Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have a question concerning the paper http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228648002_No_arbitrage_and_the_growth_optimal_portfolio, Lemma 6.3, which is based on http://www.math.ethz.ch/~mschweiz/Files/martdens.pdf Prop. 5. Actually this proposition does not state what is used, but I think the following is done:

Say, we have a local Martingale $M$, a predictable process $\lambda$, a local martingale $L$ which is orthogonal to $M$ in the sense that $ML$ is a local martingale such that

$$ Z=1-\int Z \lambda dM+L $$

is a strictly positive local martingale. Can you always rewrite $Z$ to $Z=\mathcal{E}(-\lambda\cdot M + \tilde{L})$ with $d\tilde{L}_t=\frac{1}{Z_{t-}}dL_t$ so $\tilde{L}$ is still orthogonal to $M$?

One gets

$$ d(M\tilde{L})=\tilde{L}dM+\frac{M}{Z}dL+\frac{1}{Z}d[M,L] $$

Now, if $\tilde{L}$, $\frac{M}{Z}$ and $\frac{1}{Z}$ are well behaved, e.g. locally bounded everything is fine. Otherwise the integrals might not be local martingales. But that is not obvious, is it? I've seen the same trick a couple of times, always without going into details.

Thank you!

share|improve this question
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.