Superhedging Supermartingales

Let \tilde{S}_k=S_k,\; j\le k\le i. If j\le \tau(S)\le i \Rightarrow \tau(\tilde{S})=\tau(S)\le i\; \& \; H^{\tau}_i(\tilde{S})=H^2_i(\tilde{S})=H^{\tau}_i(S). While, by symmetry in previous reasoning, i<\tau(S) \Rightarrow i<\tau(\tilde{S})\; \& \; H^{\tau}_i(\tilde{S})=H^1_i(S)=H^1_i(\tilde{S})=H^{\tau}_i(\tilde{S}).

We begin with the following inequality valid on \mathcal{S}_{(S,j)}:
f \leq \Pi_{j, n_0}^{V^0, H^0}+ \sum_{m \geq 1} \liminf_{n \rightarrow \infty} \Pi_{j, n}^{V^m, H^m} where \Pi_{j, n_0}^{V^0, H^0}\in \mathcal{E}_{(S,j)} and \Pi_{j, n}^{V^M, H^m} \in \mathcal{E}^+_{(S,j)} for every n\geq j. This inequality implies that \overline{\sigma}_k f(\tilde S) \leq \sum_{m\geq 0} \Pi_{j, k}^{V^m, H^m}(\tilde S) holds for all \tilde S \in \mathcal{S}_{(S,j)}, which in turn implies \overline{\sigma}_j(\overline{\sigma}_k f)(S) \leq \sum_{m \geq 0} V^m(S). Therefore the result follows by the definition of \overline{\sigma}_j as an infimum.

We start with the following preliminary considerations: Since (L)-a.e. holds, we conclude from Proposition B.3 that \underline{\sigma}_j g\leq \overline{\sigma}_j g a.e. for every g\in Q and j\geq 0. Applying this twice with g=f and with g=\overline{\sigma}_k f, in view of Corollary B.2, the following chain of inequalities holds a.e.

Applying Theorem 3.5, we obtain,

a) The conditional integrability assumption now turns all a.e.-inequalities in (Proof) into a.e.-identities. In particular, (\overline{\sigma}_j f)_{j\geq 0} is a martingale.

b) Let j=0. Then, the integrability assumption turns all inequalities in (Proof) into identities. In particular, we obtain \overline{\sigma}[\overline{\sigma}_kf]=\underline{\sigma}[\underline{\sigma}_kf], \overline{\sigma}[\overline{\sigma}_kf]=\underline{\sigma}[\overline{\sigma}_kf] and also \underline{\sigma}[\underline{\sigma}_kf]=\overline{\sigma}[\underline{\sigma}_kf] (with -f in place of f). We then have access to Corollary B.5 to compute

Therefore, given that \overline{\sigma}_k f - \underline{\sigma}_k f \geq 0 a.e. (as per Proposition B.3) we have

which, by Proposition 2.9 item (1), implies \overline{\sigma}_k f - \underline{\sigma}_k f \leq 0 a.e. The two inequalities together yield \overline{\sigma}_k f = \underline{\sigma}_k f a.e., hence the conditional integrability of f at k. Since k is arbitrary, b) is reduced to a).

Let

and recall that \mathcal{N}^{(L)}, defined in (?), is a null set by assumption. Note that \mathcal{N}^{(I)} and \mathcal{N}^{(II)} are null sets by Lemma A.3 and that \mathcal{N}^{(II)}\subset\mathcal{N}^{(L)} by Lemma A.1.
(i) \Rightarrow (ii): By the supermartingale property of (f_j)_{j\geq 0} we may fix an \overline{I}-null set \mathcal{N}_f such that \overline{\sigma}_j f_{j+1}(S) \leq f_j(S) for every S \in \mathcal{S} \setminus \mathcal{N}_f and j\ge0. Let N_f \equiv \mathcal{N}^{(I)}\cup\mathcal{N}^{(L)}\cup\mathcal{N}_f. We first introduce the stopping time

with the convention \inf \emptyset = +\infty. Note that \tau^{\#}(S) = \infty, if S\notin N_f.

Now we fix some j\ge 0 and choose a family \{S^{\lambda}\}_{\lambda\in \Lambda_j} for some index set \Lambda_j so that \{\mathcal{S}_{(S^{\lambda},j)}:\lambda\in \Lambda_j\} is a partition of \mathcal{S} (see Definition A.2 in appendix ?).

We construct now a function H_j:\mathcal{S} \rightarrow \mathbb{R} constant on the nodes of the partition (and, thus, non-anticipating) in the following way. Consider an arbitrary but fixed node (S^{\lambda},j) of the partition:

If \tau^{\#}(S^\lambda)\le j, then \mathcal{S}_{(S^\lambda,j)}\subset N_f and we simply let H_j(S)=0 for any S\in\mathcal{S}_{(S^\lambda,j)}.

If \tau^{\#}(S^\lambda)\ge j+1 note that, in particular, (L_{(S^{\lambda},j)}) holds and \overline{\sigma}_j f_{j+1}(S^\lambda)\le f_j(S^\lambda) \in \mathbb{R}. Applying the defnition of \overline{\sigma}_j, we find g_m’s such that

where g_m=\liminf_{n\to\infty}~\Pi_{j,n}^{V^m,H^m},~~\Pi_{j,n}^{V^m,H^m} \in \mathcal{E}^+_{(S^{\lambda}, j)}\; m\ge 1,~\mbox{and}~~ g_0=~\Pi_{j,n_0}^{V^0,H^0} \in \mathcal{E}_{(S^{\lambda}, j)} and

Notice that H^m_j is constant on \mathcal{S}_{(S^{\lambda},j)}, and we write h_m for this constant value. If (S^{\lambda}, j) is an up-down node, then \sum_{m=0}^{\infty}h_m converges in \mathbb{R} by the Aggregation Lemma 4.4. We now define H_j(S) \equiv H_j(S^{\lambda}) for S\in\mathcal{S}_{(S^{\lambda},j)} in the following way:

• If (S^{\lambda}, j) is an up-down node, then H_j(S^{\lambda})\equiv\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}h_m,

• Otherwise H_j(S^{\lambda})\equiv 0.

If S\in (S^{\lambda}, j) satisfies (L_{(S,j+1)}), then, by the Finite Maturity Lemma 4.3 with n_{f_{j+1}}=j+1,

Case A: S \in (S^{\lambda}, j) satisfies (L_{(S,j+1)}) and [(S^{\lambda},j) is an up-down or S_{j+1}=S_j].

Then, by (?) and (?),

Case B: For S\in\mathcal{S}_{(S^{\lambda},j)}, (L_{(S,j+1)}) fails or [(S^{\lambda},j) is not an up-down and S_{j+1}\neq S_j]. Then, \tau^{\#}(S)= j+1.

Consequently, for every S\in\mathcal{S} such that \tau^{\#}(S)\ge j+2, and, hence in particular for every S \notin N_f, we are in Case A and

We now define, for S\in\mathcal{S}\setminus N_f

and set \alpha_j(S)\equiv 0 for for S\in N_f. Then for S\in\mathcal{S}\setminus N_f

Summing this identity over j, yields, for every i\ge 0 and S\in\mathcal{S}\setminus N_f,

with A_i(S)\equiv \sum\limits_{j=0}^{i-1}\alpha_j(S).

(ii) \Rightarrow (i): As N_f is an \bar I-null set, we may deduce from Proposition B.1–e), that \bar I_j {\bf 1}_{N_f}=0 \bar I-a.e. for every j\ge 0. Hence, there is an \bar I-null set \mathcal{N}_f such that \bar I_j {\bf 1}_{N_f}(S)=0 for every S\in \mathcal{S}\setminus \mathcal{N}_f and j\geq 0.

We now fix some j\geq 0 and some positive integer K and let \delta_i=1/K. Condition (ii) implies

for every S\in \mathcal{S}\setminus {N}_f. We define

for every S\in \mathcal{S}. Then, g_{j+1}\in\mathcal{E}_j and \overline\sigma_jg_{j+1}(S)\leq f_j(S)+1/K for every S\in \mathcal{S}. Note that (f_{j+1}-g_{j+1})_+ can only be strictly positive on the \bar I-null set N_f. Consequently,

for every S\in \mathcal{S}\setminus\mathcal{N}_f. Passing to the limit K\rightarrow \infty, yields (i).

Define for each \tilde{S} \in \mathcal{S}_{(S^{\ast}, n_f)},

where we have used the fact that H_i^0=0 for i \geq n_0,

and for m \geq 1

It follows that

and for m \geq 1

Notice that (?) implies 0 \leq \sum\limits_{m \geq 0} g_m holds on \mathcal{S}_{(S^{\ast}, n_f)} and since property (L_{(S^*,n_f)}) holds,

from where (?) holds.

Fix a sequence (\delta_j)_{j\ge 0} of positive reals with \sum_j\delta_j<\infty. By Theorem 4.1 there are sequences ({H}_j)_{j\ge 0}, (A_j)_{j\ge 0} of non-anticipating real-valued functions such that (A_j)_{ j \geq 0} is nondecreasing, A_0 = 0, and

for every S\in\mathcal{S}\setminus {N}_f and i\ge 0, with N_f a null set independent of (\delta_j)_{j\ge 0}. Besides, with {V}\equiv f_0+\sum\limits_{j=0}^{\infty}\delta_j it follows by Lemma 5.2 that

for every i\ge 0 and S\in\mathcal{S}.

Having in mind that there are no portfolio restrictions on \mathcal{H}, from [ferrando, Theorem 2] it follows that there exists a null set N_0 such that \lim\limits_{i\to\infty}\Pi^{V,{H}}_i(S) exists and is finite for any S\in\mathcal{S}\setminus N_0. Consequently (\Pi^{{V},{H}}_i(S))_{i\ge 0} is bounded for those S. Let \mathcal{N}_{div} \equiv N_0 \cup N_f and restrict the following arguments to S \in \mathcal{S} \setminus \mathcal{N}_{div}. Therefore, from (Proof) and the nonnegativity of f, (A_i(S))_{i\ge 0} results bounded and since it is nondecreasing, \lim_{i\to\infty}A_i(S) also exists (and so it is finite). So \lim\limits_{i\to\infty} f_i(S) exists in \mathbb{R} from (Proof), for any S \in \mathcal{S} \setminus \mathcal{N}_{div}.

We construct (H_j) as in the proof of the implication (i) \Rightarrow (ii) in Theorem 4.1. With \tau^\# as in the proof of Theorem 4.1, we note that: If j\leq \tau^\#(S)-2 or if [j= \tau^\#(S)-1 and (S,j) is an up-down node and (L_{(S,j+1)}) holds], we are in Case A of the proof of Theorem 4.1 and, thus, by (?),

Moreover, if j\geq \tau^\#(S) or [j= \tau^\#(S)-1 and (S,j) is not an up-down node], then

We now distinguish two cases:
(i) i<\tau^\#(S).

Then j\leq \tau^\#(S)-2 for any j<i, and, consequently, by (Proof),

(ii) i\geq \tau^\#(S).

Then, by (Proof) and (Proof),

If (S,\tau^\#(S)-1) is not an up-down-node, then, by (Proof),

If (S,\tau^\#(S)-1) is an up-down-node and (L_{(S,\tau^\#(S))}) holds, then, by (Proof),

If (S,\tau^\#(S)-1) is an up-down-node and (L_{(S,\tau^\#(S))}) fails, then, by Assumption (H.1) with j=\tau^\#(S)-1, there are S^1,S^0\in (S,\tau^\#(S)-1) such that L_{(S^\iota,\tau^\#(S))} holds for \iota= 0, 1 and S^0_{\tau^\#(S)}\leq S_{\tau^\#(S)}\leq S^1_{\tau^\#(S)}. If H_{\tau^\#(S)-1}(S)\geq 0, then, by invoking (Proof) for S^1,

If H_{\tau^\#(S)-1}(S)< 0, then, the same argument with S^0 in place of S^1 yields

Fix some \epsilon>0 and choose a sequence (\delta_i) of positive reals such that \sum_{i=j}^{n_f-1} \delta_j\leq \epsilon. We fix a supermartingale (f_i)_{i\geq 0} as in Lemma 6.2 and note that, thanks to Lemma B.4 and assumption (L)-a.e., f_i=\overline\sigma_if=f a.e. for i\geq n_f. Hence, we may apply Theorem 4.1 to (f_i) in order to construct a non-anticipative sequence (H_i)_{i=0,\ldots, n_f-1} such that

for every S\in \mathcal{S}\setminus N_f, where N_f is a null set.

For the converse inequality, assume that there are V\in Q with maturity j, H=(H_i)_{i=j,\ldots, n_f-1} non-anticipative, and a null set \tilde N_f such that for every S\in \mathcal{S}\setminus \tilde N_f

If V(S_0,\ldots,S_j)=+\infty, the inequality \overline \sigma_j f(S)\leq V(S) is trivial. Otherwise, we note that g=\infty {\bf 1}_{\tilde N_f} is a null function. Hence, by Proposition B.1–e), there is a null set N_f such that \overline I_jg(S)=0 for every S\in \mathcal{S} \setminus N_f. Consequently, for every S\in \mathcal{S} \setminus N_f and \epsilon>0 there are sequences (V_m)_{m\geq 1} of nonnegative reals and (H^m)_{m\geq 1} in \mathcal{H}_{(S,j)} such that \Pi_{j, n}^{V^m, H^m}\in \mathcal{E}^+_{(S,j)} for every n\geq j, \sum_{m\geq 1} V_m\leq \epsilon and g\leq \sum_{m\geq 1} \liminf_{n\to \infty}~~\Pi_{j, n}^{V^m, H^m} on \mathcal{S}_{(S, j)}. Let V^0=V(S_0,\ldots, S_j) and define H^0 via restricting the functions in H on the conditional space \mathcal{S}_{(S, j)}. Then,

which implies \overline \sigma_j f(S)\leq V(S_0,\ldots,S_j)+\epsilon for every S\in \mathcal{S} \setminus N_f. By passing with \epsilon to zero, we obtain \overline \sigma_j f\leq V a.e.

As in the proof of Theorem 4.1, we consider the stopping time

Define

and note that (f_i)_{i\geq 0} is non-anticipative by Lemma 3.4. Recall that \{S\in \mathcal{S}|\; \tau(S)<\infty\} is a null set by Lemma A.3 and by assumption (L)-a.e. In view of Example 1–b), we conclude that (f_j) is a supermartingale and \overline \sigma_j f=f_j a.e. for every j\geq 0.

For the lower bound, note that by Proposition B.3,

whenever i<\tau^\#(S). We finally need to verify that f_i(S)<\infty for every i\geq 0 and S\in \mathcal{S}. Since \overline \sigma f< \infty, we find \Pi_{0, n_0}^{V^0,H^0}\!\!\in \mathcal{E}_0 and, for every m\in \mathbb{N}, \Pi_{0, \cdot}^{V^m, H^m} such that \Pi_{0, n}^{V^m, H^m}\!\!\in \mathcal{E}^+_0 for every n\geq 0, \sum_{m=1}^\infty V^m<\infty and

We now fix a node (S,i). The previous inequality implies

where \tilde V(S)=\Pi_{0, i}^{V^m, H^m}(S) and \tilde H^m= H^m_{|\mathcal{S}_{(S,i)}}. Hence, \overline \sigma_i f(S)\leq \sum_{m=0}^\infty \Pi_{0, i}^{V^m, H^m}(S). We still need to check that the right-hand side is finite, if i<\tau^\#(S). In this case, we may (thanks to Lemma A.1) apply the Aggregation Lemma 4.4 to conclude that

where each of the series converges in \mathbb{R}.

(i) \Rightarrow (ii): Since \overline I_j(0)(S)=0 always holds, we immediately obtain

at any node (S,j).
(ii) \Rightarrow (i): Step 1: We first consider the initial node (S,0):

Noting that \overline \sigma f \leq \overline I f by definition, it suffices to show that \overline I f \leq \overline \sigma f, for which we may and do assume that \overline \sigma f<\infty. We now proceed as in the first part of the proof of Theorem 6.1, but note that the supermartingale (f_i)_{i\geq 0} can be chosen [0,\infty)-valued and that Lemma 5.2 is applicable, because (L_{(S,j)}) holds at every node (S,j). By Theorem 4.1 and Lemma 5.2, we find a non-anticipative sequence (H_j)_{j=0,\ldots, n_f-1} such that

for every S\in \mathcal{S} and

for every S\in \mathcal{S}\setminus N_f, where N_f is a null set. Let V^0=\overline \sigma f+\epsilon and define H^0 via H^0_j=H_j for j\leq n_f-1 and H^0_j=0 for j\geq n_f. Then \Pi_{0,j}^{V^0,H^0}\in \mathcal{E}_0^+ for every j\geq 0. Dealing with the null set N_f as in the second part of the proof of Theorem 6.1, we conclude that \overline I f\leq \overline \sigma f+2\epsilon. Letting \epsilon tend to zero, the proof of Step 1 is complete.
Step 2: We now consider a generic node (\tilde S,\tilde j):

Define the auxiliary trajectory set

Then, the \overline \sigma-operator and the \overline I-operator for \widetilde{\mathcal{S}} at time 0 coincide with \overline \sigma_{\tilde j}(\cdot)(\tilde S) and \overline I_{\tilde j}(\cdot)(\tilde S). Moreover, each node (S,j) in \widetilde{\mathcal{S}} coincides with the node ((\tilde S_0,\ldots,\tilde S_{\tilde j-1}, S_0,\ldots), \tilde j+j) in \mathcal{S}. Hence, every node (S,j) in \widetilde{\mathcal{S}} satisfies (L_{(S,j)}). These observations reduce the case of a generic node to the case of an initial node.

We first show that, under the assumptions of Theorem 7.1, (S,j) is bad, if and only if (S,j) is an arbitrage node of type II. Since arbitrage nodes of type II are always bad, we only need to show that any other nodes are good. To this end, we fix a node (S,j) which is not arbitrage of type II and construct a trajectory \tilde S \in \mathcal{S}_{(S,j)}\setminus N(S,j). We set S^n=S for n\leq j and inductively construct S^n for j\geq n in the following way, which guarantees that (S^n,n) is not a type II arbitrage node: If (S^n,n) is flat or an arbitrage node of type I, we choose S^{n+1}\in \mathcal{S}_{(S^n,n)} such that S^{n+1}_{n+1}=S^n_n and note that (S^{n+1},n+1) is not an arbitrage node of type II by (H.2). If (S^n,n) is an up-down node, then by (H.2) again, we find some S^{n+1}\in \mathcal{S}_{(S^n,n)} such that (S^{n+1},n+1) is not an arbitrage node of type II. Since the trajectory set is complete, \tilde S= (S^n_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}_0}\in \mathcal{S}. By construction, \tilde S \in \mathcal{S}_{(S,j)}\setminus N(S,j).

We next argue that (H.2) implies (H.4). By the characterization of good nodes, (H.4) can be reformulated as

• (H.4’) If (S,j) is an up-down node, then for every \epsilon>0 there are S^{\epsilon,1}, S^{\epsilon,2}\in \mathcal{S}_{(S,j)} such that

  S^{\epsilon,1}_{j+1}-S_{j}\geq -\epsilon,\quad S^{\epsilon,2}_{j+1}-S_{j}\leq \epsilon

  and (S^{\epsilon,1},j+1) and (S^{\epsilon,2},j+1) are not arbitrage nodes of type II.

To verify (H.4’), consider any up-down node (S,j). If (\hat S,j+1) is not a type II arbitrage node for every \hat S\in \mathcal{S}_{(S,j)}, then we find S^1, S^2 \in \mathcal{S}_{(S,j)} such that S^1_{j+1}-S_j>0 and S^2_{j+1}-S_j<0. We may choose S^{\epsilon,1}=S^{1} and S^{\epsilon,2}=S^{2} for every \epsilon>0. Otherwise, (H.2) directly applies.

Finally, note that trajectorial completeness implies (H.5). Hence, by Theorem C.2, (L_{(S,j)}) holds, if and only if (S,j) is not an arbitrage node of type II. By (H.2), the initial node (S,0) is not an arbitrage node of type II, and, thus, (L) holds. Noting that the trajectories passing through type II arbitrage nodes form a null set (by Lemma A.3), we conclude (L)-a.e.

We first show that (H.3) implies condition (H.2) in Theorem 7.1. Suppose (S,j) is a type II arbitrage node. Then, by (H.3), j\geq 1 and (S,j-1) is an up-down node. Consequently, there is a \tilde S\in (S,j-1) such that \tilde S_j> \tilde S_{j-1}=S_{j-1}. Then, for every \epsilon>0

and we may take S^{\epsilon,1}=\tilde S in (H.2), provided (\tilde S,j) is not an arbitrage node of type II. Otherwise, we may apply (H.3) with \tilde S in place of S and find some S^1\in (S,j-1)=(\tilde S,j-1) such that S^1_j>\tilde S_j and (S^1,j) is not an arbitrage node of type II. Then, we may take S^{\epsilon,1}=S^1. The construction of S^{\epsilon,2} follows by a ‘symmetric’ argument.

Now that (H.2) is verified, Theorem 7.1 implies that (L)-a.e. holds – and that L_{(S,j)} fails, if and only if (S,j) is an arbitrage node of type II. The latter implies (H.1). Indeed, if (S,j) is an up-down node and L_{(S,j+1)} fails, then (S,j+1) is a type II arbitrage node, and, thus, by (H.3) there are S^{1}, S^{2}\in \mathcal{S}_{(S,j)} such that

and such that L_{(S^1,j+1)}, L_{(S^2,j+1)} hold, because (S^{1},j), (S^{2},j) are not type II arbitrage nodes.

We may consider the case when \tilde{S}_{j+1} > S_j for all \tilde{S} \in \mathcal{S}_{(S,j)}. Take then, for all m \geq 1: H^m_j(\tilde{S})=1 and H^m_i(\tilde{S})=0 for all i >j, V^m =0. Also, H^0_i=0 for all i \geq j; then, for any V^0 \in \mathbb{R}:

Thus, the claim follows.

Define N^{\circ,+}_j\equiv\{S\in N^{\circ}_j: \Delta_jS>0\} and \Lambda_j^+\equiv\{\lambda\in\Lambda_j: S^{\lambda}\in N^{\circ,+}_j\}, and consider for m\ge 1, f_m=\Pi^{0,H^{\Lambda_j^+}}_{k,j+1}\in \mathcal{E}_{(S,k)}^+ for any S\in\mathcal{S}. Then

In a similar way it is shown that N^{\circ,-}_j\equiv\{S\in N^{\circ}_j: \Delta_jS<0\} is a conditionally null set at any (S,k), consequently N^{\circ}_j=N_j^{\circ,+}\cup N_j^{\circ,-} is also conditionally null.

For item (?) assume there exists S\in\mathcal{S}_{(S^1,\tau(S^1))}\cap\mathcal{S}_{(S^2,\tau(S^2))}. Consider w.l.o.g. that \tau(S^1)\le\tau(S^2). Then S^1_i=S_i=S^2_i for 0\le i\le \tau(S^1), which implies hat \tau(S^2)=\tau(S^1) and in consequence \mathcal{S}_{(S^1,\tau(S^1))}=\mathcal{S}_{(S^2,\tau(S^2))}.

For item (?), it is enough to prove that H_i are non-anticipative for any i\ge 0. Assume S^1_j=S^2_j for 0\le j\le i and w.l.o.g. \tau(S^1)\le\tau(S^2).

If i<\tau(S^1) then H_i(S^1)=H^{S^1}_i(S)=0=H^{S^2}_i(S^2)=H_i(S^2).

While if \tau(S^1)\le i, then \tau(S^2)=\tau(S^1) which leads to S^2\in\mathcal{S}_{(S^1,\tau(S^1))} and
H_i(S^2)=H^{S^2}_i(S^2)=H^{S^1}_i(S^2)=H^{S^1}_i(S^1)=H_i(S^1).

The proofs are immediate but we do indicate the arguments for item d).

Let c \geq 0 be a constant such that g(\hat{S}= c for all \hat{S} \in \mathcal{S}_{(S,j)}. If c=0 \overline{\sigma}_j(g f)(S)= \overline{\sigma}_j(0)(S) \leq g \overline{\sigma}_j 0(S) (already covered by item a). So assume c >0

Let gf(\tilde{S}) \le \sum\limits_{m\ge 0}\liminf\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty}\Pi_{j, n}^{V^m, H^m}(\tilde{S}),\; \tilde{S}\in\mathcal{S}_{(S,j)}, with \Pi_{j, n_0}^{V^0, H^0}\in \mathcal{E}_{(S,j)} and, for m\ge 1, \Pi_{j, n}^{V^m, H^m}\in \mathcal{E}^+_{(S,j)} for all n\ge 0. For each \tilde{S} \in \mathcal{S}_{(S,j)} and    m\ge 0      define

It follows that f(\tilde{S})\le \sum\limits_{m\ge 0}\liminf\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty}\Pi_{j, n_m}^{U^m, G^m}(\tilde{S}),\; \tilde{S}\in\mathcal{S}_{(S,j)}, with \Pi_{j, n_0}^{U^0, G^0}\in \mathcal{E}_{(S,j)}, and for m\ge 1, \Pi_{j, n}^{U^m, G^m}\in \mathcal{E}^+_{(S,j)} for all n\ge 0. Thus

Notice that one actually obtains \overline{\sigma}_j(g f)(S) = g \overline{\sigma}_j f(S) if g=c>0.

We also note that the proof of item e) is analogous to the one of Proposition3.5.

Note that, for every S\in \mathcal{S},

where (\cdot)_+ denotes the positive part. As (f-g)_+ is a null function, we conclude by Proposition B.1 that \overline{I}_j(f-g)_+ is a null function. Hence, \overline{\sigma}_j f\leq \overline{\sigma}_j g a.e.

From (?) and item c) of Proposition B.1 it follows (2), since 0\le \overline{\sigma}_jf(S)+\overline{\sigma}_j[-f](S). Assumed (2), it follows that 0\le\underline{\sigma}_j0(S)\le \overline{\sigma}_j0(S)\le 0, first and last inequalities from item a) of Proposition B.1, so (?) holds.

From here onwards we let f=\Pi^{V, H}_{j, n_f}.

(\ref{L_j}) follows from (\ref{sigma0=0}) as follows. Let h_m = \liminf\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty}~ \Pi^{V^m, H^m}_{j, n},~~\Pi^{V^m, H^m}_{j, n} \in \mathcal{E}_{(S, j)}^+~\forall~ n \geq j and m \geq 1, such that f \leq \sum\limits_{m \geq 1} h_m.

Then 0 \leq -\Pi^{V, H}_{j, n_f} + \sum\limits_{m \geq 1} h_m, thus (taking f_0 \equiv -\Pi^{V, H}_{j, n_f}, and f_m=h_m for m\ge 1) by Definition 2.10, 0 = \overline{\sigma}_j(0) \leq -V+\sum\limits_{m \geq 1} V^m, which leads to V \leq \sum\limits_{m \geq 1} V^m as required.

Assumed (\ref{L_j}), let f_0=\Pi^{V^0, H^0}_{j, n_0}\in \mathcal{E}_{(S, j)} and f_m = \liminf\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty}~ \Pi^{V^m, H^m}_{j, n},~~\Pi^{V^m, H^m}_{j, n} \in \mathcal{E}_{(S, j)}^+\\~\forall~ n \geq j and m \geq 1, such that f \leq \sum\limits_{m \geq 0} f_m. Then f-f_0\le \sum\limits_{m \geq 1} f_m with f-f_0\in \mathcal{E}_{(S, j)}, so

and

Since by Definition 2.10, \overline{\sigma}_jf(S)\le V(S), (?) holds, having in mind that \underline{\sigma}_jf(S)=-\overline{\sigma}_j[-f](S)= V(S).

Finally, it is clear that (?) follows from (?).

If f is constant on \mathcal{S}_{(S,j)}, it is also constant on \mathcal{S}_{(S,k)}\subset \mathcal{S}_{(S,j)}, then f\in \mathcal{E}_{(S,k)}, so by Definition 2.10, \overline{\sigma}_kf(S) \leq f(S).

If, furthermore, also (L_{(S,k)}) holds, we have \underline{\sigma}_kf(S) = I_k f(S)= f(S)=\overline{\sigma}_kf(S) by Proposition B.3 item (4).

The finiteness claims follow from our conventions in the first paragraph of Section ?. We then see that the hypotheses imply that \overline{\sigma}_j f(S)= \underline{\sigma}_j f(S) and \overline{\sigma}_j g(S)= \underline{\sigma}_j g(S).

(a) holds from

For (b), if c=0 or c=-1 the result is clear. For c>0 it follows from item d) of Proposition B.1, from where, if c<0

Fix a good node (S,j). Let ~~~~f = \Pi^{V^0, H^0}_{j, n_f}\in \mathcal{E}_{(S, j)} and f_m = \liminf_{n \rightarrow \infty} \Pi^{V^m, H^m}_{j, n} with \Pi^{V^m, H^m}_{j, n} \in \mathcal{E}_{(S, j)}^+~\mbox{for all}~ n \geq j~\mbox{and}~ m \geq 1 such that

We need to show that

(and, hence, can and will assume that V<\infty). Recall that

If \tilde S\in \mathcal{S}_{(S,j)} \setminus N(S,j), then, for every k\geq j, (\tilde S,k) is an up-down node or \tilde S_{k+1}=\tilde S_k. Hence, by the Aggregation Lemma 4.4, for every \tilde S\in \mathcal{S}_{(S,j)} \setminus N(S,j) and n\geq j

for the non-anticipative sequence

Then, by Fatou’s lemma, for every \hat S\in \mathcal{S}_{(S,j)}

which we may rearrange into

where \tilde H_i=H_i-H^0_i for i<n_f and \tilde H_i=H_i otherwise.

Thus, it is enough to show the following: For every \delta>0 there is an \tilde S\in \mathcal{S}_{(S,j)} \setminus N(S,j) such that

To this end, we construct a sequence (S^n) in \mathcal{S} as follows: S^n=S for n\leq j and, inductively for n> j in the following way, which guarantees that (S^n,n) is a good node for every n\geq j. Assume S^n has already been constructed for some n\geq j and (S^n,n) is a good node.

If (S^n,n) is a flat node or an arbitrage node of type I, then choose S^{n+1}\in \mathcal{S}_{(S^n,n)} such that S^{n+1}_{n+1}=S^n_n. We argue that (S^{n+1},n+1) is good in the type I case (the flat case being similar and easier). Suppose to the contrary that (S^{n+1},n+1) is bad. Then, for every \hat S \in \mathcal{S}_{(S^{n+1},n+1)}\subseteq \mathcal{S}_{(S^{n},n)} there is an i\geq n+1 such that (\hat S,i) is an arbitrage node and \hat S_{i+1}\neq \hat S_i – hence, \hat S \in N(S^n,n). Moreover, any \hat S \in \mathcal{S}_{(S^{n},n)} \setminus \mathcal{S}_{(S^{n+1},n+1)} belongs to N(S^n,n) because (S^n,n) is a type I arbitrage node. Thus, \mathcal{S}_{(S^{n},n)}=N(S,n) – a contradiction.

If (S^n,n) is an up-down node, then, by (H.4), one can choose a sufficiently small \epsilon>0 and S^{n+1}\in \mathcal{S}_{(S^n,n)} such that

and (S^{n+1},n+1) is a good node.

Note that (S^n,n) cannot be an arbitrage node of type II, because it is good by the inductive hypothesis. Hence, the construction of S^{n+1} is finished.

By (H.5), \tilde S=(S^n_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}_0}\in \mathcal{S}. Then, by construction, \tilde S\in\mathcal{S}_{(S,j)} and (\tilde S,n)=(S^n,n) is an up-down node (and then (?) holds) or \tilde S_{n+1}=S^{n+1}_{n+1}=S^{n}_n=\tilde S_n, whenever n\geq j. Hence, by construction, \tilde S\notin N{(S,j)} and

which establishes (?). Consequently, (L_{(S,j)}) holds.

Conversely, assume that (S,j) is a bad node. Then, by Lemma A.3, \overline I_j1(S)=0, which in turn implies \overline \sigma_j0(S)\leq -1. In view of Proposition B.3, (L_{(S,j)}) does not hold.