Multivariate Shortfall Risk Allocation Yannick Armentia,1,∗,†,‡ , Stéphane Crépeya,2,∗,‡,§ , Samuel Drapeaub,3,§ , Antonis Papapantoleonc,4,‡,§
arXiv:1507.05351v1 [q-fin.RM] 19 Jul 2015
July 23, 2015 A BSTRACT The ongoing concern about systemic risk since the outburst of the global financial crisis has highlighted the need for risk measures at the level of sets of interconnected financial components, such as portfolios, institutions or members of clearing houses. The two main issues in systemic risk are the computation of an overall reserve level and its allocation to the different components of the system according to their importance. We develop here a pragmatic approach to systemic risk measurement and allocation based on multivariate shortfall risk measures, where acceptable allocations are first computed and then aggregated so as to minimize costs. We emphasize the analysis of the risk allocation and of its sensitivity as an indicator of the systemic risk. Moreover, we provide efficient numerical schemes to assess the risk allocation in high dimensions. K EYWORDS : Systemic risk, risk allocation, multivariate shortfall risk, sensitivities, numerical methods.
AUTHORS I NFO a
Université d’Evry, 23 Boulevard de France, 91037 Evry, France Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 211 Huaihai Road, Shanghai, P.R. 200030 China c Technical University Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin, Germany 1
[email protected] 2
[email protected] 3
[email protected] 4
[email protected] b
∗
Financial support from the Chair ‘Markets in Transition’ under the aegis of the Louis Bachelier laboratory, a joint initiative of École Polytechnique, Université d’Évry Val d’Essonne and Fédération Bancaire Française. † Financial support from LCH.Clearnet Paris. ‡ Financial support from the Europlace Institute of Finance, project ‘Post-crisis models for interest rate markets’. § Financial support from the PROCOPE project ‘Financial markets in transition: mathematical models and challenges’.
PAPER I NFO ArXiv ePrint: some.number
1. Introduction The ongoing concern about systemic risk since the onset of the global financial crisis has prompted intensive research on the design and properties of multivariate risk measures. In this paper we study the risk assessment for financial systems with interconnected components or risk factors, focusing on two major aspects, namely: • The quantification of a monetary risk measure corresponding to an overall reserve of liquidity for the whole system to overcome unexpected stress or default scenarios; • The allocation of this overall amount between the different risk factors in order to reflect the systemic risk of each component. We aim at designing a theoretically sound and numerically tractable class of systemic risk measures, and studying the impact of the dependence structure of the system on the risk allocation as well as the sensitivity of this allocation with respect to exogenous shocks. Review of the Literature: Monetary risk measures have been the subject of an extensive literature since the seminal paper of Artzner et al. [4], which was further extended by Föllmer and Schied [15] and Frittelli and Rosazza Gianin [16], among others. The corresponding risk measures, including expected shortfall by Artzner et al. [4], expected loss by Föllmer and Schied [15] or optimized certainty equivalents by Ben-Tal and Teboulle [5], can be applied in a multivariate framework that models the dependence of
1
several financial risk factors. Multivariate market data-based risk measures include the marginal expected shortfall of Acharya et al. [1], the systemic risk measure of Acharya et al. [2] and Brownlees and Engle [7] and the delta conditional value-at-risk of Adrian and Brunnermeier [3]. In parallel, theoretical economical and mathematical considerations have led to multivalued and set-valued risk measures, in static or even dynamic setup; see for instance Cascos and Molchanov [9], Hamel et al. [18] and Jouini et al. [20]. More recently, the risk management of financial institutions raised concerns about the allocation of the overall risk among the different components of a financial system. A bank, for instance, for real time monitoring purposes, wants to channel to each trading desk a cost reflecting its responsibility in the overall capital requirement of the bank. A central clearing counterparty — CCP for short, also known as a clearinghouse — is interested in quantifying the size of the so-called default fund and allocating it in a meaningful way among the different clearing members. On a macroeconomic level, regulators are thinking of asking financial institutions an amount of capital reflecting their systemic importance. The aforementioned articles address the allocation problem only indirectly, through the sensitivity of an overall system component with respect to the different risk factors. The so-called Euler rule allocates the total amount of risk according to the marginal impact of each risk factor. However, one limitation of the Euler rule is that the risk allocation does not add up to the total risk, unless the univariate risk measure that is used in the first place is sub-additive. In other words, the Euler rule does not automatically fulfill the so-called full allocation property. In recent work, Brunnemeier and Cheridito [8] address systematically the question of allocation of systemic risk with regard to four economic properties: • Full allocation: the sum of the components of the risk allocation is equal to the overall risk measure; • Riskless allocation: if a risk factor is riskless, the corresponding component of the risk allocation is equal to it; • Causal responsibility: any system component bears the entire additional costs of any additional risk that it takes; • Additivity: in case of a merge between two risk factors, the corresponding components of the risk allocation just add up together. More specifically, they propose a framework where an overall capital requirement is first computed by means of utility indifference methods and then allocated according to a rule such that the above four properties are fulfilled, at least in first order approximation. As far as dependence is concerned, whether the last three properties should hold is debatable. One may argue that each system component is not only responsible for its own risk taking but also for its relative exposure to other components. This is also what turns out from the present study, see Section 4.3. Contribution and Outline of the Paper: Our approach addresses simultaneously the design of an overall risk measure regarding a financial system of interconnected components and the allocation of this risk measure among the different risk factors; the emphasis lies on risk allocation. In contrast to [8], we first allocate the monetary risk along the different risk factors and then aggregate the components of the risk allocation in order to obtain the overall capital requirement. In two recent papers, Feinstein et al. [14] and Biagini et al. [6], develop approaches in similar spirit, covering allocation first followed by aggregation in general frameworks with different aggregation procedures. They conduct systematic studies of the properties of the resulting risk assessment in terms of set valued functions, diversification and monotonicity with respect to the risk factors and aggregations rules. Sharing with these references
2
the “allocate first, aggregate then” perspective, our approach is more restricted in the sense that we focus on multivariate expected shortfall as a risk measure. However, as opposed to the above references, we conduct a detailed study of the resulting allocation in terms of existence, uniqueness and sensitivities. In fact, in our view, the risk allocation and its properties provide a kind of “cartography” of the systemic risk inherent in the dependence structure of an interconnected system of risk factors. It turns out that a special care has to be given to the constraints in order to stress the systemic risk. In particular, to loss functions that emphasizes the dependence structure of the system, see Proposition 3.8. In addition, we present efficient numerical schemes for the computation of those risk measures and the respective allocations, combining Fourier transform methods along the lines of the univariate case of Drapeau et al. [12] with the Chebyshev interpolation method for polynomial option pricing recently introduced in Gaß et al. [17]. The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the class of systemic loss functions, acceptance sets and risk measures that we use in this work. Section 3 establishes the existence and uniqueness of a risk allocation. Section 4 focuses on sensitivities. In Section 5, the algorithmic aspects of the problem are discussed and numerical results are presented. Appendices A and B gather classical facts from convex optimization and results on multivariate Orlicz spaces.
1.1. Basic Notation Let xk denote the generic coordinate of a vector x ∈ Rd . By > we denote the lattice order on Rd , that is, x > y if and only if xk ≥ yk for every 1 ≤ k ≤ d. We denote by k·k the Euclidean norm and by ± , ∧, ∨, |·| the lattice operations on Rd . For x, y ∈ Rd , we write x > y for xk > yk componentwise, P x · y = xk yk , xy = (x1 y1 , . . . , xd yd ) and x/y = (x1 /y1 , . . . , xd /yd ). Let (Ω, F, P ) denote an atomless probability space, where P represents the objective probability measure, with related expectation denoted by E. We denote by L0 (Rd ) the space of F-measurable d-variate random variables on this space. The space L0 (Rd ) inherits the lattice structure of Rd , hence we can use the above notation in a P -almost sure sense. For instance, for X, Y ∈ L0 (Rd ), we say that X > Y or X > Y if P [X > Y ] = 1 or P [X > Y ] = 1, respectively. Since we mainly deal with multivariate functions or random variables, to simplify notation we drop the reference to Rd in L0 (Rd ), writing simply L0 unless a particular dimension is meant, mainly for L0 (R) in the case of univariate random variables.
2. Systemic Risk Measures Let X = (X1 , . . . , Xd ) ∈ L0 be a random vector of financial losses, that is, negative values of Xk represent actual profits. We want to determine an overall monetary measure R(X) of the risk of X as well as a sound risk allocation RAk (X), k = 1, . . . , d, of R(X). We consider a flexible class of risk measures defined by means of loss functions and sets of acceptable monetary allocations. This allows us to discuss in detail the properties of the resulting risk allocation as an indicator of systemic risk. Inspired by the expected shortfall risk measure introduced in [15] in the univariate case, we start with a loss function ` defined on Rd , used to measure the expected loss E[`(X)] of the financial loss vector X. Definition 2.1. A function ` : Rd → (−∞, ∞] is called a loss function if (A1) ` is increasing, that is, `(x) ≥ `(y) if x > y; (A2) ` is convex, lower semi-continuous and satisfies `(x0 ) < ∞ for some x0 > 0; P (A3) `(0) = 0 and `(x) ≥ xk on Rd .
3
P P A risk neutral assessment of the losses corresponds to E[ Xk ] = E[Xk ]. Hence, (A3) expresses a form of risk aversion, whereby the loss function puts more weight on high losses than a risk neutral evaluation. As for (A1) and (A2), they express the respective normative facts about risk that “the more losses, the riskier” and “diversification should not increase risk”; see Drapeau and Kupper [11] for related discussions. Example 2.2. Let h : R → (−∞, ∞] be a one-dimensional loss function, that is, a convex, increasing, lower semi-continuous function such that h(0) = 0 and h(x) ≥ x for every x ∈ R. The following are classical examples of loss functions1 h(x) = βx+ , β > 1,
or
h(x) = x + (x+ )2 /2,
or
h(x) = ex − 1.
Using these as building blocks, we obtain the following classes of multivariate loss functions: P (C1) `(x) = h( xk ); P (C2) `(x) = h(xk ); P P (C3) `(x) = αh( xk ) + (1 − α) h(xk ), where 0 ≤ α ≤ 1. In latter sections we will consider the following specific loss function: P P P + + 2 (C4) `(x) = xk + 21 (x+ j 0 if E [` (X − m)] ≤ c. We denote by A(X) := m ∈ Rd : E [` (X − m)] ≤ c the corresponding set of acceptable monetary allocations. Example 2.4. In a centrally cleared trading setup, two layers of margins have to be posted as reserves by the clearing members. In a first step, each clearing member k is required to post a so-called initial margin mk in order to make the “typical” risk of the clearinghouse acceptable. For this step, the methodology of this paper can be applied to X defined as the vector of the losses-and-profits of the clearing members over the time horizon of the liquidation procedure, usually estimated to be a few days. A decoupled loss function such as (C2) can be in line with the purpose and use of initial margins since it emphasises the risk on the level of marginals, see Proposition 3.8. In addition, on top of its initial margin, each clearing member k is required to contribute a default fund margin m0k in order to make the risk of the clearinghouse acceptable with respect to a stressed risk 1 The
second one, related to mean-variance penalization of the losses, is smoother than the first one, whilst being less explosive than the third one, hence yielding a good compromise for optimization routines.
4
measure accounting for “extreme and systemic risk”. As opposed to initial margins, the default fund is a pooled resource of the clearinghouse, in the sense that the default fund contribution of a given member can be used by the clearinghouse not only in case the liquidation of this member requires it, but also in case the liquidation of another member requires it. For the determination of the default fund contributions in the second step, the methodology of this paper can be applied again, to the vector X 0 defined as the vector of losses-and-profits of the clearing members in excess over their respective initial margins. Accordingly, a coupled loss function such as (C3) or (C4) with α > 0 would be consistent with the purpose and use of default fund contributions, see Section 4. ♦ The next proposition gathers the main properties of the sets of acceptable monetary allocations. The convexity property in (i) means that, for any two given acceptable monetary allocations, any resulting diversified monetary allocation is also acceptable. If a monetary allocation is acceptable, then any greater amount of money should also be acceptable, which is the monotonicity property in (i). As for (ii), it says that, if X is less risky than Y, then any monetary allocation that hedges X also hedges Y . Further, (iii) means that a convex combination of allocations acceptable in two markets is still acceptable in the diversified market. In particular, the acceptability concept pushes towards a greater diversification among the different risk factors. Finally, (iv) means that acceptable positions translate with cash in the sense of scalar monetary risk measures à la [4], [15], or [16]. As an immediate consequence of these properties, X 7→ A(X) defines a monetary set-valued risk measure in the sense of Hamel et al. [18], that is, a set-valued map A from Mθ into the set of monotone, closed and convex subsets of Rd . Proposition 2.5. For any X, Y ∈ Mθ , the following holds (i) A(X) is convex, monotone and closed; (ii) A(X) ⊇ A(Y ) whenever X 6 Y ; (iii) A(αX + (1 − α)Y ) ⊇ αA(X) + (1 − α)A(Y ), for any α ∈ (0, 1); (iv) A(X + m) = A(X) + m, for any m ∈ Rd ; (v) ∅ = 6 A(X) 6= Rd . Proof. Since ` is convex, increasing and lower semi-continuous, it follows that (m, X) 7→ E[`(X − m)] is convex and lower semi-continuous, decreasing in m and increasing in X. This implies the properties (i) through (iii) by Definition 2.3 for A(X). Regarding (iv), a change of variables yields A(X + m) = n ∈ Rd : E [` (X + m − n) ≤ c] = n + m ∈ Rd : E [` (X − n)] ≤ c = A(X) + m. As for (v), on the one hand, `(X − m) & `(−∞) < c as m → ∞, component-wise. Since X ∈ Mθ it follows that `(X) ∈ L1 , thus monotone convergence yields E[`(X − m)] & l(−∞) < c and in turn the existence of m ∈ Rd such that E[`(X − m)] ≤ c, showing that A(X) 6= ∅. On the other hand, ` P P P being increasing and such that `(x) ≥ xk , hence `(X − m) ≥ Xk − mk % ∞ as m → −∞, component wise. Hence, monotone convergence yields E[`(X − m)] % ∞ > c, therefore there exists m ∈ Rd such that E[`(X − m)] > c, that is, m 6∈ A(X). Figure 1 shows different sets of acceptable monetary allocations for a bivariate normal distribution with different correlation coefficients. The location and shape of these sets change with the correlation: the higher the correlation, the more costly the acceptable monetary allocations, as expected in terms of systemic risk. As will be discussed in Sections 3 and 4, this is not always immediate and this systemic
5
Figure 1: Acceptance set A(X) corresponding to the case study of Section 4.2 for different correlations. feature depends on the specification of the loss function. The present plot stems from a loss function that emphasises the interdependence structure and is discussed in Section 4.2. P Given an acceptable monetary allocation m ∈ A(X), its aggregated cost is mk . The smaller the cost, the better, which motivates the following definition of the risk measure. Definition 2.6. The multivariate shortfall risk of X ∈ Mθ is nX o nX o R(X) := inf mk : m ∈ A(X) = inf mk : E [` (X − m)] ≤ c . Remark 2.7. The resulting risk assessment method can be viewed as a non-cooperative game between the different system participants, whereby each participant tries to minimize its contribution to the overall reserve of liquidity, within the constraints provided by the threshold c and the loss function `. Example 2.8. Considering again a central clearinghouse, see Example 2.4, any acceptable allocation m ∈ A(X) yields a corresponding value for the aggregated initial margins or for the default fund. Clearinghouses are in competition with each other, hence they search for the cheapest acceptable allocation to require from the clearing members. ♦ When d = 1, the above definition corresponds exactly to the expected shortfall risk measure in [15], of which this paper can be viewed as a multivariate extension. Our next result, which uses the concepts and notation of Appendix B, shows that all the classical properties of the expected shortfall risk measure, including its dual representation, can be extended to the multivariate case. Theorem 2.9. The function R(X) = inf
nX
o mk : m ∈ A(X) ,
6
X ∈ Mθ ,
is real valued, convex, monotone and translation invariant2 . In particular, it is continuous, and subdifferentiable. It admits the dual representation R(X) = max {EQ [X] − α(Q)} , Q∈Qθ∗
X ∈ Mθ ,
(2.1)
where Qθ∗ is the set of measures Q on the product space Ω×{1, . . . , d} with density Y in Lθ∗ normalized to d, in the sense that E[1 · dQ/dP ] = d and where the penalty function is given by 1 dQ α(Q) = inf c + E `∗ λ , Q ∈ Qθ∗ . (2.2) λ>0 λ dP Proof. From Proposition 2.5 (v), we have A(X) 6= ∅ and in turn R(X) < ∞. If R(X) = −∞ for some P n X ∈ Mθ , then there exists a sequence (mn ) ⊆ A(X) such that mk → −∞, in contradiction with P P n n ∞ > c ≥ E[`(X − m )] ≥ E[ Xk ] − mk . Hence, R(X) > −∞. Monotonicity, convexity and translation invariance readily follow from Proposition 2.5 (ii), (iii) and (iv), respectively. In particular, R is a convex, real-valued and increasing functional on the Banach lattice Mθ . Hence, by [10, Theorem 4.2], R is continuous and sub-differentiable. Therefore, the results recalled in Appendix B and the FenchelMoreau theorem imply R(X) =
sup
{E [X · Y ] − R∗ (Y )} =
{Y ∈Lθ∗ }
max {E [X · Y ] − R∗ (Y )} ,
{Y ∈Lθ∗ }
(2.3)
where R∗ (Y ) = sup {E [X · Y ] − R(X)} ,
Y ∈ Lθ∗ .
X∈Mθ
By the bipolar theorem, for Y 6≥ 0, there exists K ∈ Mθ , K ≥ 0 with E[Y · K] < −ε < 0 for some ε > 0. By monotonicity of R, it follows that R(−λK) ≤ R(0) < ∞ for every λ > 0. Hence R∗ (Y ) = sup {E [Y · X] − R(X)} ≥ sup {−λE[Y · K] − R(λK)} ≥ sup λε − R(0) = ∞ X∈Mθ
λ>0
λ
showing that the supremum and maximum in (2.3) can be attained on the set of those Y ∈ Lθ such that Y ≥ 0. Furthermore, by translation invariance, setting X = (r, . . . , r) for r ∈ R, it follows that R∗ (Y ) ≥ rE [1 · Y ] − R(0) − dr = r (E [1 · Y ] − d) − R(0), where the right hand side can be made arbitrarily large whenever E [1 · Y ] 6= d. In order to obtain a more explicit expression of the penalty function α(Q), we set X L(m, λ, X) = mk + λE [` (X − m) − c] nX o S(λ, X) = inf L(m, λ, X) = inf mk + λE [` (X − m) − c] . m∈Rd
m∈Rd
The functional X 7→ S(λ, X) is a convex variant of the so called optimized certainty equivalent, see [5]. Clearly, R(X) = inf sup L(m, λ, X) ≥ sup inf L(m, λ, X) = sup S(λ, X). m∈Rd λ>0
2 In
the sense that R(X + m) = R(X) +
λ>0 m∈Rd
P
mk .
7
λ>0
Since A(X) is nonempty and monotone, there exists m ∈ Int(A(X)), that is, the so called Slater condition is fulfilled. As a consequence of [24, Theorem 28.2], there is no duality gap. Namely, R(X) = supλ>0 S(λ, X). An easy multivariate adaptation of [5, 12] yields dQ ∗ S(λ, X) = sup EQ [X] − E (`λ ) , dP Q∈Qθ∗ where `λ (m) = λ(`(m) − c), hence (`λ )∗ (m∗ ) = λ(c + `∗ (m∗ /λ)). Combining this with R(X) = supλ>0 S(λ, X), the dual representation (2.2) follows.
3. Risk Allocation We have established in Theorem 2.9 that the infimum over all allocations m ∈ Rd used for defining R(X) is real valued and has the desired properties of a risk measure. Beyond the question of the overall liquidity reserve, the allocation of this amount between the different risk factors is central for our purposes. Hence existence and uniqueness of a risk allocation are crucial questions. Definition 3.1. A risk allocation is an acceptable monetary allocation m ∈ A(X) such that R(X) = P mk . When a risk allocation is uniquely determined, we denote it by RA(X). Remark 3.2. By definition, if a risk allocation exists, then the full allocation property automatically holds; see Section 4.3. In contrast to the univariate case, where the unique risk allocation is given by m = R(X), existence and uniqueness are no longer straightforward in the multivariate case as the following example shows. Example 3.3. Consider the loss function ( `(x, y) =
x + y + y/(1 − y) y < 1 ∞
otherwise.
let c = 1, then it follows that A(0) = m ∈ R2 : m2 > −1 and m1 + 1 ≥ −m2 − m2 /(1 + m2 ) , hence R(0) =
inf
m2 >−1
{−m2 − m2 /(1 + m2 ) + m2 − 1} =
inf
m2 >−1
−
m2 − 1 = −2. 1 + m2 ♦
However, the infimum is not attained.
Our next result introduces mathematically and economically sound conditions towards the existence and uniqueness of a risk allocation. We will make use of the concepts and notation of Appendix A. A zero-sum P allocation is a monetary allocation u ∈ Rd such that uk = 0. Note that, for any zero-sum allocation u, X `(0) = 0 = uk ≤ `(u).
Definition 3.4. We call a loss function ` unbiased if, for every zero-sum allocation u, `(ru) = 0 for any r > 0 implies that `(−ru) = 0 for any r > 0.
8
In other words, a loss function is unbiased if, whenever a zero-sum allocation can be arbitrarily positively scaled without doing worse than nothing, then it can also be arbitrarily negatively scaled without doing worse than nothing. Theorem 3.5. If ` is an unbiased loss function, then, for every X ∈ Mθ , risk allocations m∗ exist. They are characterized by the first order conditions 1 ∈ λ∗ E [∇` (X − m∗ )]
and
E [` (X − m∗ )] = c,
(3.1)
where λ∗ is a Lagrange multiplier. In particular, this holds when ` has no zero-sum direction of recession except 0, in which case the set of the solutions (m∗ , λ∗ ) to the first order conditions (3.1) is bounded. If ` is strictly convex outside Rd− along zero-sums allocations3 , then the risk allocation is unique. Proof. We refer the reader to Appendix A regarding the notions and properties of recession cones and functions. Given a set C ⊆ Rd , we define m 7→ δ(m, C) as 0 if m ∈ C and ∞ otherwise. The P function f (m) = mk + δ(m, A(X)) is increasing, convex, lower semi-continuous, proper and such that R(X) = inf{f (m) : m ∈ Rd }. Hence, by [24, Theorem 27.1 (b)] for proving the existence of a risk allocation, we only need show that f is constant along its directions of recession. By Theorem A.1, this is equivalent to showing that u ∈ 0+ f implies (−u) ∈ 0+ f . Let γ ∈ R be such that B := {x ∈ Rd : f (x) ≤ γ} = 6 ∅, so that 0+ B = 0+ f , by Theorem A.1. By means of Theorem 2.9, R(X) > −∞. Fix b ∈ B. Hence, u ∈ 0+ B if and only if X X −∞ < R(X) ≤ bk + r uk ≤ γ < ∞ and b + ru ∈ A(X) for every r ≥ 0. As a consequence, u ∈ 0+ B if and only if u ∈ Z ∩ 0+ A(X), where Z denotes the set of zero-sum allocations in Rd . This reduces the proof of existence to showing that if u ∈ Z ∩ 0+ A(X), then (−u) ∈ 0+ A(X). Since A(X) is a non-empty lower level set of m 7→ g(m) = E[`(X − m)], Theorem A.1 implies that u ∈ 0+ A(X) if and only if 0 ≥ (g0+ )(u). However, for any b in A(X), hence in dom(g), Theorem A.1 yields `(X − b − ru) − `(X − b) + (g0 )(u) = sup E r r>0 `(X − b − ru) − `(X − b) (3.2) = E sup r r>0 = (l0)+ (−u), for any u ∈ Rd , where the second equality follows by means of the monotone convergence theorem. It follows that u ∈ 0+ A(X) if and only if 0 ≥ (l0+ )(−u). Hence, if u ∈ Z ∩ 0+ A(X), then, on the one hand, 0 ≥ (l0+ )(−u) = supr `(−ru)/r, by Theorem A.1. But, on the other hand, u ∈ Z implies that P `(−ru)/r ≥ −r uk /r = 0. In conclusion, if u ∈ Z ∩ 0+ A(X), then `(−ru) = 0, for every r ≥ 0, which in turn yields that `(ru) = 0, since ` is unbiased. In particular, 0 = (l0)+ (u) = (g0)+ (−u), by (3.2) applied to −u. Hence, −u ∈ 0+ A(X), which proves the existence of a risk allocation m∗ . Since E[`(X − m)] − c < 0 for some m large enough, the Slater condition for the convex optimization problem R(X) = inf m f (m) is fulfilled. Hence, according to [24, Theorems 28.1, 28.2 and 28.3], optimal solutions m∗ are characterized by (3.1).
3 That
is, if x, y 6∈ Rd− is such that
P
(xk − yk ) = 0, then `(αx + (1 − α)y) < α`(x) + (1 − α)`(y), for any α ∈ (0, 1).
9
In the case where ` has no zero-sum direction of recession except 0, it follows from the previous computations that 0+ f = Z ∩ 0+ A(X) = Z ∩ 0+ g = Z ∩ (−0+ `) = {0}. Hence, by [24, Theorem 27.1, (d)], the set of risk allocations is non-empty and bounded. Finally, let m 6= n be two risk allocations. It follows that αm + (1 − α)n is a risk allocation as well for every α ∈ [0, 1]. Furthermore, (m − n) is a zero sum allocation. By convexity, it follows that c = E[`(X − αm − (1 − α)n)] ≤ αE[`(X − m)] + (1 − α)E[`(X − n)] = c, which shows that α`(X − m) + (1 − α)`(X − n) = `(X − αm − (1 − α)n) almost surely. However, since `(0) = 0 < c and ` is increasing, it follows that X − αm − (1 − α)n belongs to the complement of Rd− on a set of positive measure. Therefore, for ω in this set, there exists an interval [α0 , α1 ] 6= {0} such that X(ω) − αm − (1 − α)n belongs to the complement of Rd− for every α ∈ [α0 , α1 ]. However β`(X(ω) − α0 m − (1 − α0 )n) + (1 − β)`(X(ω) − α1 m − (1 − α1 )n) = `(X(ω) − β(α0 m + (1 − α1 )n) − (1 − β)(α0 m + (1 − α1 )n)) for every β ∈ [0, 1] which contradicts the strict convexity of ` outside Rd− along zero-sum allocations. Remark 3.6. In general, the positivity of the risk allocation is not required. If positivity or any other constraint such as a minimum floor is imposed, for instance by regulators, it can be easily embedded in our setup by additional constraints in the corresponding convex programming problems. In case of positivity, this would modify the definition of R(X) into nX o mk : E [`(X − m)] ≤ c and mk ≥ 0 for every k , R(X) = inf
with accordingly modified first order conditions.
The question of the existence and uniqueness having been addressed, the following example shows the economic importance of the uniqueness. Example 3.7. One can readily check that any loss function ` of class (C1), that is, such that `(x) = P h( xk ), is unbiased. Therefore, for any such loss function `, the existence of a risk allocation m∗ ∈ A(X) is guaranteed by means of Theorem 3.5. However, for any zero-sum allocation u, we have R(X) = P ∗ P ∗ P P mk + uk = mk and E[h( Xk − (m∗k + uk ))] = E[h( Xk − m∗k )] ≤ c, so that m∗ + u is another risk allocation. Economically, this is not a sound situation. Indeed, suppose that we have two banks as risk factors and we require from them 110 M e and 500 M e, respectively, as risk allocation. In such a case, we could equally well require 610 M e from the first bank and nothing from the second. Such an arbitrariness is unlikely to be accepted by any economic agent. ♦ Example 3.7 shows that loss functions of the class (C1) are economically unsuitable, by lack of uniqueP ness of a risk allocation. By contrast, loss functions of class (C2), that is, `(x) = h(xk ), admit a unique risk allocation under very mild conditions on h. However, the following proposition shows that the corresponding risk allocations only depend on the marginals of the loss vector X = (X1 , . . . , Xd ). This feature also makes the loss functions of class (C2) unsuitable from an economic point of view. P Proposition 3.8. Let `(x) := hk (xk ) for univariate loss functions hk : R → (−∞, ∞] strictly convex on R+ , k = 1, . . . , d. For every X ∈ Mθ , there exists a unique optimal risk allocation RA(X) and we have RA(X) = RA(Y ), for every Y ∈ Mθ such that Yk has the same distribution as Xk , k = 1, . . . , d. P Proof. Let x, y 6∈ Rd− , and α ∈ (0, 1). It follows that `(αx + (1 − α)y) = hk (αxk + (1 − α)yk ) < P αhk (xk ) + (1 − α)hk (yk ) = α`(x) + (1 − α)`(y). It is furthermore unbiased. Indeed, for every
10
zero-sum allocation u, without loss of generality u1 > 0, it follows that X X `0+ (u) ≥ lim h1 (ru1 )/r + hk (ruk )/r ≥ lim h1 (ru1 )/r + uk = ∞ r→∞
r→∞
k≥2
k≥2
since h1 is strictly convex and h1 (t) ≥ t. Hence, ` has no zero-sum direction of recession. The strict convexity of hk yields, according to Theorem 3.5, the existence of a unique risk allocation exists and is unique for every X ∈ Mθ . The first order conditions (3.1) are written as X 1 ∈ λE [∂hk (Xk − mk )] , k = 1, . . . , d, and E [hk (Xk − mk )] = c, which only depends on the marginal distributions of X.
P In other words, this proposition shows that, in case `(x) = hk (xk ), the risk measure and the risk allocation are not impacted by the dependence structure of the risk factors, that is, do not address the systemic risk of the system. This motivates the study of the sensitivity of the risk measure and of the risk allocation with respect to the dependence structure of the risk factors, especially to loss functions that emphasises this dependence struture.
4. Marginal Risk Contributions and Allocation Sensitivities In this section we address the question of the marginal risk contribution of each component to the overall risk of the system compared with the impact on its own allocation. Definition 4.1. The marginal risk contribution of Y ∈ Mθ to X ∈ Mθ is defined as the sensitivity of the risk of X with respect to the impact of Y , that is R(X; Y ) := lim sup t&0
R(X + tY ) − R(X) . t
In the case where R(X + tY ) admits a unique risk allocation RA(X + tY ) for every t, the risk allocation marginals of the risk of X with respect to the impact of Y are given by RAk (X; Y ) = lim sup t&0
RAk (X + tY ) − RAk (X) , t
k = 1, . . . , d.
Theorem 2.9 and its proof show that the determination of the risk measure R(X), as a convex program, reduces to the saddle point problem R(X) = min max L(m, λ, X) = max min L(m, λ, X). m
λ>0
λ>0
m
As can be found in [24], the “argminmax” set of saddle points (m∗ , λ∗ ) is a product set that we denote by B(X) × C(X). Theorem 4.2. Assuming that ` has no zero-sum direction of recession, then R(X; Y ) =
min
max λE [Y · ∇` (X − m)] .
m∈B(X) λ∈C(X)
11
Supposing further that ` is twice differentiable and that (m, λ) ∈ B(X) × C(X) is such that λE ∇2 `(X − m) −1/λ M= 1 0 is non-singular, then • there exists t0 > 0 such that B(X + tY ) × C(X + tY ) is a singleton, for every 0 ≤ t ≤ t0 ; • the corresponding unique saddle point (mt , λt ) = (RA(X +tY ), λt ) is differentiable as a function of t and we have RA(X; Y ) λE ∇2 `(X − m)Y = M −1 λ(X; Y ) R(X; Y ) where λ(X; Y ) = lim supt&0 (λt − λ0 )/t. P Proof. Let L(m, λ, t) = mk + λE[`(X + tY − m) − c]. Under the assumptions of the theorem, we have by Theorem 4.2 R(X + tY ) = min max L(m, λ, t) = max min L(m, λ, t) = L(mt , λt , t), m
λ
λ
m
for every selection (mt , λt ) ∈ B(X + tY ) × C(t + tY ). As for the first assertion of the theorem, since ` has no zero-sum direction of recession, it follows from Theorem 3.5 that B(X) × C(X) is non empty and bounded. Hence, the assumptions of [25, Golshtein’s Theorem 11.52 about the perturbation of saddle values] holds and the first assertion follows. As for the second assertion of the theorem, the assumptions of [19, Theorem 1] are fulfilled. In fact, the Jacobian of the first order conditions ∇m L(m, λ, 0) = 0 λE [` (X − m) − c] = 0 is exactly the matrix M . By [19, Theorem 1 and Corollary 1], the theorem follows.
Following the assertion of the previous theorem, a quantity of interest is the difference between the marginal change in the risk allocation RA(X; Y ) and the overall marginal change in the risk R(X; Y ). Definition 4.3. Under the existence assumption of Theorem 4.2 guaranteeing the existence of R(X; Y ) and RA(X; Y ), we call RS(X; Y ) = RA(X; Y ) − R(X; Y ) (4.1) the systemic risk marginals of X with respect to Y . P Clearly, it holds RAi (X; Y ) = R(X; Y ), therefore the sum of the component of the systemic risk is equal to 0. Therefore, a positive component, let’s say of the first risk factor RS1 (X; Y ) = RA1 (X; Y ) − R(X; Y ), means that the marginal change induced by Y requires a higher contribution of member 1 to the risk allocation, than the overall marginal change in the risk.
4.1. Sensitivity with Respect to Externalities We want to study the impact of an additional loss on the first risk factor in a bivariate framework. To this end we consider the following loss function of the quadratic type `(x1 , x2 ) =
+ 2 2 (x+ + 1 ) + (x2 ) + αx+ 1 x2 + x1 + x2 , 2
12
0≤α 0. In particular, if α > 0, it follows that this systemic risk factor in general increases together with the “dependence” between X1 and X2 .
13
4.1.2. Risk Allocation Sensitivity We write p = P [X1 ≥ m1 ], q = P [X2 ≥ m2 ], r = P [X1 ≥ m1 ; X2 ≥ m2 ]. In the notation of Theorem 4.2, we have: p αr −1/λ M = αr q −1/λ 1 1 0
λE [Y1 |X1 ≥ m] p and V = λαE [Y1 |X1 ≥ m; X2 ≥ m] r R(X; Y )
which by Theorem 4.2 yields (q − αr)R(X; Y ) + λE [Y1 |X1 ≥ m1 ] p − αλE Y1 X1 ≥ m1 ; X2 ≥ m2 r RA1 (X; Y ) = p + q − 2αr (p − αr)R(X; Y ) − λE [Y1 |X1 ≥ m1 ] p + αλE Y1 X1 ≥ m1 ; X2 ≥ m2 r RA2 (X; Y ) = , p + q − 2αr consistent with the general identity RA1 (X; Y ) + RA2 (X; Y ) = R(X; Y ). The difference between the two equations shows that: • the concerned risk factor is taking away from the second factor the non-correlated share of additional risk E[Y1 |X1 ≥ m1 ]p; • in the presence of the dependence factor α, the concerned risk factor offloads a share of its addi tional risk costs to the second factor according to E Y1 X1 ≥ m1 ; X2 ≥ m2 r.
4.2. Sensitivity with Respect to the Correlation Structure In the following example, we analyse the sensitivity of the risk allocation with respect to the correlation structure in a bivariate Gaussian setup. To this end, we consider the following function: 1 1 2x1 1 2x2 x1 x2 `(x1 , x2 ) = e + e + αe e − 1. 1+α 2 2 Convexity, monotonicity and continuity are immediate. Furthermore, we have `(0, 0) = 0 and since ex ≥ x + 1, it follows that 1 1 1 `(x1 , x2 ) ≥ (2x1 + 1) + (2x2 + 1) + α(x1 + x2 + 1) − 1 1+α 2 2 1 [(1 + α)(x1 + x2 ) + (1 + α)] − 1 = x1 + x2 . = 1+α Hence, ` is a valid loss function. Let X = (X1 , X2 ) be a normally distributed vector with zero mean and covariance matrix 2 ρσ1 σ2 σ1 Σ= . ρσ1 σ2 σ22 We write 2 sk := (E e2Xk )1/2 = eσk ,
k = 1, 2
2 2 1 and r := E eX1 eX2 = e 2 (σ1 +σ2 +2ρσ1 σ2 ) .
14
The first order conditions yield α 1 re−m1 e−m2 + s2 e−2m1 1+α 1+α 1 α 1 1/λ = re−m1 e−m2 + s2 e−2m2 1+α 1+α 2 1 α s21 e−2m1 + s22 e−2m2 re−m1 e−m2 + c˜ := c + 1 = 1+α 2(1 + α) 1/λ =
Solving yields 1 2 2 1 1 ln 1 + αeρσ1 σ2 − 2 (σ1 +σ2 ) − ln (˜ c(1 + α)) 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 RA2 (X) = σ22 + ln 1 + αeρσ1 σ2 − 2 (σ1 +σ2 ) − ln (˜ c(1 + α)) 2 2 RA1 (X) = σ12 +
1
2
2
R(X) = σ12 + σ22 + ln 1 + αeρσ1 σ2 − 2 (σ1 +σ2 ) − ln (˜ c(1 + α))
These equations shows that the risk allocation are disentangled into the respective marginal contributions and the systemic contribution 1 2 2 1 1 ln 1 + αeρσ1 σ2 − 2 (σ1 +σ2 ) − ln (˜ c(1 + α)) 2 2
(4.2)
depending on the correlation parameter ρ and on the weight α of the systemic risk importance in the loss function. Figure 2 shows the value of this systemic contribution as a function of α, ρ, σ1 and σ2 .
Figure 2: Systemic contribution (4.2) as a function of σ1 for different values of the correlation ρ in the case where α = 1.
15
The sensitivities of the risk allocation RA1 (X) with respect to the variance are given by: 1
2
2
∂RA1 (X) 1 eρσ1 σ2 − 2 (σ1 +σ2 ) = 2σ1 + α (ρσ2 − σ1 ) ∂σ1 2 1 + αeρσ1 σ2 − 12 (σ12 +σ22 ) 1
2
2
1 eρσ1 σ2 − 2 (σ1 +σ2 ) ∂RA1 (X) = α (ρσ1 − σ2 ) ∂σ2 2 1 + αeρσ1 σ2 − 12 (σ12 +σ22 ) 1
2
2
∂RA1 (X) 1 eρσ1 σ2 − 2 (σ1 +σ2 ) . = ασ1 σ2 ∂ρ 2 1 + αeρσ1 σ2 − 12 (σ12 +σ22 ) Consequently, 1
2
2
∂R(X) eρσ1 σ2 − 2 (σ1 +σ2 ) = 2σ1 + α (ρσ2 − σ1 ) 1 2 2 ∂σ1 1 + αeρσ1 σ2 − 2 (σ1 +σ2 ) 1
2
2
∂R(X) 1 eρσ1 σ2 − 2 (σ1 +σ2 ) = 2ασ1 σ2 ∂ρ 2 1 + αeρσ1 σ2 − 12 (σ12 +σ22 ) This sensitivity analysis shows that the systemic risk contribution is • increasing with respect to the correlation ρ; • decreasing (resp. increasing then decreasing) with respect to σ1 in the case ρ ≤ 0 (resp. ρ ≥ 0).
4.3. Riskless Allocation, Causal Responsibility and Additivity We end this section regarding risk allocations and their sensitivities by a discussion of their properties in the light of the following economical feature of risk allocation introduced in Brunnemeier and Cheridito [8]. P (FA) Full Allocation: RAk (X) = R(X); (RA) Riskless Allocation: RAk (X) = Xk if Xk is deterministic; (CR) Causal Responsibility: R(X + ∆Xk ) − R(X) = RAk (X + ∆Xk ) − RAk (X), where ∆Xk is a loss increment of the k-th risk factor; (AD) Additivity: In case of a merge, say for instance that X becomes Y = (X1 , . . . , Xd−2 , Xd−1 + Xd ), then the new risk allocation becomes RA(Y ) = (RA1 (X), . . . , RAd−2 (X), RAd−1 (X) + RAd (X)). As mentioned before, per design, our risk allocations always satisfy the full allocation property (FA). As visible from the above case studies, riskless allocation (RA) and causal responsibility (CR) only holds at “first order”.4 With respect to the application at hand, that is, the monetary assessment and allocation of systemic risk, we think that “first order” (RA), (CR), and (AD) is actually fine and even better than in the strict sense. In the strict sense exogenous risk taking should then only impact the concerned risk factor. But the risk factors are interdependent and any move in one of them has consequences for the rest of the system. The search for an optimal allocation is a non-cooperative game between the different system components, each of them respectively searching for its own minimal risk allocation while impacting the others by doing so. In other terms, everyone is responsible for its own risk but also for its relative 4 this
could also be shown regarding additivity (AD), even though additivity a bit less our focus in this paper
16
exposure with respect to the others. The sensitivity analysis of this section shows that external shocks are primarily born by the risk factor that is hit. Then a correction happens and a fraction of the shock is offloaded to the other risk factors according to their relative exposure to the concerned risk factor. This approach therefore adds to the riskless allocation and causal responsibility an additional systemic impact to the rest of the system.
5. Numerical Schemes The aim of this section is to present numerical schemes for the computation of systemic risk measures R(X) and the corresponding optimal allocations m∗ = (m∗1 , . . . , m∗d ). According to Theorem 3.5, we need to solve the following system of non-linear equations ( λ∗ E[∂k `(X − m∗ )] = 1 for k = 1, . . . , d; (5.1) E[`(X − m∗ )] =c We will first present Fourier methods for the computation of the expectations involved and then explain how we can speed them up using the Chebyshev interpolation method for polynomial option pricing.
5.1. Fourier Transform Methods We will use Fourier transform methods for the computation of the expectations involved in the system above. Let ` be a loss function and denote by `η the dampened loss function, defined by `η (x) := e−hη,xi `(x), for η ∈ Rd . Moreover, let fb denote the Fourier transform of a function f , that is, fb(u) = R eihu,xi f (x)dx, and MX the (extended) moment generating function of the random variable X, that Rd is, MX (u) = E[ehu,Xi ], for suitable u ∈ Cd . Let L1 , respectively L1bc , denote the set of measurable functions on Rd which are integrable, respectively bounded, continuous and integrable, with respect to the Lebesgue measure. We also denote by =(z) the imaginary part of the complex number z. Consider the following sets: I := η ∈ Rd : MX (η) < ∞ , I 0 := η ∈ Rd : MX (η) < ∞ and MX (η + i·) ∈ L1 , n o J := η ∈ Rd : `η ∈ L1bc and `bη ∈ L1 , J 0 := η ∈ Rd : `η ∈ L1 . Then, assuming that I ∩ J 6= ∅ or I 0 ∩ J 0 6= ∅ and using Eberlein et al. [13, Theorems 2.2 and 3.2] we have that Z 1 b + iη)du, E `(X − m) = ehiu−η,mi MX (η − iu)`(u (5.2) (2π)d Rd 0
0
where η ∈ I ∩ J or η ∈ I ∩ J . The next result provides formulas for the computation of the expectations in (5.1) for the loss function (C4), that is, d d X X 1X + 2 + (xk ) + α x+ (5.3) `(x) = xk + j xk , 2 k=1
k=1
1≤j 0; for zj , zk ∈ C with =(zj ), =(zk ) > 0,
which combined with (5.2) yields (5.7) and (5.8).
18
Remark 5.3. An easy and popular way to generate dependence is using a linear mixture model, see for instance Madan and Khanna [23] and Kawai [21]. Let Y1 , . . . , Yn be independent random variables, then the dependent factors X = (X1 , . . . , Xd ) can be defined via X = DY for some matrices D = (dkl ) ∈ Rd×n . Assuming that the moment generating function of the Yi ’s is known, the moment generating function of the risk factor X is provided by ! n d Y X MX (u) = M Yk dkl ul . k=1
l=1
In Schmidt et al. [26], the multivariate affine generalized hyperbolic model is introduced, where the random variables (Yi )1≤i≤m follow the generalized hyperbolic distribution. The authors show that this model has several properties that could be interesting also in our setting; for instance, the tail dependence coefficient – which describes the probability of simultaneous defaults – can be positive.
5.2. Chebyshev Interpolation Method In order to speed up the computation of the expectations in (5.1) and make it amenable to optimization routines, we exploit the Chebyshev interpolation method for polynomial option pricing recently introduced in Gaß et al. [17]. This method can be summarized as follows: Suppose you need to realize a computation using an iterative method applied on a function F (m) of one or more variables. If the evaluation scheme of this function is relatively expensive in terms of computational time – Fourier methods in high dimensions or Monte Carlo for instance – the iterative computation will then result in a very costly one. The Chebychev method evaluates a-priori on a given set of nodes mk the function F (mk ). These evaluations of F on the nodes being independent of the iterative method, they can be realized in parallel, the computational time being drastically reduced. The obtained values are then interpolated using Chebychev’s coefficients providing a simple polynome Fˆ . The iterative computation methods will then be used on this interpolation Fˆ instead of F , the evaluation of which is very fast. The method is easy to apply, the convergence is exponential in the number of nodes and the numerical results the authors show are very good. In our case, the multivariate optimization problem is a sequential one and the multivariate valuation involves numerous joint integrations done either with Fourier methods as previously explained or eventually Monte-Carlo. The Chebychev methods can be applied in the present case as follows: Consider the loss function (C4) and define the functions 2 e(mk ) = E[Xk − mk ], f (mk ) = E (Xk − mk )+ g(mk ) = E (Xk − mk )+ (5.11) + + h(ml , mk ) = E (Xl − ml ) (Xk − mk ) , l(ml , mk ) = E [(Xl − ml )1Xk ≥mk ] (5.12) whence the system (5.1) can be rewritten as X λf (mk ) + λα l(ml , mk ) = 1 − λ, for k = 1, . . . , d; l6 = k X X 1 e(m ) + g(m ) +α h(ml , mk ) = c. k k 2 k
(5.13)
l6=k
The functions f, g, h and l can be computed using the Fourier-based formulas in (5.7) and (5.8), which represents the accurate but relatively expensive numerical scheme, while e is known, see Remark 5.1. Now, we can use the Chebyshev interpolation method in order to compute values of f (m) and g(m) quickly for a large number of m’s, as follows:
19
Step 1: Select upper and lower bounds for the parameter m, that is, m ∈ [m, m], and rescale this by a linear interpolation such that m ∈ [−1, 1]. Then, compute the Chebyshev nodes via 2i + 1 mi = cos π , i = 1, . . . , N, 2N + 1 where N denotes the degree of the Chebyshev interpolation. Then, compute the values f (mik ) and g(mik ) and h(mjk , nil ) and l(mjk , nil ) at each node i, j ∈ {1, . . . , N } and for each member k, l ∈ {1, . . . , d} and store them. This operation can be performed in parallel both in the nodes i, j and in the members k, l. Step 2: Compute approximate values of f (m) and g(m) for some arbitrary m ∈ [−1, 1], or m ∈ [m, m], using the Chebyshev interpolation: IN [f ](m) =
N X
ci Ti (m),
(5.14)
i=0
with weights ci =
N 21{j>0} X 2r + 1 f (mr ) cos iπ , N + 1 r=0 2N + 1
0 ≤ i ≤ N,
(5.15)
and basis functions Ti (m) = cos(i arccos(m)),
0 ≤ i ≤ N.
(5.16)
The interpolation function IN [g] for g is defined analogously. In case of the two-variate functions h and l, the Chebyshev interpolation takes the following form: IN¯ [h](m, n) =
N1 X N2 X
ci1 ,i2 Ti1 ,i2 (m, n),
(5.17)
i1 =0 i2 =0
¯ = (N1 , N2 ), with weights where N ci1 ,i2
N1 X N2 2 2 Y Y 21{ij >0} X 2rk + 1 r1 r2 h(m , n ) = cos ik π , Nj + 1 r =0 r =0 2Nk + 1 j=1 1
2
0 ≤ i ≤ N,
(5.18)
k=1
and basis functions Ti1 ,i2 (m, n) = Ti1 (m)Ti2 (n).
(5.19)
Remark 5.4 (Monte Carlo methods). One can also use Monte Carlo methods for the computation of the expectations involved in the systemic risk measures. The advantage of Monte Carlo methods is that it allows a wider variety of models than Fourier methods; one could think of models with copulas or models with Pareto-like distributions. The disadvantage of Monte Carlo methods is their slow convergence, which could be negated by the application of the Chebyshev interpolation scheme.
20
6. Numerical Results In this section, we present some computational results based on the different schemes presented in the previous Section. The computations were done either with a desktop computer Core i5 @3.10 GHz processor / 8 Gb RAM or a laptop Core i5 @2.3 GHz processor / 4 Gb RAM. The implementations were done in Python and used whenever possible the numpy and scipy packages. All our (5.1) system resolutions were done using the fsolve function of scipy.optimize package. The loss function we consider is given by `(x) =
X
x+ k +
1 + 2 X + + x + xj xk 2 k j0
f (x + ry) − f (x) f (x + ry) − f (x) = lim , r→∞ r r
y ∈ Rd ,
for every x ∈ dom(f ). 4. There exists x ∈ dom(f ) such that the map r 7→ f (x + ry) is decreasing on R+ , that is, y is a direction of recession of f , if and only this map is decreasing for every x ∈ dom(f ) if and only if (f 0+ )(y) ≤ 0. 5. The map r 7→ f (x + ry) is constant on R+ for every x ∈ dom(f ) if and only if (f 0+ )(y) ≤ 0 and (f 0+ )(−y) ≤ 0.
B. Multivariate Orlicz Spaces In this section we briefly check that the classical univariate Orlicz spaces and hearts theory carries over to the d-variate case without any significant change. We follow the lecture notes by [22], only providing the proofs that differ structurally from the univariate case. The convex conjugate θ∗ of a function θ : Rd+ → [0, ∞] is the convex function defined by θ∗ (x) = sup {x · y − θ(y)} , y∈Rd +
x ∈ Rd+ .
The function θ is called a Young function if it is convex, lower semi-continuous and such that θ(0) = 0 and 0 < θ(c) < ∞ for some c > 0 in Rd+ . In particular, θ achieves its minimum at 0 and is increasing on Rd+ . It is said to be finite if dom(θ) = Rd+ and strict if limx→∞ θ(x)/ kxk = ∞. The Fenchel-Moreau theorem says that a Young function θ is equal to its Fenchel biconjugate, that is, θ = θ∗∗ . Lemma B.1. The function θ is Young if and only if θ∗ is Young. Furthermore, θ is strict if and only if θ∗ is strict if and only if θ and θ∗ are both finite. Proof. This follows by application of the Fenchel-Moreau theorem and from the relation x · y ≤ θ(x) + θ∗ (y), x, y ∈ Rd+ . For X ∈ L0 , the Luxembourg norm of X is given as kXkθ = inf {r ∈ R : r > 0 and E [θ (|X| /r)] ≤ 1} ,
24
where inf ∅ = ∞. The Orlicz space and heart are respectively defined as Lθ := X ∈ L0 : kXkθ < ∞ = X ∈ L0 : E [θ (|X| /r)] < ∞ for some r ∈ R, r > 0 Mθ := X ∈ L0 : E [θ (|X| /r)] < ∞ for all r ∈ R, r > 0 .
Lemma B.2.
(B.1)
1. We have kXkθ = 0 if and only if X = 0.
2. If 0 < kXkθ < ∞, then E[θ(|X| / kXkθ )] ≤ 1. In particular, B := {X : kXkθ ≤ 1} = {X : E[θ(|X|)] ≤ 1}. 3. The gauge k·kθ is a norm both on the Orlicz space Lθ and on the Orlicz heart Mθ . 4. The following Hölder Inequality holds: E [|X · Y |] ≤ kXkθ kY kθ∗ . 5. Lθ is continuously embedded into L1 , the space of integrable random variables on Ω × {1, . . . , d} for the product measure P ⊗ Unif{1,...,d} . 5 6. The normed spaces (Lθ , k·kθ ) and (Mθ , k·kθ ) are Banach spaces. Proof. These results can be established along the same lines as in the univariate case [See 22, Lemmas 1.8 and 1.10 and Propositions 1.11, 1.14, 1.15 and 1.18], using the Fenchel-Moreau Theorem in Rd+ . Theorem B.3. If θ is finite, then the topological dual of Mθ is Lθ∗ . Proof. Again, the proof follows the same line as in the univariate case [see 22, Proposition 1.20, Theorem 2.2 and Lemmas 2.4 and 2.5].
References [1] V. Acharya, T. P. L. Pedersen, and M. Richardson. Measuring systemic risk. SSRN 1573171, 2010). [2] V. Acharya, R. Engle, and M. Richardson. Capital shortfall: A new approach to ranking and regulating systemic risks. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 102(3):59–64, 2012. [3] T. Adrian and M. Brunnermeier. Covar. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, 1745, 2011. [4] P. Artzner, F. Delbaen, J. M. Eber, and D. Heath. Coherent measures of risk. Mathematical Finance, 9:203–228, 1999. [5] A. Ben-Tal and M. Teboulle. An Old-New Concept Of Convex Risk Measures: The Optimized Certainty Equivalent. Mathematical Finance, 17(3):449–476, 2007. [6] F. Biagini, J.-P. Fouque, M. Frittelli, and T. Meyer-Brandis. A unified approach to systemic risk measures via acceptance sets. arXiv:1503.06354, 2015. [7] C. Brownlees and R. Engle. Volatility, correlation and tails for systemic risk measurement. SSRN 1611229, 2012. [8] M. K. Brunnemeier and P. Cheridito. Measuring and allocating systemic risk. Preprint, 2014. 5 The
case where Lθ = L1 corresponds to θ(x) =
P
|xk |.
25
[9] I. Cascos and I. Molchanov. Multivariate risk measures: a constructive approach based on selections. Mathematical Finance, 2014. Forthcoming. [10] P. Cheridito and T. Li. Risk measures on orlicz hearts. Mathematical Finance, 19(2):189–214, 2009. [11] S. Drapeau and M. Kupper. Risk preferences and their robust representation. Mathematics of Operations Research, 28(1):28–62, 2013. [12] S. Drapeau, M. Kupper, and A. Papapantoleon. A Fourier approach to the computation of CV@R and optimized certainty equivalents. Journal of Risk, 16(6):3–29, 2014. [13] E. Eberlein, K. Glau, and A. Papapantoleon. Analysis of Fourier transform valuation formulas and applications. Applied Mathematical Finance, 17:211–240, 2010. [14] Z. Feinstein, B. Rudlof, and S. Weber. Measures of systemic risk. Preprint, 2015. [15] H. Föllmer and A. Schied. Convex measures of risk and trading constraint. Finance and Stochastics, 6(4): 429–447, 2002. [16] M. Frittelli and E. Rosazza Gianin. Putting order in risk measures. Journal of Banking & Finance, 26(7): 1473–1486, July 2002. [17] M. Gaß, K. Glau, M. Mahlstedt, and M. Mair. arXiv:1505.04648, 2015.
Chebyshev interpolation for parametric option pricing.
[18] A. Hamel, F. Heyde, and B. Rudloff. Set-valued risk measures for conical market models. Mathematics and Financial Economics, 5(1):1–28, 2011. [19] K. Jittorntrum. Solution point differentiability without strict complementarity in nonlinear programming. In A. Fiacco, editor, Sensitivity, Stability and Parametric Analysis, volume 21 of Mathematical Programming Studies, pages 127–138. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1984. ISBN 978-3-642-00912-9. [20] E. Jouini, M. Meddeb, and N. Touzi. Vector-valued coherent risk measures. Finance and Stochastics, 8: 531–552, 2004. [21] R. Kawai. A multivariate Lévy process model with linear correlation. Quantitative Finance, 9:597–606, 2009. [22] C. Léonard. Some notes on Orlicz spaces. 2007. URL http://www.cmap.polytechnique.fr/ ~leonard/papers/orlicz.pdf. [23] D. Madan and A. Khanna. Non Gaussian models of dependence in returns. Preprint, 2009. [24] R. T. Rockafellar. Convex Analysis. Princeton Mathematical Series, No. 28. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1970. [25] R. T. Rockafellar and R. J.-B. Wets. Variational Analysis. Springer, Berlin, New York, 3rd edition, 2009. [26] R. Schmidt, T. Hrycej, and E. Stützle. Multivariate distribution models with generalized hyperbolic margins. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 50(8):2065–2096, 2006.
26
