A Clark-Ocone type formula via Ito calculus and its application to finance
Takuji Arai, Ryoichi Suzuki

TL;DR
This paper extends the Clark-Ocone formula using Ito calculus to represent martingales related to Levy processes, enabling explicit strategies for digital options in finance without relying on Malliavin differentiability.
Contribution
It introduces a new approach to martingale representation for non-Malliavin differentiable variables using Ito's formula, applied to financial derivatives.
Findings
Explicit martingale representation for Levy process functionals.
Representation of risk-minimizing strategies for digital options.
Analysis of Malliavin differentiability of indicator functions.
Abstract
An explicit martingale representation for random variables described as a functional of a Levy process will be given. The Clark-Ocone theorem shows that integrands appeared in a martingale representation are given by conditional expectations of Malliavin derivatives. Our goal is to extend it to random variables which are not Malliavin differentiable. To this end, we make use of Ito's formula, instead of Malliavin calculus. As an application to mathematical finance, we shall give an explicit representation of locally risk-minimizing strategy of digital options for exponential Levy models. Since the payoff of digital options is described by an indicator function, we also discuss the Malliavin differentiability of indicator functions with respect to Levy processes.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsStochastic processes and financial applications · Complex Systems and Time Series Analysis · Economic theories and models
A Clark-Ocone type formula via Itô calculus and its application to finance
Takuji Arai111Department of Economics, Keio University, 2-15-45 Mita, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 108-8345, Japan ([email protected]) and Ryoichi Suzuki222Department of Mathematics, Keio University, 3-14-1 Hiyoshi, Kohoku-ku, Yokohama, 223-8522, Japan ([email protected])
Abstract
An explicit martingale representation for random variables described as a functional of a Lévy process will be given. The Clark-Ocone theorem shows that integrands appeared in a martingale representation are given by conditional expectations of Malliavin derivatives. Our goal is to extend it to random variables which are not Malliavin differentiable. To this end, we make use of Itô’s formula, instead of Malliavin calculus. As an application to mathematical finance, we shall give an explicit representation of locally risk-minimizing strategy of digital options for exponential Lévy models. Since the payoff of digital options is described by an indicator function, we also discuss the Malliavin differentiability of indicator functions with respect to Lévy processes.
MSC codes: 60G51, 91G20, 60H07.
Keywords: Lévy processes, Martingale representation theorem, Local risk-minimization, Digital options, Malliavin calculus.
1 Introduction
An explicit martingale representation for random variables described as a functional of a Lévy process will be given by using Itô’s formula, instead of Malliavin calculus. As an application to mathematical finance, we provide a representation of locally risk-minimizing (LRM) strategy of digital options for exponential Lévy models.
Consider a square integrable -dimensional Lévy process expressed as
[TABLE]
for , where , , and . Here, is a -dimensional standard Brownian motion, is a Poisson random measure; and is the compensated measure of , that is, it is represented as
[TABLE]
where is the Lévy measure of satisfying . For a time horizon and a measurable function such that is square integrable, the martingale representation theorem implies that
[TABLE]
for some predictable processes and . The Clark-Ocone theorem (see, e.g., Theorem 3.5.2 of Delong [6]) says that and are described as conditional expectations of Malliavin derivatives of if is Malliavin differentiable, that is, belongs to the space defined in Section 2.2 of [6]. On the other hand, when is not Malliavin differentiable, e.g., with , there is no way to calculate and explicitly. In this paper, we aim to give concrete representations of and by using Itô’s formula, instead of Malliavin calculus, under some conditions which have nothing to do with the Malliavin differentiability of . To this end, regarding the conditional expectation as a function on , denoted by , we apply Itô’s formula to . As a result, we obtain a Clark-Ocone type formula (1.2) in which and are given as a partial derivative and a difference of , respectively.
Using the obtained Clark-Ocone type formula, we shall provide a representation of LRM strategy of digital options for exponential Lévy models in the second part of this paper. Remark that LRM strategy is a well-known quadratic hedging method, which has been studied very well for about three decades, for contingent claims in incomplete markets. Consider a financial market composed of one risk-free asset with interest rate and one risky asset whose fluctuation is described by the following exponential Lévy process :
[TABLE]
for . Then, the payoff of digital options is expressed as with . Note that we need to assume some conditions on in order to use our Clark-Ocone type formula. Considering three Lévy processes: Merton jump diffusion, variance gamma (VG) and normal inverse Gaussian (NIG) processes, as examples of representative Lévy processes frequently appeared in mathematical finance, Merton jump diffusion and NIG processes satisfy our conditions, but VG processes do not. However, it is known that for if and such as VG processes. Thus, when is a VG process, a representation of LRM strategy of digital options are given from Example 3.9 of Arai and Suzuki [3], which has provided a general expression of LRM strategies for exponential Lévy models by means of Malliavin calculus. On the other hand, as is well-known, whenever such as Merton jump diffusion processes. Moreover, we shall show in the last part of this paper that holds if and such as NIG processes. In summary, our result in the second part provides the only way to calculate LRM strategy of digital options for the case where is a Merton jump diffusion process or an NIG process.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: A Clark-Ocone type formula for is shown in Section 2. In Section 2.4, explicit martingale representations for various functions will be introduced. Section 3 is devoted to LRM strategy of digital options. In the last subsection, we discuss the Malliavin differentiability of indicator functions with respect to Lévy processes.
2 Clark-Ocone type formula
For a Lévy process described by (1.1) and a measurable function , we aim at providing a Clark-Ocone type formula for using Itô’s formula.
2.1 Preparations
Before stating our main theorem, we need some preparations. Denoting the characteristic function of by for , we have and denote
[TABLE]
by the Lévy-Khintchine formula (see, e.g., (8.8) in Sato [10]). Now, we give assumptions on as follows:
Assumption 2.1**.**
- (1)
There exists such that . 2. (2)
For any with and any , there exists an integrable function on such that
[TABLE]
for , where .
Remark 2.2**.**
By Proposition 3.14 of Cont and Tankov [5], the above condition (1) is equivalent to the following two conditions:
- (1)′
There exists such that for any ,
- (1)′′
There exists such that .
On the other hand, under (2), has a bounded continuous density from Proposition 2.5(xii) of [10].
We introduce three examples of Lévy processes, which are frequently appeared in literature for mathematical finance, and discuss whether or not they satisfy Assumption 2.1.
Example 2.3** (Merton jump diffusion processes).**
A Lévy process described by (1.1) is called a Merton jump diffusion process, if and
[TABLE]
where , and . In this case, consists of a Brownian component and compound Poisson jumps with intensity . Note that jump sizes are distributed normally with mean and variance , and is finite, that is, . Obviously, satisfies Assumption 2.1 (1) for any . For any fixed , is bounded on , which implies
[TABLE]
for some constant . Thus, (2) is also satisfied.
Example 2.4** (Variance gamma processes).**
When and
[TABLE]
with , is called a variance gamma (VG) process. For any , satisfies Assumption 2.1 (1), but (2) is not satisfied in general, since we have
[TABLE]
for some constant from the view of Proposition 4.7 in Arai et al. [2].
Example 2.5** (Normal inverse Gaussian processes).**
* is called a normal inverse Gaussian (NIG) process, if and*
[TABLE]
where , , , and is the modified Bessel function of the second kind with parameter . For more details on the function , see Appendix A of [5]. Since
[TABLE]
when , Assumption 2.1 (1) is satisfied for . In addition, taking arbitrarily, we can find a constant such that
[TABLE]
for any from the view of Section 5.3.8 of Schoutens [11]. As a result, (2) also holds.
Henceforth, we fix satisfying Assumption 2.1 (1) arbitrarily. Here we impose assumptions related to the function additionally as follows:
Assumption 2.6**.**
- (1)
. 2. (2)
* is an function with finite variation on .*
2.2 Main theorem
The following is a Clark-Ocone type formula for . Its proof is postponed until the next subsection.
Theorem 2.7**.**
Under Assumptions 2.1 and 2.6, is represented as
[TABLE]
where the function is defined as
[TABLE]
for .
Remark 2.8**.**
As mentioned in Introduction, the Clark-Ocone theorem (see, e.g., Theorem 3.5.2 of [6]) gives the same type of representation as (2.7):
[TABLE]
when . Note that the Malliavin derivative operator for and the space are defined in Section 2.2 of [6]. For example, Proposition 2.6.4 of [6] implies that if is Lipschitz continuous and has a continuous density. Thus, taking the absolute value function as , we have
[TABLE]
where is an independent copy of . This expression can be derived from not only the Clark-Ocone theorem, but also Theorem 2.7 as far as Assumption 2.1 is satisfied. Remark that we need to decompose into and in order to get the above expression via Theorem 2.7. On the other hand, when , the Clark-Ocone theorem is not available, but Theorem 2.7 is still available as far as Assumptions 2.1 and 2.6 are satisfied. Some examples of such cases will be discussed in Section 2.4 below.
From (2.3) and (2.3) appeared in Section 2.3 below, we can rewrite (2.7) as follows:
Corollary 2.9**.**
Under Assumptions 2.1 and 2.6, is represented as
[TABLE]
where the function for is defined as
[TABLE]
Remark 2.10**.**
Theorem 14.9 of Di Nunno et al. [7] introduced the same result as Corollary 2.9 for pure jump Lévy processes, that is, the case of , but it has not been generalized to the case of as far as we know. (Probably this generalization is possible by using Theorem 14.15 of [7].) Note that their argument is based on the Lévy-Wick calculus, much different from our approach. The result of Corollary 2.9 is very useful to develop a numerical scheme based on fast Fourier transform.
2.3 Proof of Theorem 2.7
First of all, we show . Fix and arbitrarily. Remark that defined in (2.3) is represented as
[TABLE]
by Proposition 2 in Tankov [16], where is defined in (2.4). Assumption 2.6 (2) ensures that there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
which implies that, for any ,
[TABLE]
for some integrable function by (2.1) and Assumption 2.1 (2). Hence, Theorem 2.27 b in Folland [8] provides that exists on , and
[TABLE]
holds. Next, we focus on and . Note that
[TABLE]
Thus, for any , Assumption 2.1 (2), together with (2.5), implies that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
are integrable functions of on . Therefore, we obtain that by Theorem 2.27 in [8].
Secondly we show that
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Noting that
[TABLE]
holds for any , we have
[TABLE]
Hence, (2.3) holds from (2.3) and (2.3)–(2.3).
Finally, since , Itô’s formula (see, e.g., Theorem 9.4 in [7]) is available. Hence, (2.3) implies
[TABLE]
from which Theorem 2.7 follows.
2.4 Examples
Here we illustrate martingale representations for various examples of by using Theorem 2.7 and Corollary 2.9.
Example 2.11** (Polynomial functions of ).**
When is a polynomial function, it does not have the Lipschitz continuity basically, but we can see that under Assumption 2.1 by using Proposition 2.5 of Suzuki [15]. Thus, we can obtain the following representation by not only Theorem 2.7 but also the Clark-Ocone theorem:
[TABLE]
where is an independent copy of .
Example 2.12** ().**
We introduce a martingale representation of by using Theorem 2.7 or Corollary 2.9. Note that the Clark-Ocone theorem is not available in this case, since we cannot expect that when . Suppose that satisfies Assumption 2.1. We have then , which ensures Assumption 2.6 (1). Since does not satisfy Assumption 2.6 (2) for any , we decompose it into and . For functions and , denoting
[TABLE]
we have and denote
[TABLE]
for . Thus, we have
[TABLE]
which implies
[TABLE]
by Theorem 2.7 or Corollary 2.9. Therefore, since , we have
[TABLE]
where \displaystyle{{\widehat{g}}_{D}(x,z):=\int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{izy}\Big{(}Df_{+}(x+y)+Df_{-}(x+y)\Big{)}dy}. Remark that we cannot rewrite the second term of the above (2.12) into the conditional expectation
[TABLE]
since are not finite variation for any .
Example 2.13** ().**
We take an indicator function as , that is, for . As seen in Section 3.4, when or . Here, we illustrate a martingale representation of by using Theorem 2.7. Suppose that satisfies Assumption 2.1. On the other hand, Assumption 2.6 is automatically satisfied. Denoting
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
where is the density function of , and
[TABLE]
Note that Assumption 2.1 (2) ensures the existence of . Theorem 2.7 implies then the following martingale representation:
[TABLE]
Example 2.14** ().**
We consider the case where . Assume that Assumption 2.1 holds for some . Assumption 2.6 is then automatically satisfied. Defining , we have
[TABLE]
where is the density function of . Thus, we obtain
[TABLE]
As a result, Theorem 2.7 provides
[TABLE]
3 Local risk minimization for digital options
The main goal of this section is to provide a representation of LRM strategy of digital options for exponential Lévy models described as (1.3) by using Theorem 2.7. Moreover, we discuss the Malliavin differentiability of in the last part of this section.
3.1 Preparations
We consider a financial market with maturity , which is composed of one risk-free asset with interest rate and one risky asset. The risky asset price at time is described as
[TABLE]
where is a Lévy process given by (1.1). Moreover, we denote by the discounted asset price process, that is, , which is also given as a solution to the following stochastic differential equation:
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Next, we give a definition of LRM strategy. The following definition is a simplified version based on Theorem 1.6 of Schweizer [13], since the original one introduced by Schweizer [12] and [13] is rather complicated. Note that [13] treated the problem under the assumption that . For the case where , see, e.g., Biagini and Cretarola [4].
Definition 3.1**.**
- (1)
A strategy is defined as a pair , where is a predictable process satisfying
[TABLE]
and is an adapted process such that the discounted value of at time , defined as is a right continuous process with for every . Note that and represent the amount of units of the risky and the risk-free assets respectively which an investor holds at time . 2. (2)
For a strategy , a process defined by
[TABLE]
for is called the discounted cost process of . A strategy is said to be self-financing if is a constant. 3. (3)
Let be a square integrable random variable representing the payoff of a contingent claim at the maturity . A strategy is called locally risk-minimizing (LRM) strategy for , if it replicates , that is, it satisfies , and is a uniformly integrable martingale, where is the martingale part of .
Roughly speaking, a strategy , which is not necessarily self-financing, is called LRM strategy for , if it is the replicating strategy minimizing a risk caused by in the -sense among all replicating strategies. Proposition 5.2 of [13] provides that, under the so-called structure condition (SC), an LRM strategy for exists if and only if () admits a Föllmer-Schweizer decomposition, that is, has the following decomposition
[TABLE]
where , is a predictable process satisfying (3.2) and is a square-integrable martingale orthogonal to with . Moreover, is given by
[TABLE]
As a result, it suffices to obtain a representation of or, equivalently, in order to get . Thus, we identify with in this paper.
To discuss LRM strategy, we need to consider minimal martingale measure (MMM), denoted by . It is defined as an equivalent martingale measure under which any square-integrable -martingale orthogonal to remains a martingale. Thus, appeared in (3.3) is characterized as a martingale not only under but also under , and orthogonal to , that is, . The density of is given as
[TABLE]
where . Note that is finite and exists under Assumption 3.2 below. Moreover, by the Girsanov theorem,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
are a -Brownian motion and the compensated Poisson random measure of under , respectively. We can then rewrite (3.1) as
[TABLE]
Remark that is a Lévy process even under , and the Lévy measure under is given as
[TABLE]
3.2 Main theorem
We shall show a representation of LRM strategy for digital options by using Theorem 2.7 under . Thus, we need to rewrite Assumption 2.1 into one under . Note that, as mentioned in Example 2.13, Assumption 2.6 is automatically satisfied.
Assumption 3.2**.**
- (1)
, which implies that holds for some . Such an is fixed throughout this section. 2. (2)
. 3. (3)
For any , there exists an integrable function on such that
[TABLE]
for , where for .
Note that Assumption 3.2 (1) ensures the structure condition (SC); and MMM exists as an equivalent probability measure to by the above (2). Moreover, (3) is corresponding to Assumption 2.1 (2), and ensures that has a bounded continuous density under , denoted by .
Remark 3.3**.**
By a similar argument with Example 2.3, Merton jump diffusion processes satisfy Assumption 3.2 without any parameter restriction. As for NIG processes, taking , and , we can see that Assumption 3.2 is satisfied from the view of Arai et al. [1]. On the other hand, VG processes violate Assumption 3.2 by a similar argument with Example 2.4. For more details on this matter, see Remark 3.5 below. Note that the formulations of and are given in [2] for Merton jump diffusion processes and VG processes, and in [1] for NIG processes, respectively.
Theorem 3.4**.**
Under Assumption 3.2, the LRM strategy for the digital option with is given by
[TABLE]
for . Here
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where is an independent copy of .
Remark 3.5**.**
By Example 3.9 of [3], we can obtain the same result as Theorem 3.4 by using Malliavin calculus for Lévy processes if , where is defined in Section 2.2 of [6]. Indeed, as shown in Section 4.2 of Geiss et al. [9], if , and has a bounded density, then we have , in other words, . For example, VG processes satisfy all of these conditions, although they do not satisfy Assumption 3.2 as stated in Remark 3.3. In other words, when is a VG process, Theorem 3.4 is not available, but we can obtain the same result via Malliavin calculus. The Malliavin differentiability of indicator functions will be discussed in Section 3.4 below.
3.3 Proof of Theorem 3.4
Denoting by the right hand side of (3.6), and defining a -martingale with as
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
It is enough to show that (3.7) is the Föllmer-Schweizer decomposition of , the discounted value of the payoff function. To this end, we see that is a -martingale orthogonal to .
Defining a function on as
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
by Assumption 3.2 and Example 2.13. Thus, we have
[TABLE]
To show that is a -martingale, we calculate the following:
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for . Therefore, (3.3), together with (3.4) and (3.5), implies that
[TABLE]
from which is a -martingale.
Next, we see that is orthogonal to . To this end, we have only to see . Noting that is given as
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
Consequently, (3.7) is the Föllmer-Schweizer decomposition of , which implies that . This complete the proof of Theorem 3.4.
3.4 Malliavin differentiability of indicator functions
As seen in Remark 3.5, holds true for any when is a VG process. That is, we can obtain the same result as Theorem 3.4 for VG processes by using Example 3.9 of [3]. On the other hand, it is known that whenever . In other words, if includes a Brownian component such as Merton jump diffusion processes, we need to use Theorem 3.4 to compute in (3.6). In addition, as seen in Proposition 3.6 below, even if , we have as long as such as NIG processes. As a result, we can say that Theorem 3.4 provides the only way to calculate LRM strategy of digital options for Merton jump diffusion and NIG processes.
Proposition 3.6**.**
Let be a pure jump Lévy process with Lévy measure satisfying . In addition, suppose that has a bounded continuous density function . Then, we have for all with .
Proof.
Fix with arbitrarily. Note that we can find such that for any . From the view of Proposition 5.4 of Solé et al. [14], it suffices to show that
[TABLE]
where is the increment quotient operator defined in Section 5.1 of [14]. Thus, we have
[TABLE]
since for any interval including [math] as an interior point.
Acknowledgments
Takuji Arai gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the MEXT Grant in Aid for Scientific Research (C) No.18K03422.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] T. Arai, Y. Imai, R. Nakashima, Numerical analysis on quadratic hedging strategies for normal inverse Gaussian models, in: S. Kusuoka, T. Maruyama (Eds.), Advances in Mathematical Economics, Springer, Singapore, 2018, pp. 1–24.
- 2[2] T. Arai, Y. Imai, R. Suzuki, Numerical analysis on local risk-minimization for exponential Lévy models, Int. J. Theor. Appl. Finance 19 (02) (2016) 1650008, https://doi.org/10.1142/S 0219024916500084 .
- 3[3] T. Arai, R. Suzuki, Local risk-minimization for Lévy markets, Int. J. Financ. Eng. 2 (02) (2015) 1550015, https://doi.org/10.1142/S 2424786315500152 .
- 4[4] F. Biagini, A. Cretarola, Local risk-minimization for defaultable claims with recovery process, A. Appl. Math. Optim. 65 (3) (2012) 293–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s 00245-011-9155-8 .
- 5[5] R. Cont, P. Tankov, Financial Modeling with Jump Process, Chapman & Hall, London, 2004.
- 6[6] Ł. Delong, Backward Stochastic Differential Equations with Jumps and their Actuarial and Financial Applications, Springer, London, 2013.
- 7[7] G. Di Nunno, B. Øksendal and F. Proske, Malliavin Calculus for Lévy Processes with Applications to Finance, Springer, Berlin, 2009.
- 8[8] G.B. Folland, Real Analysis: Modern Techniques and Their Applications, 2nd ed., Wiley, Hoboken, 1999.
