Researcher profile

Mitja Stadje

Mitja Stadje contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

math.OC q-fin.MF q-fin.RM

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author

2works

0followers

3topics

3close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2022arXiv

On the equivalence between Value-at-Risk- and Expected Shortfall-based risk measures in non-concave optimization

We study a non-concave optimization problem in which a financial company maximizes the expected utility of the surplus under a risk-based regulatory constraint. For this problem, we consider four different prevalent risk constraints (Expected Shortfall, Expected Discounted Shortfall, Value-at-Risk, and Average Value-at-Risk), and investigate their effects on the optimal solution. Our main contributions are in obtaining an analytical solution under each of the four risk constraints, in the form of the optimal terminal wealth. We show that the four risk constraints lead to the same optimal solution, which differs from previous conclusions obtained from the corresponding concave optimization problem under a risk constraint. Compared with the benchmark (unconstrained) non-concave utility maximization problem, all four risk constraints effectively and equivalently reduce the set of zero terminal wealth, but do not fully eliminate this set, indicating the success and failure of the respective financial regulations.

preprint2022arXiv

Robustness of Delta Hedging in a Jump-Diffusion Model

Suppose an investor aims at Delta hedging a European contingent claim $h(S(T))$ in a jump-diffusion model, but incorrectly specifies the stock price's volatility and jump sensitivity, so that any hedging strategy is calculated under a misspecified model. When does the erroneously computed strategy super-replicate the true claim in an appropriate sense? If the misspecified volatility and jump sensitivity dominate the true ones, we show that following the misspecified Delta strategy does super-replicate $h(S(T))$ in expectation among a wide collection of models. We also show that if a robust pricing operator with a whole class of models is used, the corresponding hedge is dominating the contingent claim under each model in expectation. Our results rely on proving stochastic flow properties of the jump-diffusion and the convexity of the value function. In the pure Poisson case, we establish that an overestimation of the jump sensitivity results in an almost sure one-sided hedge. Moreover, in general the misspecified price of the option dominates the true one if the volatility and the jump sensitivity are overestimated.

Institution

Affiliation not imported yet

This author record came from a source that does not expose affiliation metadata. Once the author claims the profile or we enrich the record from another provider, this section will link to the concrete institution.

Topic footprint