subset of the set of $\mathbb{R}^{3}$-valued $\mathbb{F}^{r,S}$-adapted processes. A precise definition of the set $\mathcal{A}$ is postponed in Definition 3.2.

A key feature of the stochastic optimisation problem (2.10) is that the supremum is taken over strategies adapted to the observation filtration $\mathbb{F}^{r,S}$, rather than the global filtration $\mathbb{F}$. This places us in the setting of stochastic optimisation under partial information. To address this challenge, we follow the approach of [10] and introduce an auxiliary separated problem. In the separated formulation, all state variables are adapted to $\mathbb{F}^{r,S}$. Establishing this requires tools from stochastic filtering theory, which will be presented in Section 3.1. See [13] for more details on the subject.

3. Main results

3.1. Reduction to the observable filtration

Mathematically the financial market is described in terms of a partially observable triple of processes $(R,r,S)$, where $R$ is called the unobservable signal, and $r$ and $S$ the observation processes. The conditional distribution of $R$, given the observation filtration, is defined by $\mathbb{E}\big[R_{t}~|\mathcal{F}_{t}^{r,S}\big]$ for each $t\in[0,T]$. Because the conditional distribution of $R$ is Gaussian, it is identified by its conditional expectation $(m_{t})_{t\in[0,T]}$ and conditional variance $(v_{t})_{t\in[0,T]}$; that is

$$m_{t} :=\mathbb{E}\big[R_{t}~|\mathcal{F}_{t}^{r,S}\big]~\text{ and }~v_{t}:=\mathbb{E}\big[\big(R_{t}-m_{t}\big)^{2}~|\mathcal{F}_{t}^{r,S}\big]~\text{ for }~t\in[0,T].$$ (3.1)

Following [8, Appendix $A$], we obtain the following results.

Proposition 3.1.

Let the conditional mean-variance pair $(m_{t},v_{t})_{t\in[0,T]}$ be defined as in (3.1). Then, $(m_{t},v_{t}),~t\in[0,T]$, solves the system

$$\begin{cases}\mathrm{d}m_{t}&=\kappa_{R}\big(\mu_{R}-m_{t}\big)\mathrm{d}t+\big(\sigma_{R}\rho_{RS}+\beta v_{t}\big)\mathrm{d}I_{t}^{1}+\big(\sigma_{R}\rho_{Rr}-\rho_{rS}\beta(1-\rho_{rS}^{2})^{-\frac{1}{2}}v_{t}\big)\mathrm{d}I_{t}^{2}\\ \mathrm{d}v_{t}&=\Big(\sigma_{R}^{2}-2\kappa_{R}v_{t}-\big(\sigma_{R}\rho_{RS}+\beta v_{t}\big)^{2}-\big(\sigma_{R}\rho_{Rr}-\rho_{rS}\beta(1-\rho_{rS}^{2})^{-\frac{1}{2}}v_{t}\big)^{2}\Big)\mathrm{d}t,\end{cases}$$

where $m_{0}=\mathbb{E}\big[R_{0}\big],v_{0}=\mathbb{E}\big[\big(R_{0}-m_{0}\big)^{2}\big]$ and the $\mathbb{R}^{2}$-valued process $I=(I_{t}^{1},I_{t}^{2})_{t\in[0,T]}$, called the innovation process, given by

$$I_{t}^{1} :=W_{t}^{1}+\beta\int_{0}^{t}\big(R_{s}-m_{s}\big)\mathrm{d}s,~~I_{t}^{2}:=W_{t}^{2}-\frac{\rho_{rS}}{(1-\rho_{rS}^{2})^{1/2}}\beta\int_{0}^{t}\big(R_{s}-m_{s}\big)\mathrm{d}s$$ (3.2)

is a two dimensional Brownian motion under the filtration $\mathbb{F}$ and the probability $\mathbb{P}$.

Proof.

The proof follows similar arguments as in the proof of proposition $1$ in [8] for $\sigma_{\lambda},\kappa_{\lambda},\rho_{S\lambda},\hat{\rho}_{\lambda},\hat{\rho}_{\lambda P}$ and $\hat{\rho}_{\lambda\beta}$ therein substituted by $0,0,0,1,0$ and $0$, respectively. ∎

Using the definition of the innovation process, given by (3.2), we can equivalently write the dynamics of the wealth process $(X_{t})_{t\in[0,T]}$ as follows:

$$\mathrm{d}X_{t} =\Big(r_{t}X_{t}+\pi_{t}^{\intercal}\eta_{t}\Big)\mathrm{d}t+\pi_{t}^{\intercal}\mathrm{d}I_{t}-c_{t}\mathrm{d}t,~X_{0}=x,$$ (3.3)

where $\Sigma_{t}:=\begin{pmatrix}\sigma(t,r_{t})&0\\ \sigma_{B}(t)\rho_{rS}&\sigma_{B}(t)\sqrt{1-\rho_{rS}^{2}}\end{pmatrix}$, $\mu_{t}:=\begin{pmatrix}\beta\sigma(t,r_{t})m_{t}\\ \phi_{B}\sigma_{B}(t)\end{pmatrix}$, $\pi_{t}^{\intercal}:=(\pi_{t}^{S},\pi_{t}^{B})\Sigma_{t}$ and $\eta_{t}:=\Sigma_{t}^{-1}\mu_{t}=\big(\beta m_{t},~\big(1-\rho_{rS}^{2}\big)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\big(-\beta\rho_{rS}m_{t}+\phi_{B}\big)\big)^{\intercal}$ for $t\in[0,T]$.

Note that in (3.3) the unobservable market price of risk process $(R_{t})_{t\in[0,T]}$ does not appear anymore, and all coefficients are adapted to the observation filtration $\mathbb{F}^{r,S}$.

3.2. Solution to the optimisation problem

We start this section by defining the set of admissible consumption-portfolio strategies $(c,\pi)$. We introduce the BSDE.

$$\mathrm{d}Y_{t} =-\mathcal{H}(t,X_{t},Y_{t},Z_{t})\mathrm{d}t+Z_{t}\mathrm{d}I_{t},\quad Y_{T}=-Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s},$$ (3.4)

where the generator $\mathcal{H}$ is to be defined. We define the set of admissible consumption-portfolio strategies as follows.

Definition 3.2.

A pair $(c,\pi=(\pi^{S},\pi^{B}))$ of $\mathbb{F}^{r,S}$-adapted consumption-portfolio strategy is admissible if

• $c\in\mathcal{C}_{a}$ with $c_{T}=X_{T}+e^{\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{T}$;

• $X_{t}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t}>0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$;

• $(X_{\cdot}+e^{\int_{0}^{\cdot}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{\cdot})^{1-\gamma}$ is of class (D) on $[0,T]$.

We denote by $\mathcal{A}$ the set of admissible consumption-portfolio strategies (compare with the definition of the permissible set in [21, on p.236]).

We speculate that the investor’s optimal utility process takes the form

$$\frac{(X_{t}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t})^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}~\text{ for }~t\in[0,T].$$ (3.5)

Hence we must choose the function $\mathcal{H}$ in (3.4) such that the process

$$M_{t}^{c,\pi}:={e^{-\delta\theta t}}\frac{(X_{t}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t})^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}+\int_{0}^{t}f\big(c_{s},{e^{-\delta\theta s}}\frac{(X_{s}+e^{\int_{0}^{s}r_{u}\mathrm{d}u}Y_{s})^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}\big)\mathrm{d}s$$ (3.6)

for $t\in[0,T]$, is a local supermartingale for all $(c,\pi)\in\mathcal{A}$ and there exists $(c^{*},\pi^{*})\in\mathcal{A}$ such that $M^{c^{*},\pi^{*}}$ is a local martingale. Itô’s formula applied to $M^{c,\pi}$ gives

$$\mathrm{d}M_{t}^{c,\pi} =e^{-\delta\theta t}(X_{t}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t})^{-\gamma}\Big(-c_{t}+\delta\frac{c_{t}^{1-\frac{1}{\psi}}}{1-\frac{1}{\psi}}(X_{t}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t})^{\frac{1}{\psi}}-e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Z_{t}^{\intercal}\eta_{t}$$

$$+\frac{1}{2\gamma}(X_{t}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t})\|\eta_{t}\|^{2}+r_{t}(X_{t}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t})-\frac{\delta\theta}{1-\gamma}(X_{t}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y)$$

$$-e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}\mathcal{H}(t,X_{t},Y_{t},Z_{t})\Big)\mathrm{d}t$$

$$-\frac{\gamma}{2}e^{-\delta\theta t}(X_{t}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t})^{-\gamma-1}\Big\|\pi_{t}+\Big(e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Z_{t}-\frac{1}{\gamma}(X_{t}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t})\eta_{t}\Big)\Big\|^{2}\mathrm{d}t$$

$$+e^{-\delta\theta t}(X_{t}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t})^{-\gamma}\big(\pi_{t}^{\intercal}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Z_{t}^{\intercal}\big)\mathrm{d}W_{t}.$$ (3.7)

Expecting the drift to be non-positive for any $(c,\pi)\in\mathcal{A}$ and zero at an optimal strategy $(c^{*},\pi^{*})\in\mathcal{A}$, we deduce that the candidate optimal portfolio $\pi^{*}$ is given by

$$\pi_{t}^{*}=-e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Z_{t}+\frac{1}{\gamma}(X_{t}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t})\eta_{t},~0\leq t<T,$$ (3.8)

and the generator $\mathcal{H}$ in (3.4) is given by

$$\mathcal{H}(t,X_{t},Y_{t},Z_{t}) =e^{-\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}\Big(r_{t}+\frac{1}{2\gamma}\|\eta_{t}\|^{2}{-\frac{\delta\theta}{1-\gamma}}\Big)(X_{t}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t})-Z_{t}^{\intercal}\eta_{t}$$

$$\phantom{X}+e^{-\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}\max_{c>0}\Big\{-c_{t}+\delta\frac{c_{t}^{1-\frac{1}{\psi}}}{1-\frac{1}{\psi}}(X_{t}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t})^{\frac{1}{\psi}}\Big\}.$$ (3.9)

The maximisation in (3.2) leads to the candidate optimal consumption $c^{*}$ given by

$$c_{t}^{*}=\delta^{\psi}(X_{t}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t}),~0\leq t<T.$$ (3.10)

Substituting (3.10) and (3.8) into (3.3) and (3.2), the generator $\mathcal{H}$ and the wealth process $X=:X^{*}$ are given by

$$\mathcal{H}(t,X_{t}^{*},Y_{t},Z_{t})=e^{-\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}\Big(\frac{\delta^{\psi}}{\psi-1}+r_{t}+\frac{1}{2\gamma}\|\eta_{t}\|^{2}{-\frac{\delta\theta}{1-\gamma}}\Big)(X_{t}^{*}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t})-Z_{t}^{\intercal}\eta_{t}$$ (3.11)

$$\text{and }~\mathrm{d}X_{t}^{*}=\Big(r_{t}X_{t}^{*}+\big(-\delta^{\psi}+\frac{1}{\gamma}\|\eta_{t}\|^{2}\big)(X_{t}^{*}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t})-e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Z_{t}^{\intercal}\eta_{t}\Big)\mathrm{d}t$$

$$\phantom{XXXXXXx}+\Big(\frac{1}{\gamma}(X_{t}^{*}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t})\eta_{t}^{\intercal}-e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Z_{t}^{\intercal}\Big)\mathrm{d}I_{t},\quad X_{0}^{*}=x>0.$$ (3.12)

Therefore, the candidate solution to problem (2.10) is given by (3.8) and (3.10), provided that the coupled FBSDE (3.4), (3.11) and (3.12) with random coefficients is well-defined in an appropriate function space. To show the well-definedness of the latter FBSDE we consider the following conditions.

Assumption 3.3.

• $\mathbb{E}\Big[\exp\Big(4(2q+1)^{2}\int_{0}^{T}\|\eta_{s}\|^{2}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\Big]<\infty,~q\geq 1$.

• $K\exp\Big(-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\in\mathcal{L}_{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}^{2q},~q\geq 1$, where $\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}$ is the probability measure equivalent to $\mathbb{P}$ and defined by $\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}{\mathrm{d}\mathbb{P}}\big|_{\mathcal{F}_{T}^{r,S}}:=\mathcal{E}\big(\int-\eta^{\intercal}\mathrm{d}I\big)_{T}:=\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{T}\|\eta_{s}\|^{2}\mathrm{d}s-\int_{0}^{T}\eta_{s}^{\intercal}\mathrm{d}I_{s}\right)$.

We define the processes $(H_{t})_{t\in[0,T]}$, $(\alpha_{t})_{t\in[0,T]}$ and $(\varphi_{t})_{t\in[0,T]}$ by

$$\begin{cases}&H_{t}:=\mathcal{E}\big(\int-\eta^{\intercal}\mathrm{d}I\big)_{t},\quad\alpha_{t}:=e^{-\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}\Big(\frac{\delta^{\psi}}{\psi-1}+r_{t}+\frac{1}{2\gamma}\|\eta_{t}\|^{2}-\frac{\delta\theta}{1-\gamma}\Big)\\ &\text{and }\varphi_{t}:=\exp\Big(\int_{0}^{t}\Big(-\frac{\delta^{\psi}\psi}{\psi-1}+\frac{\gamma-1}{2\gamma^{2}}\|\eta_{s}\|^{2}+\frac{\delta\theta}{1-\gamma}\Big)\mathrm{d}s+\frac{1}{\gamma}\int_{0}^{t}\eta_{s}^{\intercal}\mathrm{d}I_{s}\Big).\end{cases}$$ (3.13)

Remark 3.4.

Assumption 3.3 yields $\alpha\varphi\in\mathcal{H}_{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}^{2q},~q\geq 1$, (see Appendix A). This is used in the existence result of the FBSDE (3.4), (3.11) and (3.12); see Proposition 3.5.

Proposition 3.5.

Let $\widetilde{x}$ denotes the constant defined by $\widetilde{x}:=\frac{x-\mathbb{E}\big[H_{T}Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}\big]}{1-\mathbb{E}\big[\int_{0}^{T}H_{s}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s\big]}$. Then the FBSDE (3.4), (3.11) and (3.12) admits a solution $(X^{*},Y,Z)\in\mathcal{H}_{\mathbb{P}}^{q}\times\mathcal{H}_{\mathbb{P}}^{q}\times\mathbb{H}_{\mathbb{P}}^{q},~q\geq 1$, satisfying

$$X_{t}^{*}=\widetilde{x}\varphi_{t}-e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t},~0\leq t\leq T,$$ (3.14)

with $(Y,Z)\in\mathcal{H}_{\mathbb{P}}^{q}\times\mathbb{H}_{\mathbb{P}}^{q},~q\geq 1$, the unique solution to the BSDE

$$\mathrm{d}Y_{t} =-\Big(\widetilde{x}\alpha_{t}\varphi_{t}-Z_{t}\eta_{t}\Big)\mathrm{d}t+Z_{t}^{\intercal}\mathrm{d}I_{t},~~Y_{T}=-Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s},$$ (3.15)

Besides, the expectation representation of the first component $Y$ is given by

$$Y_{t} =H_{t}^{-1}\mathbb{E}\Big[-H_{T}Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}+\widetilde{x}\int_{t}^{T}H_{s}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s~|\mathcal{F}_{t}^{r,S}\Big],\,\,0\leq t\leq T.$$ (3.16)

Proof.

First, we prove that the BSDE (3.15) admits a unique solution $(Y,Z)$ with $Y$ given by (3.16). Under $\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}$, we consider a pair $(\tilde{Y},\tilde{Z})$ satisfying the BSDE

$$\mathrm{d}\tilde{Y}_{t} =-\widetilde{x}\alpha_{t}\varphi_{t}\mathrm{d}t+\tilde{Z}_{t}^{\intercal}\mathrm{d}I_{t}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}=-\Big(\widetilde{x}\alpha_{t}\varphi_{t}-\tilde{Z}_{t}^{\intercal}\eta_{t}\Big)\mathrm{d}t+\tilde{Z}_{t}^{\intercal}\mathrm{d}I_{t},$$ (3.17)

with $\tilde{Y}_{T}=-Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}$. Using Remark 3.4 and [6, Thm. 5.1], the BSDE (3.17) admits a unique solution $(\tilde{Y},\tilde{Z})\in\mathcal{H}_{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}^{2q}\times\mathbb{H}_{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}^{2q},~q\geq 1$, with the expectation representation of the first component $\tilde{Y}$ being given by

$$\tilde{Y}_{t} =\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}\Big[-Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}+\widetilde{x}\int_{t}^{T}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s~|\mathcal{F}_{t}^{r,S}\Big]$$

$$=H_{t}^{-1}\mathbb{E}\Big[-H_{T}Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}+\widetilde{x}\int_{t}^{T}H_{s}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s~|\mathcal{F}_{t}^{r,S}\Big],~0\leq t\leq T.$$ (3.18)

From (3.17) we deduce that the BSDE (3.15) also admits a unique solution with the expectation representation for the first component of the solution also given by (3.2). Moreover, using repeatedly Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we obtain

$$\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}|\tilde{Y}_{t}|^{q}\mathrm{d}t\Big] \leq\Big(\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}\Big[H_{T}^{-2}\Big]\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big(\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}|\tilde{Y}_{t}|^{2q}\mathrm{d}t\Big]\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$

$$\leq\Big(\mathbb{E}\Big[\exp\Big(3\int_{0}^{T}\|\eta_{s}\|^{2}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\Big]\Big)^{\frac{1}{4}}\Big(\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}|\tilde{Y}_{t}|^{2q}\mathrm{d}t\Big]\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}<\infty,$$

where the last inequality holds due to Assumption 3.3$.(i)$ and the fact that $\tilde{Y}\in\mathcal{H}_{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}^{2q}$. Using similar arguments and the fact that $\tilde{Z}\in\mathbb{H}_{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}^{2q}$, we have

$$\mathbb{E}\Big[\Big(\int_{0}^{T}|\tilde{Z}_{s}|^{2}\mathrm{d}s\Big)^{\frac{q}{2}}\Big] \leq\Big(\mathbb{E}\Big[\exp\Big(3\int_{0}^{T}\|\eta_{s}\|^{2}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\Big]\Big)^{\frac{1}{4}}\Big(\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}\Big[\Big(\int_{0}^{T}|\tilde{Z}_{s}|^{2}\mathrm{d}s\Big)^{q}\Big]\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}<\infty.$$

Second, we show that the triple $(X^{*},Y,Z)$ satisfying the representation (3.14) is a solution to the FBSDE (3.4), (3.11) and (3.12). Clearly, substituting (3.14) into (3.15) gives the BSDE part of the FBSDE. To obtain the SDE part, it suffices to apply Itô’s formula on $X^{*}$ given by (3.14).

Finally, we prove that the constant $\widetilde{x}$ is finite. By Assumption 3.3$.(i)$, it suffices to show that $1-\mathbb{E}\big[\int_{0}^{T}H_{s}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s\big]\neq 0$. Indeed, recalling the expressions of $\alpha$ and $\varphi$ from (3.13) , we have

$$1-\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}H_{s}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s\Big]$$

$$=\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma})}}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\delta^{\psi}\exp\Big(\int_{0}^{s}\big(-\frac{\delta^{\psi}\psi}{\psi-1}-r_{u}-\frac{1}{2\gamma}\|\eta_{u}\|^{2}{+\frac{\delta\theta}{1-\gamma}}\big)\mathrm{d}u\Big)\mathrm{d}s\Big]$$

$$\phantom{xx}+\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma})}}\Big[\exp\Big(\int_{0}^{T}\big(-\frac{\delta^{\psi}\psi}{\psi-1}-r_{u}-\frac{1}{2\gamma}\|\eta_{u}\|^{2}{+\frac{\delta\theta}{1-\gamma}}\big)\mathrm{d}u\Big)\Big]>0.$$ (3.19)

∎

We are now ready to give the main result of this paper

Theorem 3.6.

Assume $x>\mathbb{E}\big[H_{T}Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}\big]$ and Assumption 3.3 holds. Let $\widetilde{x}$ be defined as in Proposition 3.5. Then the optimal consumption and portfolio strategy for the stochastic optimisation problem (2.10) is given by

$$c_{t}^{*}=\delta^{\psi}\big(X_{t}^{*}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t}\big)~\text{ and }~\pi_{t}^{*}=-e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Z_{t}+\frac{1}{\gamma}\big(X_{t}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t}\big)m_{t}.$$ (3.20)

In particular, the optimal amount $\pi^{S,*}$ invested in the stock and the optimal amount $\pi^{B,*}$ invested in the bond are given by $(\pi_{t}^{S},\pi_{t}^{B})=\pi_{t}^{*,\intercal}\Sigma_{t}^{-1}$ for $t\in[0,T]$ (see the definition of $\Sigma$ just below (2.1)).

Besides, the optimal value function of problem (2.10) is given by

$$\mathcal{V} =\frac{1}{1-\gamma}\left(\frac{x-\mathbb{E}\big[H_{T}Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}\big]}{1-\mathbb{E}\big[\int_{0}^{T}H_{s}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s\big]}\right)^{1-\gamma}.$$ (3.21)

Proof.

First, we prove that $(c^{*},\pi^{*})\in\mathcal{A}$. (Recall $\mathcal{A}$ from Definition 3.2). Clearly, $X_{t}^{*}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t}=\widetilde{x}\varphi_{t}>0,~t\in[0,T]$; due to $x>\mathbb{E}\big[H_{T}Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}\big]$ and (3.2). Besides,

$$\big(X_{t}^{*}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t}\big)^{1-\gamma} =\widetilde{x}^{1-\gamma}\exp\Big(\int_{0}^{t}\big(-\delta^{\psi}\theta e^{-\delta\theta\psi s}{+\delta\theta}\big)\mathrm{d}s\Big)\mathcal{E}\big(\int\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}\eta^{\intercal}\mathrm{d}I\big)_{t}.$$ (3.22)

Using Assumption 3.3$.(i)$ with $\big(\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}\big)^{2}<1<4(2q+1)^{2},~q\geq 1$, we deduce that $\mathcal{E}\big(\int\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}\eta^{\intercal}\mathrm{d}I\big)$ is a $\mathbb{P}$-martingale (hence of class (D)). Thus the right-side of (3.22) is of class (D) as a product of a bounded deterministic function and a process of class (D). Therefore, $(X^{*}+e^{\int_{0}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y)^{1-\gamma}$ is of class (D) on $[0,T]$. Finally, using [21, Prop. 2.2] and the latter class (D) property, to show that $c\in\mathcal{C}_{a}$ it suffices to prove that $\mathbb{E}\big[\int_{0}^{T}(X_{t}^{*}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t})^{1-\frac{1}{\psi}}\mathrm{d}t\big]<\infty$. If $\gamma\psi=1,\gamma>1$, then the latter inequality follows from (3.22). If $\gamma>1,\psi>1$, then using successively Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, the inequality $\exp\big(\int_{0}^{t}\big(-\delta^{\psi}+\frac{\delta}{1-\gamma}\big)\mathrm{d}s\big)\leq\exp\big(\big|\frac{\delta}{1-\gamma}\big|T\big)$ for $t\in[0,T]$, and Assumption 3.3$.(i)$ with $0<\big(1-\frac{1}{\psi}\big)\big(\frac{\gamma+1}{\gamma}-\frac{2}{\gamma\psi^{2}}\big)<2<4(2q+1)^{2}$ and $\big(1-\frac{1}{\psi}\big)^{2}\frac{4}{\gamma^{2}}<4<4(2q+1)^{2},~q\geq 1$, we obtain

$$\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\big(X_{t}^{*}+e^{\int_{0}^{t}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}Y_{t}\big)^{1-\frac{1}{\psi}}\mathrm{d}t\Big]$$

$$\leq\Big(\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\exp\Big(\big(1-\frac{1}{\psi}\big)\big(\frac{\gamma+1}{\gamma}-\frac{2}{\gamma\psi^{2}}\big)\int_{0}^{t}\|\eta_{s}\|^{2}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\mathrm{d}t\Big]\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$

$$\phantom{xx}\times\Big(\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\mathcal{E}\big(\int\big(1-\frac{1}{\psi}\big)\frac{2}{\gamma}\eta^{\intercal}\mathrm{d}I\big)_{t}\mathrm{d}t\Big]\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\exp\big(\big|\frac{\delta}{1-\gamma}\big|T\big)\widetilde{x}^{1-\frac{1}{\psi}}<\infty.$$

Second, we show that $(c^{*},\pi^{*})$ is optimal. The proof follows similar arguments as in the proof of proposition $3.2$ in [9]. ∎

Our next objective is to establish the Malliavin differentiability of the solution to the BSDE (3.15). We refer the reader to [17] for clear exposition on the subject. We assume the following conditions.

Assumption 3.7.

Let $\widetilde{x},\alpha$ and $\varphi$ be given as in Proposition 3.5 and Equation (3.13).

• $\mathbb{E}\Big[\exp\Big(324\int_{0}^{T}\|\eta_{s}\|^{2}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\Big]<\infty$.

• $Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}+\widetilde{x}\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s\in\mathbb{D}^{1,2}$, $H_{T}\Big(Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}+\widetilde{x}\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\in\mathbb{D}^{1,2}$.

• $\eta_{t}\in\mathbb{D}^{1,2}$ for almost all $t\in[0,T]$.

• $\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}\Big[\big|Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}+\widetilde{x}\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s\big|\Big]<\infty$.

• $\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\Big(\big\|D_{t}\big(-Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}\big)\big\|^{2}+\big\|\widetilde{x}D_{t}\big(\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s\big)\big\|^{2}\Big)\mathrm{d}t\Big]<\infty$.

• $\big(D_{t}(\alpha_{t}\varphi_{t})-Z_{t}^{\intercal}D_{t}(\eta_{t})\big)_{t\in[0,T]}\in\mathbb{H}_{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}^{2}$.

Assumptions 3.7$.(ii)$-$(iv)$ are required to apply the Clark-Ocone formula to the $\mathcal{F}_{T}^{r,S}$-random variable $Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}+\widetilde{x}\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s$ under the new measure $\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}$ (compare with [18, Thm. 4.5, Rmk. 4.6]).

Proposition 3.8.

Let Assumptions 3.3 and 3.7 hold. Then the unique solution $(Y,Z)\in\mathcal{H}_{\mathbb{P}}^{q}\times\mathbb{H}_{\mathbb{P}}^{q},~q\geq 1$, to the BSDE (3.15) is Malliavin differentiable and we have

$$Z_{t} =D_{t}(Y_{t}),~\text{where $D_{t}(\cdot)$ denote the Malliavin operator for all $t\in[0,T]$.}$$ (3.23)

Proof.

We define the processes $\tilde{Y}_{t}:=Y_{t}+\widetilde{x}\int_{0}^{t}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s$ and $\tilde{Z}_{t}:=Z_{t}$ for $t\in[0,T]$. Hence, $(\tilde{Y},\tilde{Z})$ is the unique solution to the BSDE

$$\mathrm{d}\tilde{Y}_{t} =\tilde{Z}_{t}^{\intercal}\eta_{t}\mathrm{d}t+\tilde{Z}_{t}^{\intercal}\mathrm{d}I_{t}=\tilde{Z}_{t}^{\intercal}\mathrm{d}I_{t}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}},~~\tilde{Y}_{T}=-Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}+\widetilde{x}\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s,$$ (3.24)

where $I_{\cdot}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}:=I_{\cdot}+\int_{0}^{\cdot}\eta_{s}\mathrm{d}s$ is a Brownian motion under $\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}$. Then

$$-Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}+\widetilde{x}\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s =Y_{0}+\int_{0}^{T}\tilde{Z}_{s}^{\intercal}\mathrm{d}I_{s}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}.$$ (3.25)

Using Assumption 3.7 and applying the Clark-Ocone formula under change of measure as in [18, Thm. 4.5] to $\tilde{Y}_{T}=-Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}+\widetilde{x}\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s\in\mathbb{D}^{1,2}$, we obtain

$$-Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}+\widetilde{x}\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s$$

$$=\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}\Big[-Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}+\widetilde{x}\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s\Big]$$

$$\phantom{xx}+\int_{0}^{T}\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}\Big[D_{t}\big(-Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}+\widetilde{x}\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s\big)$$

$$\phantom{xx}-\big(-Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}+\widetilde{x}\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s\big)\int_{t}^{T}D_{t}(\eta_{s})\mathrm{d}I_{s}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}~|\mathcal{F}_{t}^{r,S}\Big]^{\intercal}\mathrm{d}I_{t}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}.$$ (3.26)

By uniqueness of the solution to the BSDE (3.24), we deduce from (3.25)-(3.2) that

$$Y_{0} =\mathbb{E}\Big[-H_{T}Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}+\widetilde{x}\int_{0}^{T}H_{s}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s\Big]$$ (3.27)

as we already obtained in Proposition 3.5, and

$$Z_{t}=\tilde{Z}_{t} =\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}\Big[D_{t}\big(-Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}+\widetilde{x}\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s\big)$$

$$\phantom{XXXXx}-\big(-Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}+\widetilde{x}\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s\big)\int_{t}^{T}D_{t}(\eta_{s})\mathrm{d}I_{s}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}~|\mathcal{F}_{t}^{r,S}\Big].$$ (3.28)

Besides, we consider the BSDE

$$\begin{cases}\mathrm{d}D_{t}(Y_{t})&=-\big(\widetilde{x}D_{t}(\alpha_{t}\varphi_{t})-D_{t}(Z_{t}^{\intercal})\eta_{t}-Z_{t}^{\intercal}D_{t}(\eta_{t})\big)\mathrm{d}t+D_{t}(Z_{t}^{\intercal})\mathrm{d}I_{t}\\ D_{t}(Y_{T})&=D_{t}(-Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}).\end{cases}$$ (3.29)

Using similar arguments as in the proof of Proposition 3.5, we obtain that the BSDE (3.29) admits a unique solution $(D_{t}(Y_{t}),D_{t}(Z_{t}))_{t\in[0,T]}\in\mathcal{H}_{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}^{2}\times\mathbb{H}_{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}^{2}$, with the expectation representation of the first component $(D_{t}(Y_{t}))_{t\in[0,T]}$ being given by

$$D_{t}(Y_{t}) =\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}\Big[D_{t}(-Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s})+\int_{t}^{T}\Big(\widetilde{x}D_{t}(\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s})\mathrm{d}s-Z_{s}^{\intercal}D_{t}(\eta_{s})\Big)\mathrm{d}s~|\mathcal{F}_{t}^{r,S}\Big].$$ (3.30)

Using successively (3.25), the fact that $\tilde{Z}_{t}=Z_{t},~t\in[0,T]$, and Itô isometry we have

$$\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}\Big[\big(-Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}+\widetilde{x}\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s\big)\int_{t}^{T}D_{t}(\eta_{s})\mathrm{d}I_{s}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}~|\mathcal{F}_{t}^{r,S}\Big]$$

$$=\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}\Big[\int_{t}^{T}Z_{s}^{\intercal}D_{t}(\eta_{s})\mathrm{d}s~|\mathcal{F}_{t}^{r,S}\Big].$$ (3.31)

Substituting (3.2) into (3.30) and using the linearity of the operator $D_{t}(\cdot)$ we obtain

$$D_{t}(Y_{t}) =\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}\Big[D_{t}\big(-Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}+\widetilde{x}\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s\big)$$

$$\phantom{XXXXx}-\big(-Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}+\widetilde{x}\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s\big)\int_{t}^{T}D_{t}(\eta_{s})\mathrm{d}I_{s}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}~|\mathcal{F}_{t}^{r,S}\Big].$$ (3.32)

Hence, comparing (3.2) and (3.2), we deduce that $Z_{t}=D_{t}(Y_{t})$ for $t\in[0,T]$. ∎

4. Utility loss

In this section, we determine the utility loss that investors suffer from ignoring the fact that they can learn about the market price of risk $R$: Instead of learning about $R$ and using the estimate $m$ in their optimisation problem, investors use its long-rum mean $\mu_{R}$. Following [8], we measure the utility loss in terms of the percentage of the initial wealth. That is, we solve for $L\in(0,1)$ the equation $\mathcal{V}(x(1-L))=\mathcal{V}^{0}(x)$, where $\mathcal{V}(x(1-L))$ represents the value function of problem (2.10) for $X_{0}=x(1-L)$, and $\mathcal{V}^{0}(x)$ the value function of problem (2.10) for $m_{t}=\mu_{R},$ $t\in[0,T]$. From Theorem 3.6, we have

$$L =1-\frac{1}{x}\left(\frac{1-\mathbb{E}\big[\int_{0}^{T}H_{s}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s\big]}{1-\mathbb{E}\big[\int_{0}^{T}H_{s}^{0}\alpha_{s}^{0}\varphi_{s}^{0}\mathrm{d}s\big]}\left(x-\mathbb{E}\big[H_{T}^{0}Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}\big]\right)+\mathbb{E}\big[H_{T}Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}\big]\right),$$

where $H^{0},\alpha^{0}$, and $\varphi^{0}$ are given by (3.13) for $m_{t}=\mu_{R},~t\in[0,T]$.

In the sequel, for simplicity, we assume a non-negative constant liability $K$. Before we provide parameter conditions such that Assumptions 3.3 and 3.7 hold, we introduce $\sigma_{m}^{2}(t):=\big(\sigma_{R}\rho_{RS}+\beta v_{t}\big)^{2}+\big(\sigma_{R}\rho_{Rr}-\rho_{rS}\beta(1-\rho_{rS}^{2})^{-\frac{1}{2}}v_{t}\big)^{2},~\Delta(t):=2\sigma_{m}^{2}(t)\zeta-\kappa_{R}^{2}$, $b_{max}:=\max_{t\in[0,T]}\sigma_{m}^{2}(t)$ and $\Delta_{max}:=2b_{max}\zeta-\kappa_{R}^{2}$, with $\zeta:=100\beta^{2}(1-\rho_{rS}^{2})^{-1}$.

Proposition 4.1.

Suppose that $\gamma,\psi>1$ or $\gamma\psi=1,\gamma>1$. Assume that $\Delta_{max}\leq 0$ or $\Delta_{max}>0,~T<\left(\textsl{pi}-\arctan(\sqrt{\Delta_{max}}/\kappa_{R})\right)/\sqrt{\Delta_{max}}$ hold. Then Assumptions 3.3 and 3.7 are satisfied for $q=2$. Moreover, Assumption 3.7 also holds if $\zeta:=324\beta^{2}(1-\rho_{rS}^{2})^{-1}$.

Proof.

See Appendix B. ∎

In the numerical illustrations, except otherwise stated, the market parameter values are given by $\kappa_{r}=0.5,\kappa_{R}=1.5,\mu_{r}=0.02,\mu_{R}=\phi_{B}=\rho_{rS}=0,\sigma_{r}=-0.03,\sigma_{R}=0.2,\beta=4,\rho_{RS}=-0.95,\rho_{Rr}=0.1$ and $T=1$. (All comparative statistics are produced using a Monte Carlo simulation of $1000000$ paths and averaging them).

Figure 1. Welfare loss $L$. Both figures use $K=500$ and $\delta=0.08$. The left panel uses $\gamma=5$, and the right panel takes $\psi=1.5$. The solid lines represent the cases where the estimate, $m$, of the risk premium is used and the dashed lines the cases where its long-rum mean, $\mu_{R}$, is used.

Funding

This work was supported by a grant from the African Institute for Mathematical Sciences, with financial support from the Government of Canada, provided through Global Affairs Canada, and the International Development Research Centre.

Appendix A Integrability of $\alpha\varphi$

First, we recall that (see the expression of $\eta$ just below (3.3))

$$\|\eta_{t}\|^{2}=\frac{\beta^{2}}{1-\rho_{rS}^{2}}m_{t}^{2}-2\frac{\beta\rho_{rS}\phi_{B}}{\sqrt{1-\rho_{rS}^{2}}}m_{t}+\frac{\phi_{B}^{2}}{1-\rho_{rS}^{2}}~\text{ for }~t\in[0,T].$$ (A.1)

Hence, using the fact that $(m_{t})_{t\in[0,T]}$ is an OU process (see Proposition 3.1) and the inequality $\big(\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}a_{i}\big)^{p}\leq\ell^{p-1}\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}a_{i}^{p}$ for $p\geq 1,a_{i}>0,~i\in\{1,\cdots,\ell\}$, we deduce that

$$\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\|\eta_{s}\|^{2p}\mathrm{d}s\Big]+\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}m_{s}^{p}\mathrm{d}s\Big]+\mathbb{E}\Big[\exp\Big(-p\int_{0}^{T}m_{s}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\Big]<\infty~\text{ for all }~p\geq 1.$$ (A.2)

Moreover, using the innovation process, given by (3.2), we obtain that $(r_{t})_{t\in[0,T]}$, given by (2.2), is again an OU process. Hence

$$\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}^{p}\mathrm{d}s\Big]+\mathbb{E}\Big[\exp\Big(-p\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\Big]<\infty~\text{ for all }~p\geq 1.$$ (A.3)

Next, we compute $\mathbb{E}\big[H_{T}^{p}\big]$, $\mathbb{E}\big[\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}^{p}\mathrm{d}s\big]$ and $\mathbb{E}\big[\int_{0}^{T}\varphi_{s}^{p}\mathrm{d}s\big]$ for $p>1$. Using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we have

$$\mathbb{E}\big[H_{T}^{p}\big] =\mathbb{E}\Big[\exp\Big(-\frac{p}{2}\int_{0}^{T}\|\eta_{s}\|^{2}\mathrm{d}s-p\int_{0}^{T}\eta_{s}^{\intercal}\mathrm{d}I_{s}\Big)\Big]$$

$$\leq\mathbb{E}\Big[\exp\Big((2p^{2}-p)\int_{0}^{T}\|\eta_{s}\|^{2}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\Big]+\mathbb{E}\Big[\mathcal{E}\Big(\int-2p\eta^{\intercal}\mathrm{d}I\Big)_{s}\Big].$$ (A.4)

$$\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\varphi_{s}^{p}\mathrm{d}s\Big] =\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\exp\Big(\int_{0}^{s}\Big(-p\frac{\delta\psi}{\psi-1}+p\frac{\delta\theta}{1-\gamma}\Big)\mathrm{d}s\Big)$$

$$\phantom{XXXX}\times\exp\Big(p\frac{\gamma-1}{2\gamma^{2}}\int_{0}^{T}\|\eta_{s}\|^{2}\mathrm{d}s+\frac{p}{\gamma}\int_{0}^{T}\eta_{s}^{\intercal}\mathrm{d}I_{s}\Big)\Big]$$

$$\leq\max\Big(1,\exp\Big(\int_{0}^{T}\Big(-p\frac{\delta\psi}{\psi-1}+p\frac{\delta\theta}{1-\gamma}\Big)\mathrm{d}s\Big)\Big)$$

$$\times\Big(\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\exp\Big(\frac{p\gamma+2p^{2}-p}{\gamma^{2}}\int_{0}^{s}\|\eta_{u}\|^{2}\mathrm{d}u\Big)\mathrm{d}s\Big]+\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\mathcal{E}\Big(\int\frac{2p}{\gamma}\eta^{\intercal}\mathrm{d}I\Big)_{s}\mathrm{d}s\Big]\Big).$$ (A.5)

Again, using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, the convex inequality used for the proof of (A.2), (A.3) and (A.2) we obtain

$$\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}^{p}\mathrm{d}s\Big] \leq\mathbb{E}\Big[\exp\Big(-2p\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\Big]$$

$$+3^{2p-1}\Big(T\Big(\frac{\delta^{\psi}}{\psi-1}-\frac{\delta\theta}{1-\gamma}\Big)^{2p}+\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}^{2p}\mathrm{d}s\Big]+\frac{1}{2\gamma}\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\|\eta_{s}\|^{4p}\mathrm{d}s\Big]\Big)$$

$$<\infty.$$ (A.6)

Note that to show $\alpha\varphi\in\mathcal{H}_{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}^{2q}$ for $q>1$, it suffices to show it for all integer $q\geq 2$. Hence, for $\gamma>1$ and $q\geq 2$ we have (using Jensen inequality, Hölder inequality and Young inequality)

$$\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}\Big[\Big(\int_{0}^{T}|\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}|^{2}\mathrm{d}s\Big)^{\frac{2q}{2}}\Big]\leq T^{q-1}\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}|\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}|^{2q}\mathrm{d}s\Big]=T^{q-1}\mathbb{E}\Big[H_{T}\int_{0}^{T}|\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}|^{2q}\mathrm{d}s\Big]$$

$$\leq T^{q-1}\Big(\mathbb{E}\big[H_{T}^{2q+1}\big]+T^{\frac{1}{2q}}\Big(\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}^{(2q+1)(2q+2)}\mathrm{d}s\Big]+\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\varphi_{s}^{2q+2}\mathrm{d}s\Big]\Big)\Big).$$

When $p=2q+1$, we have $2p^{2}-p=8q^{2}+6q+1<(2p)^{2}=4(2q+1)^{2}$ for $q\geq 1$. Then using (A) and Assumption 3.3$.(i)$ we obtain $\mathbb{E}\big[H_{T}^{2q+1}\big]<\infty$. When $p=2q+2$, we have $\frac{p\gamma+2p^{2}-p}{\gamma^{2}}<8q^{2}+18q+10<4(2q+1)^{2}$ for $q\geq 1$. Then using (A) and Assumption 3.3$.(i)$ we obtain $\mathbb{E}\big[\int_{0}^{T}\varphi_{s}^{2q+2}\mathrm{d}s\big]<\infty$. Hence $\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}\Big[\Big(\int_{0}^{T}|\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}|^{2}\mathrm{d}s\Big)^{\frac{2q}{2}}\Big]<\infty$ for $q\geq 1$.

Appendix B Proof of Proposition 4.1

First, we state and prove three intermediate results (Lemmas B.1, B.2 and B.3) on which the proof of Lemma 4.1 will rely on. Lemmas B.1 gives the expression of the solution of the Riccati equation given in Proposition 3.1 and presents the bounds of such solution, Lemma B.2 gives a comparison result for some Riccati equations, and Lemma B.3 gives sufficient conditions for the non-explosion of the exponential moments of the square of an OU process with constant coefficients.

Lemma B.1.

For $\beta\neq 0$, the solution $v$ to the Riccati equation

$$v_{t}^{\prime} =\sigma_{R}^{2}-2\kappa_{R}v_{t}-\big(\sigma_{R}\rho_{RS}+\beta v_{t}\big)^{2}-\big(\sigma_{R}\rho_{Rr}-\rho_{rS}\beta(1-\rho_{rS}^{2})^{-\frac{1}{2}}v_{t}\big)^{2},~v_{0}=0$$ (B.1)

is given by

$$v_{t}=\left(-\frac{1}{a}\sqrt{\frac{b^{2}}{4}-ac}\right)\frac{1-k_{0}\exp\left(-2t\sqrt{\frac{b^{2}}{4}-ac}\right)}{1+k_{0}\exp\left(-2t\sqrt{\frac{b^{2}}{4}-ac}\right)}-\frac{b}{2a}~\text{ for }~t\in[0,T],$$ (B.2)

with $a:=-\beta^{2}\big(1+\rho_{rS}^{2}\big(1-\rho_{rS}^{2}\big)^{-1}\big),~b:=-2\kappa_{R}-2\beta\sigma_{R}\rho_{RS}+2\sigma_{R}\rho_{Rr}\beta\rho_{rS}\big(1-\rho_{rS}^{2}\big)^{-1/2}$, $c:=\sigma_{R}^{2}\big(1-\rho_{RS}^{2}-\rho_{Rr}^{2}\big)$ and $k_{0}:=\big(1+\frac{b}{2}\big(\frac{b^{2}}{4}-ac\big)^{-1/2}\big)\big(1-\frac{b}{2}\big(\frac{b^{2}}{4}-ac\big)^{-1/2}\big)^{-1}$.

Moreover, $0\leq v_{t}\leq-\frac{1}{a}\sqrt{\frac{b^{2}}{4}-ac}$ for all $t\in[0,T]$.

Proof.

To check that $v$ given by (B.2) solves (B.1), it suffices to differentiate $v$ and to compare the obtained expression with the right side of (B.1) for $v$ as in (B.2). Uniqueness follows from the uniqueness of a solution to a Riccati equation. Observe that $a<0$. Then $\frac{b}{2}<\sqrt{\frac{b^{2}}{4}-ac}$ and $k_{0}>0$. Having obtained the derivative of $v$, we directly have $v^{\prime}(t)<0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$ (because $k_{0}>0$). Hence $v_{0}=0\leq v_{t}$. Moreover, $\frac{b}{2}<\sqrt{\frac{b^{2}}{4}-ac}$ and $k_{0}>0$ yield $v_{t}\leq-\frac{1}{a}\sqrt{\frac{b^{2}}{4}-ac}$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. ∎

Lemma B.2.

For $v(t)$ defined as in Proposition 3.1, let $\sigma_{m}^{2}(t):=\big(\sigma_{R}\rho_{RS}+\beta v_{t}\big)^{2}+\big(\sigma_{R}\rho_{Rr}-\rho_{rS}\beta(1-\rho_{rS}^{2})^{-\frac{1}{2}}v_{t}\big)^{2},~t\in[0,T]$, and $b_{max}^{2}:=\max_{t\in[0,T]}\sigma_{m}^{2}(t)$. If $g_{1},g_{2}$ and $g_{3}$ are solutions on $[0,T]$ of the ordinary equations

$$g_{1}^{\prime}(t)=-2\sigma_{m}^{2}(t)g_{1}^{2}(t)+2\kappa_{R}g_{1}(t)-\zeta,\quad g_{2}^{\prime}(t)=-2b_{max}^{2}g_{2}^{2}(t)+2\kappa_{R}g_{2}(t)-\zeta$$

$$\text{and }~g_{3}^{\prime}(t)=2\kappa_{R}g_{3}(t)-\zeta$$

with $g_{1}(T)=g_{2}(T)=g_{3}(T)$, then $g_{3}(t)\leq g_{1}(t)\leq g_{2}(t)$ for all $t\in[0,T]$.

Proof.

The proof follows from theorem $4.1.4$ (on p.$185$) in [1]. ∎

Lemma B.3.

For $\zeta=512\beta^{2}(1-\rho_{rS}^{2})^{-1}>0$, let $\Delta_{max}:=2b_{max}\zeta-\kappa_{R}^{2}$. If $\Delta_{max}\leq 0$ or $\Delta_{max}>0,~T<\left(\textsl{pi}-\arctan(\sqrt{\Delta_{max}}/\kappa_{R})\right)/\sqrt{\Delta_{max}}$ hold, then $\mathbb{E}\left[\exp\left(\zeta\int_{0}^{T}m_{t}^{2}\mathrm{d}t\right)\right]<\infty$.

Proof.

Define $u(t,x):=\mathbb{E}\left[\exp\left(\zeta\int_{t}^{T}m_{s}^{2}\mathrm{d}s\right)\big|m_{t}=x\right]$. Then $u$ satisfies the backward Feynman–Kǎc partial differential equation (PDE):

$$\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}-\kappa_{R}x\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}+\frac{1}{2}\sigma_{m}^{2}(t)\frac{\partial^{2}u}{\partial x^{2}}+\zeta x^{2}u=0,~\text{ with }~u(T,x)=1.$$ (B.3)

We make the exponential–quadratic ansatz $u(t,x)=\exp\big(g(t)x^{2}+B(t)\big)$, with $g(t)=0,B(T)=0$. Hence, $u_{t}=\big(g^{\prime}(t)x^{2}+B^{\prime}(t)\big)u,u_{x}=2g(t)xu,~u_{xx}=(2g(t)+4g^{2}(t)x^{2})u$ and we have

$$\big(g^{\prime}(t)-2\kappa_{R}g(t)+2\sigma_{m}^{2}(t)g^{2}(t)+\zeta\big)x^{2}+B^{\prime}(t)+\sigma_{m}^{2}(t)g(t)=0~\text{ for all }~x\in\mathbb{R}.$$ (B.4)

Hence

$$g^{\prime}(t)=-2\sigma_{m}^{2}(t)g^{2}(t)+2\kappa_{R}g(t)-\zeta~\text{ and }~B^{\prime}(t)=-\sigma_{m}^{2}(t)g(t).$$ (B.5)

Using Lemma B.3 we have $0\leq\frac{\zeta}{2\kappa_{R}}\left(\exp\big(2\kappa_{R}(T-t)\big)-1\right)\leq g(t)\leq g_{2}(t)$ and $B(t)\leq 0$, with $\frac{\zeta}{2\kappa_{R}}\big(\exp\big(2\kappa_{R}(T-t)\big)-1\big)=g_{3}(t)$ for all $t\in[0,T]$.

Therefore, from the exponential-quadratic ansatz we obtain

$$\mathbb{E}\left[\exp\left(\zeta\int_{0}^{T}m_{t}^{2}\mathrm{d}t\right)\right]\leq\exp\big(g_{2}(0)x^{2}\big).$$ (B.6)

Now, we solve the Riccati equation satisfied by $g_{2}$. We consider the transformation $g_{2}(t)=\frac{1}{2b_{max}^{2}}\frac{g_{4}^{\prime}(t)}{g_{4}(t)}$. Then $g_{2}^{\prime}(t)=\frac{g_{4}^{\prime\prime}(t)g_{4}(t)-(g_{4}^{\prime}(t))^{2}}{2b_{max}^{2}g_{4}^{2}(t)}$. Hence $g_{4}$ satisfies the linear ODE $g_{4}^{\prime\prime}=2\kappa_{R}g_{4}^{\prime}-2b_{max}^{2}\zeta g_{4}$. Thus,

$$g_{4}(t) =k_{1}e^{(\kappa_{R}+\sqrt{-\Delta_{max}})t}+k_{2}e^{(\kappa_{R}-\sqrt{-\Delta_{max}})t},~\text{with }\Delta_{max}=2b_{max}^{2}\zeta-\kappa_{R}^{2}.$$ (B.7)

Hence

$$g_{2}(t) =\frac{\kappa_{R}\big(k_{1}e^{(\kappa_{R}+\sqrt{-\Delta_{max}})t}+k_{2}e^{(\kappa_{R}-\sqrt{-\Delta_{max}})t}\big)+\sqrt{-\Delta_{max}}\big(k_{1}e^{(\kappa_{R}+\sqrt{-\Delta_{max}})t}-k_{2}e^{(\kappa_{R}-\sqrt{-\Delta_{max}})t}\big)}{2b_{max}^{2}\big(k_{1}e^{(\kappa_{R}+\sqrt{-\Delta_{max}})t}+k_{2}e^{(\kappa_{R}-\sqrt{-\Delta_{max}})t}\big)}.$$ (B.8)

Applying the boundary condition $g_{2}(T)=0$ to fix the constants $k_{1},k_{2}$ we obtain

$$g_{2}(0) =\frac{\zeta\sinh(T\sqrt{-\Delta_{max}})}{2\left(\sqrt{-\Delta_{max}}\cosh(T\sqrt{-\Delta_{max}})+\kappa_{R}\sinh(T\sqrt{-\Delta_{max}})\right)}.$$ (B.9)

Next, we discuss the finiteness of $g_{2}(0)$. We obtain the following situations.
Case $1$: For $\Delta_{max}<0$, the denominator of the fraction on the right side of (B.8) does not vanish. Then $g_{2}(0)<\infty$.
Case $2$: For $\Delta_{max}=0$, the denominator as well as the numerator of the fraction on the right side of (B.8) vanishes. However, $g_{2}(0)=\frac{1}{2}\zeta T\big(1+\kappa_{R}T\big)^{-1}<\infty$.
Case $3$: For $\Delta_{max}>0$, the denominator of the fraction on the right side of (B.8) does not vanish for all $T$ smaller than a critical value $T_{c}$. Indeed, using the facts that $\sqrt{-\Delta_{max}}=i\sqrt{\Delta_{max}}$, $\sinh(iT\sqrt{\Delta_{max}})=i\sin(T\sqrt{\Delta_{max}})$ and $\cosh(iT\sqrt{\Delta_{max}})=\cos(T\sqrt{\Delta_{max}})$ we have

$$g_{2}(0) =\frac{\zeta\sin(T\sqrt{\Delta_{max}})}{2\left(\sqrt{\Delta_{max}}\cos(T\sqrt{\Delta_{max}})+\kappa_{R}\sin(T\sqrt{\Delta_{max}})\right)}.$$ (B.10)

Finding the first positive $T$ such that $\sqrt{\Delta_{max}}\cos(T\sqrt{-\Delta_{max}})+\kappa_{R}\sin(T\sqrt{\Delta_{max}})=0$ is equivalent to find the smallest $T>0$ satisfying $\tan(T\sqrt{-\Delta_{max}})=\frac{\sqrt{\Delta_{max}}}{\kappa_{R}}$. If we denote by $T_{c}$ such value, then $T_{c}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Delta_{max}}}\left(\textsl{pi}-\arctan\left(\frac{\sqrt{\Delta_{max}}}{\kappa_{R}}\right)\right)$. Hence, $g_{2}(0)<\infty$ for all $T<T_{c}$.

Finally, using (B.6) and the results in Cases $1$-$3$ we conclude the proof. ∎

We can now confirm Proposition 4.1.

Proof of Proposition 4.1.

Let us check that Assumptions 3.3 and 3.7 are verified for $q=2$.
Assumption 3.3: Recall that $\zeta:=100\beta^{2}(1-\rho_{rS}^{2})^{-1}$.

$$\mathbb{E}\Big[\exp\Big(4(2q+1)^{2}\int_{0}^{T}\|\eta_{s}\|^{2}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\Big]$$

$$=\mathbb{E}\Big[\exp\Big(100\int_{0}^{T}\Big(\frac{\beta^{2}}{1-\rho_{rS}^{2}}m_{s}^{2}-2\frac{\beta\rho_{rS}\phi_{B}}{\sqrt{1-\rho_{rS}^{2}}}m_{s}+\frac{\phi_{B}^{2}}{1-\rho_{rS}^{2}}\Big)\mathrm{d}s\Big)\Big]$$

$$\leq e^{72\phi_{B}^{2}(1-\rho_{rS}^{2})^{-1}T}\Big(\mathbb{E}\Big[e^{-200\beta\rho_{rS}\phi_{B}(1-\rho_{rS}^{2})^{-1/2}\int_{0}^{T}m_{s}\mathrm{d}s}\Big]\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big(\mathbb{E}\Big[e^{100\beta^{2}(1-\rho_{rS}^{2})^{-1}\int_{0}^{T}m_{s}^{2}\mathrm{d}s}\Big]\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}<\infty,$$ (B.11)

where the first inequality holds due to Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the last inequality comes from (A.2), (B.6), Lemma B.3 and the fact that $100\beta^{2}(1-\rho_{rS}^{2})^{-1}=\zeta$.
For Assumption 3.3$.(ii)$, with $K$ constant and $\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}{\mathrm{d}\mathbb{P}}\big|_{\mathcal{F}_{T}^{r,S}}=H_{T}$, we have

$$\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}\Big[K^{2q}\exp\Big(-2q\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\Big]=\mathbb{E}\Big[KH_{T}\exp\Big(-2q\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\Big]$$

$$\leq K\big(\mathbb{E}\big[H_{T}^{2}\big]\big)^{1/2}\Big(\mathbb{E}\Big[\exp\Big(-4q\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\Big]\Big)^{1/2}$$

$$\leq K\Big(\mathbb{E}\Big[\exp\Big(9\int_{0}^{T}\|\eta_{s}\|^{2}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\Big]+\mathbb{E}\Big[\mathcal{E}\Big(\int-4\eta^{\intercal}\mathrm{d}I\Big)_{s}\Big]\Big)^{1/2}$$

$$\phantom{Xxx}\times\Big(\mathbb{E}\Big[\exp\Big(-8\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\Big]\Big)^{1/2}$$

$$<\infty,$$

where the first inequality follows from Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, the second inequality comes from (A) and the last inequality holds due to (A.3), (B) and the fact that $9<16<4(2q+1)^{2}=100$.
Assumption 3.7: In the sequel, $\zeta:=324\beta^{2}(1-\rho_{rS}^{2})^{-1}$. The proof of Assumption 3.7$.(i)$ follows similar arguments as in the proof of (B). So for brevity it is omitted.

Using [3, Sect. 3.2.2.1 on p.64] we have

$$D_{t}\big(m_{s}\big) =-\frac{1}{\kappa_{R}}\big(e^{\kappa_{R}(s-t)}-1\big)\begin{pmatrix}\sigma_{R}\rho_{RS}+\beta v_{t}\\ \sigma_{R}\rho_{Rr}-\rho_{rS}\beta(1-\rho_{rS}^{2})^{-\frac{1}{2}}v_{t}\end{pmatrix}\mathds{1}_{\{t<s\}}=:\begin{pmatrix}D_{t}^{(1)}\big(m_{s}\big)\\ D_{t}^{(2)}\big(m_{s}\big)\end{pmatrix}$$

$$D_{t}\big(r_{s}\big) =-\frac{\sigma_{r}}{\kappa_{r}}\big(e^{\kappa_{r}(s-t)}-1\big)\begin{pmatrix}\rho_{rS}\\ \sqrt{1-\rho_{rS}^{2}}\end{pmatrix}\mathds{1}_{\{t<s\}}$$

$$D_{t}\big(e^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}\big) =-e^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}\int_{t}^{T}D_{t}(r_{s})\mathrm{d}s$$

$$D_{t}\big(\alpha_{s}\big) =D_{t}\Big(e^{-\int_{0}^{s}r_{u}\mathrm{d}u}\Big(\frac{\delta^{\psi}}{\psi-1}+r_{s}+\frac{1}{2\gamma}\|\eta_{s}\|^{2}-\frac{\delta\theta}{1-\gamma}\Big)\Big)$$

$$=\Big(\frac{\delta^{\psi}}{\psi-1}+r_{s}+\frac{1}{2\gamma}\|\eta_{s}\|^{2}-\frac{\delta\theta}{1-\gamma}\Big)D_{t}\Big(e^{-\int_{0}^{s}r_{u}\mathrm{d}u}\Big)$$

$$\phantom{x}+e^{-\int_{0}^{s}r_{u}\mathrm{d}u}D_{t}\Big(\Big(\frac{\delta^{\psi}}{\psi-1}+r_{s}+\frac{1}{2\gamma}\|\eta_{s}\|^{2}-\frac{\delta\theta}{1-\gamma}\Big)\Big)$$

$$=\Big(\frac{\delta^{\psi}}{\psi-1}+r_{s}+\frac{1}{2\gamma}\|\eta_{s}\|^{2}-\frac{\delta\theta}{1-\gamma}\Big)D_{t}\Big(e^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}\Big)$$

$$\phantom{x}+e^{-\int_{0}^{s}r_{u}\mathrm{d}u}\Big(D_{t}\big(r_{s}\big)+\frac{\beta^{2}}{\gamma(1-\rho_{rS}^{2})}m_{s}D_{t}\big(m_{s}\big)-\frac{\beta\rho_{rS}\phi_{B}}{\gamma\sqrt{1-\rho_{rS}^{2}}}D_{t}\big(m_{s}\big)\Big)$$

Using Young inequality, (A.2), (A.3) and (A) we have

$$\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\big\|D_{t}\big(e^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}\big)\big\|^{p}\mathrm{d}t\Big]+\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\Big(\int_{t}^{T}\|D_{t}\big(\alpha_{s}\big)\|^{p}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\mathrm{d}t\Big]<\infty\text{ for all }p\geq 1.$$ (B.12)

Besides,

$$D_{t}\big(\varphi_{s}\big) =\varphi_{s}\Big(\int_{t}^{s}\Big(\frac{(\gamma-1)\beta^{2}}{\gamma^{2}(1-\rho_{rS}^{2})}m_{s}D_{t}\big(m_{u}\big)-\frac{(\gamma-1)\beta\rho_{rS}\phi_{B}}{\gamma^{2}\sqrt{1-\rho_{rS}^{2}}}D_{t}\big(m_{u}\big)\Big)\mathrm{d}u\Big)$$

$$\phantom{x}+\varphi_{s}\left(\frac{1}{\gamma}\eta_{t}+\int_{t}^{s}\begin{pmatrix}\frac{\beta}{\gamma}D_{t}^{(1)}\big(m_{u}\big)&0\\ 0&-\frac{\beta\rho_{rS}}{\gamma\sqrt{1-\rho_{rS}^{2}}}D_{t}^{(2)}\big(m_{u}\big)\end{pmatrix}\mathrm{d}I_{u}\right).$$

Using successively Young inequality, Jensen inequality and Burkholder–Davis–Gundy (BDG) inequality we have

$$\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\Big(\int_{t}^{T}\|D_{t}\big(\varphi_{s}\big)\|^{p}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\mathrm{d}t\Big]$$

$$\leq\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\Big(\int_{t}^{T}\varphi_{s}^{p+1}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\mathrm{d}t\Big]$$

$$+\Big(\frac{(\gamma-1)\beta^{2}}{\gamma^{2}(1-\rho_{rS}^{2})}\Big)^{p(p+1)}\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}(s-t)^{p(p+1)-1}m_{s}^{p(p+1)}\Big(\int_{t}^{s}\|D_{t}\big(m_{u}\big)\|^{p(p+1)}\mathrm{d}u\Big)\mathrm{d}t\Big]$$

$$+\Big(\frac{(\gamma-1)\beta\rho_{rS}\phi_{B}}{\gamma^{2}\sqrt{1-\rho_{rS}^{2}}}\Big)^{p(p+1)}\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}(s-t)^{p(p+1)-1}\Big(\int_{t}^{s}\|D_{t}\big(m_{u}\big)\|^{p(p+1)}\mathrm{d}u\Big)\mathrm{d}t\Big]$$

$$+\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\Big(\int_{t}^{T}\varphi_{s}^{p+1}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\mathrm{d}t\Big]+\frac{1}{\gamma^{p(p+1)}}\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}(T-t)\|\eta_{t}\|^{p(p+1)}\mathrm{d}t\Big]$$

$$+\int_{0}^{T}\Big(\int_{t}^{T}(s-t)^{p-1}\Big(\int_{t}^{s}\frac{\beta^{p(p+1)}}{\gamma^{p(p+1)}}\big(D_{t}^{(1)}\big(m_{u}\big)\big)^{p(p+1)}\mathrm{d}u$$

$$\phantom{XXXXXXXXXXX}+\int_{t}^{s}\Big(\frac{\beta\rho_{rS}}{\gamma\sqrt{1-\rho_{rS}^{2}}}\Big)^{p(p+1)}\big(D_{t}^{(2)}\big(m_{u}\big)\big)^{p(p+1)}\mathrm{d}u\Big)\mathrm{d}s\Big)\mathrm{d}t.$$ (B.13)

For Assumption 3.7$.(ii)$,

$$\mathbb{E}\Big[\Big(Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}+\widetilde{x}\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s\Big)^{2}\Big]$$

$$\leq 2K^{2}\mathbb{E}\big[e^{-2\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}\big]+2\widetilde{x}^{2}T\Big(\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}^{4}\mathrm{d}s\Big]+\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\varphi_{s}^{4}\mathrm{d}s\Big]\Big)<\infty,$$ (B.14)

where the first inequality comes from the convex inequality $(a+b)^{2}\leq 2(a^{2}+b^{2})$, Jensen inequality and Young inequality, and the last inequality follows from (A), (A) and the facts that $\frac{2\gamma+6}{\gamma^{2}}<8<324$ and $\Big(\frac{4}{\gamma}\Big)^{2}<16<324$.

$$\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\big\|D_{t}\Big(Ke^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}+\widetilde{x}\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\big\|^{2}\mathrm{d}t\Big]$$

$$\leq K^{2}\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\big\|D_{t}\Big(e^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}\Big)\big\|^{2}\mathrm{d}t\Big]+\widetilde{x}^{2}\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\big\|D_{t}\Big(\int_{0}^{T}\alpha_{s}\varphi_{s}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\big\|^{2}\mathrm{d}t\Big]$$

$$=K^{2}\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\big\|D_{t}\Big(e^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}\Big)\big\|^{2}\mathrm{d}t\Big]+\widetilde{x}^{2}T\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\Big(\int_{t}^{T}\big\|\alpha_{s}D_{t}\big(\varphi_{s}\big)+\varphi_{s}D_{t}\big(\alpha_{s}\big)\big\|^{2}\mathrm{d}s\Big)\mathrm{d}t\Big]$$

$$\leq K^{2}\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\big\|D_{t}\Big(e^{-\int_{0}^{T}r_{s}\mathrm{d}s}\Big)\big\|^{2}\mathrm{d}t\Big]+\widetilde{x}^{2}T\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\Big(\int_{t}^{T}\big(\alpha_{s}^{4}+\|D_{t}\big(\varphi_{s}\big)\|^{4}+\varphi_{s}^{4}+\|D_{t}\big(\alpha_{s}\big)\|^{4}\big)\mathrm{d}s\Big)\mathrm{d}t\Big]$$

$$<\infty,$$ (B.15)

where the first and second inequalities come from the convex inequality $(a+b)^{2}\leq 2(a^{2}+b^{2})$, the triangular inequality and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, and the last inequality follows from (A), (A), (B.12), (B) and the facts that $\frac{8\gamma+120}{\gamma^{2}}<136<324$ and $\big(\frac{16}{\gamma}\big)^{2}<324$.

The proofs of Assumptions 3.7$.(ii)$, $(iii)$ and $(iv)$ follow similar arguments as in the proof of Assumptions 3.7$.(i)$. So for brevity they are omitted.

To prove Assumption 3.7$.(v)$ for $q=2$, it suffices to show

$$\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\|D_{t}(\alpha_{t}\varphi_{t})\|^{2}\mathrm{d}t\Big]<\infty~\text{ and }~\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\|Z_{t}^{F,\intercal}D_{t}(\eta_{t})\|^{2}\mathrm{d}t\Big]<\infty.$$ (B.16)

Again, because the proof of the first inequality in (B.16) is on similar lines with the proof of Assumption 3.7$.(i)$, it is also omitted for brevity. It remains to show the second inequality in (B.16). Using successively Young’s inequality, Jensen inequality, (A), (B.12) and the fact that $Z=:\tilde{Z}\in\mathbb{H}_{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}^{4}$ (see the proof of Proposition 3.5) we have

$$\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\|Z_{t}^{F,\intercal}D_{t}(\eta_{t})\|^{2}\mathrm{d}t\Big]$$

$$\leq\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}^{(-1)}}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\|Z_{t}^{F}\|^{4}\mathrm{d}t\Big]+\mathbb{E}\big[H_{T}^{2}\big]+T\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_{0}^{T}\|D_{t}(\eta_{t})\|^{8}\mathrm{d}t\Big]<\infty.$$

∎