# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

March  2022, 7(1): 45-66. doi: 10.3934/puqr.2022004

## Lower and upper pricing of financial assets

 1 School of Business, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia 2 Department of Finance, Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA 3 Department of Actuarial Studies and Business Analytics, Macquarie Business School, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia

dbm@rhsmith.umd.edu

Received  October 15, 2021 Accepted  March 16, 2022 Published  March 2022 Early access  March 2022

Modeling of uncertainty by probability errs by ignoring the uncertainty in probability. When financial valuation recognizes the uncertainty of probability, the best the market may offer is a two price framework of a lower and upper valuation. The martingale theory of asset prices is then replaced by the theory of nonlinear martingales. When dealing with pure jump compensators describing probability, the uncertainty in probability is captured by introducing parametric measure distortions. The two price framework then alters asset pricing theory by requiring two required return equations, one each for the lower upper valuation. Proxying lower and upper valuations by daily lows and highs, the paper delivers the first empirical study of nonlinear martingales via the modeling and simultaneous estimation of the two required return equations.

Citation: Robert Elliott, Dilip B. Madan, Tak Kuen Siu. Lower and upper pricing of financial assets. Probability, Uncertainty and Quantitative Risk, 2022, 7 (1) : 45-66. doi: 10.3934/puqr.2022004
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
Moment transforms of bilateral gamma parameter estimates
 Quantile d v s k 1 −0.0038 0.0070 −0.9097 3.0281 5 −0.0016 0.0084 −0.6409 3.2262 10 −0.0007 0.0093 −0.4789 3.4830 25 0.0004 0.0115 −0.1229 3.9540 50 0.0012 0.0150 0.0418 4.5340 75 0.0017 0.0209 0.1493 5.1621 90 0.0023 0.0305 0.2635 5.8350 95 0.0027 0.0408 0.3535 6.3046 99 0.0038 0.0707 0.5982 7.4617
 Quantile d v s k 1 −0.0038 0.0070 −0.9097 3.0281 5 −0.0016 0.0084 −0.6409 3.2262 10 −0.0007 0.0093 −0.4789 3.4830 25 0.0004 0.0115 −0.1229 3.9540 50 0.0012 0.0150 0.0418 4.5340 75 0.0017 0.0209 0.1493 5.1621 90 0.0023 0.0305 0.2635 5.8350 95 0.0027 0.0408 0.3535 6.3046 99 0.0038 0.0707 0.5982 7.4617
Lower and upper return quantiles
 Quantile Lower Upper $1$ $-0.0540$ $-0.0479$ $5$ $-0.0267$ $-0.0227$ $10$ $-0.0167$ $-0.0146$ $25$ $-0.0053$ $-0.0056$ $50$ $0.0020$ $0.0010$ $75$ $0.0083$ $0.0070$ $90$ $0.0167$ $0.0151$ $95$ $0.0237$ $0.0223$ $99$ $0.0458$ $0.0480$
 Quantile Lower Upper $1$ $-0.0540$ $-0.0479$ $5$ $-0.0267$ $-0.0227$ $10$ $-0.0167$ $-0.0146$ $25$ $-0.0053$ $-0.0056$ $50$ $0.0020$ $0.0010$ $75$ $0.0083$ $0.0070$ $90$ $0.0167$ $0.0151$ $95$ $0.0237$ $0.0223$ $99$ $0.0458$ $0.0480$
SPY states
 State $b_{p}$ $c_{p}$ $b_{n}$ $c_{n}$ $1$ $0.0054$ $1.2937$ $0.0097$ $0.6195$ $2$ $0.0057$ $1.2603$ $0.0059$ $1.0112$ $3$ $0.0053$ $1.3110$ $0.0077$ $0.7423$ $4$ $0.0034$ $2.3575$ $0.0049$ $1.3701$ $5$ $0.0061$ $1.1068$ $0.0085$ $0.6450$ $6$ $0.0042$ $1.7842$ $0.0059$ $1.0625$ $7$ $0.0058$ $1.2971$ $0.0077$ $0.8604$ $8$ $0.0011$ $12.049$ $0.0028$ $4.4096$
 State $b_{p}$ $c_{p}$ $b_{n}$ $c_{n}$ $1$ $0.0054$ $1.2937$ $0.0097$ $0.6195$ $2$ $0.0057$ $1.2603$ $0.0059$ $1.0112$ $3$ $0.0053$ $1.3110$ $0.0077$ $0.7423$ $4$ $0.0034$ $2.3575$ $0.0049$ $1.3701$ $5$ $0.0061$ $1.1068$ $0.0085$ $0.6450$ $6$ $0.0042$ $1.7842$ $0.0059$ $1.0625$ $7$ $0.0058$ $1.2971$ $0.0077$ $0.8604$ $8$ $0.0011$ $12.049$ $0.0028$ $4.4096$
Measure distortion parameters for the myopic case
 $b$ $c$ $2017$ $8.1711$ $863.3857$ $t{\text{-}}stat$ $(3.62)$ $(3.12)$ $2018$ $1.6311$ $78.1643$ $t{\text{-}}stat$ $(16.31)$ $(13.13)$ $2019$ $1.8594$ $85.7347$ $t{\text{-}}stat$ $(16.36)$ $(13.25)$
 $b$ $c$ $2017$ $8.1711$ $863.3857$ $t{\text{-}}stat$ $(3.62)$ $(3.12)$ $2018$ $1.6311$ $78.1643$ $t{\text{-}}stat$ $(16.31)$ $(13.13)$ $2019$ $1.8594$ $85.7347$ $t{\text{-}}stat$ $(16.36)$ $(13.25)$
Measure distortion parameters for the Markov modulated case
 $b$ $c$ $2017$ $0.008962$ $0.475662$ $t{\text{-}}stat$ $(30.04)$ $(12.79)$ $2018$ $0.039580$ $0.500025$ $t{\text{-}}stat$ $(109.82)$ $(47.43)$ $2019$ $0.014905$ $0.469397$ $t{\text{-}}stat$ $(48.38)$ $(20.64)$
 $b$ $c$ $2017$ $0.008962$ $0.475662$ $t{\text{-}}stat$ $(30.04)$ $(12.79)$ $2018$ $0.039580$ $0.500025$ $t{\text{-}}stat$ $(109.82)$ $(47.43)$ $2019$ $0.014905$ $0.469397$ $t{\text{-}}stat$ $(48.38)$ $(20.64)$
Maximal risk charges
 Modulated No Modulation $2017$ $0.01884$ $0.00946$ $2018$ $0.07916$ $0.02087$ $2019$ $0.03175$ $0.02169$
 Modulated No Modulation $2017$ $0.01884$ $0.00946$ $2018$ $0.07916$ $0.02087$ $2019$ $0.03175$ $0.02169$
 [1] Mila Nikolova. Model distortions in Bayesian MAP reconstruction. Inverse Problems and Imaging, 2007, 1 (2) : 399-422. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2007.1.399 [2] Jiaqin Wei, Zhuo Jin, Hailiang Yang. Optimal dividend policy with liability constraint under a hidden Markov regime-switching model. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2019, 15 (4) : 1965-1993. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018132 [3] Yang Shen, Tak Kuen Siu. Consumption-portfolio optimization and filtering in a hidden Markov-modulated asset price model. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (1) : 23-46. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016002 [4] Jing Ge, Zhigui Lin, Huaiping Zhu. Environmental risks in a diffusive SIS model incorporating use efficiency of the medical resource. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2016, 21 (5) : 1469-1481. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2016007 [5] Sergey V Lototsky, Henry Schellhorn, Ran Zhao. An infinite-dimensional model of liquidity in financial markets. Probability, Uncertainty and Quantitative Risk, 2021, 6 (2) : 117-138. doi: 10.3934/puqr.2021006 [6] Wei Wang, Na Sun, Michael K. Ng. A variational gamma correction model for image contrast enhancement. Inverse Problems and Imaging, 2019, 13 (3) : 461-478. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2019023 [7] Bilgi Yilmaz, A. Sevtap Selcuk-Kestel. A stochastic approach to model housing markets: The US housing market case. Numerical Algebra, Control and Optimization, 2018, 8 (4) : 481-492. doi: 10.3934/naco.2018030 [8] Xiulan Wang, Yanfei Lan, Wansheng Tang. An uncertain wage contract model for risk-averse worker under bilateral moral hazard. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (4) : 1815-1840. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2017020 [9] Antonio Di Crescenzo, Maria Longobardi, Barbara Martinucci. On a spike train probability model with interacting neural units. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2014, 11 (2) : 217-231. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2014.11.217 [10] Samuel N. Cohen. Uncertainty and filtering of hidden Markov models in discrete time. Probability, Uncertainty and Quantitative Risk, 2020, 5 (0) : 4-. doi: 10.1186/s41546-020-00046-x [11] Luca Bisconti, Davide Catania. Global well-posedness of the two-dimensional horizontally filtered simplified Bardina turbulence model on a strip-like region. Communications on Pure and Applied Analysis, 2017, 16 (5) : 1861-1881. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2017090 [12] Yinghui Dong, Guojing Wang. Ruin probability for renewal risk model with negative risk sums. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2006, 2 (2) : 229-236. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2006.2.229 [13] Emilija Bernackaitė, Jonas Šiaulys. The finite-time ruin probability for an inhomogeneous renewal risk model. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (1) : 207-222. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016012 [14] Dong-Mei Zhu, Wai-Ki Ching, Robert J. Elliott, Tak-Kuen Siu, Lianmin Zhang. Hidden Markov models with threshold effects and their applications to oil price forecasting. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (2) : 757-773. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016045 [15] Roberto C. Alamino, Nestor Caticha. Bayesian online algorithms for learning in discrete hidden Markov models. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2008, 9 (1) : 1-10. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2008.9.1 [16] Thomas Hudson. Gamma-expansion for a 1D confined Lennard-Jones model with point defect. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2013, 8 (2) : 501-527. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2013.8.501 [17] Jingzhi Tie, Qing Zhang. An optimal mean-reversion trading rule under a Markov chain model. Mathematical Control and Related Fields, 2016, 6 (3) : 467-488. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2016012 [18] Tianyuan Xu, Shanming Ji, Chunhua Jin, Ming Mei, Jingxue Yin. Early and late stage profiles for a chemotaxis model with density-dependent jump probability. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2018, 15 (6) : 1345-1385. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018062 [19] Qingwu Gao, Zhongquan Huang, Houcai Shen, Juan Zheng. Asymptotics for random-time ruin probability in a time-dependent renewal risk model with subexponential claims. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2016, 12 (1) : 31-43. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016.12.31 [20] Jan Lorenz, Stefano Battiston. Systemic risk in a network fragility model analyzed with probability density evolution of persistent random walks. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2008, 3 (2) : 185-200. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2008.3.185

Impact Factor: