Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 0708.0588

Investment and Consumption without Commitment

Ivar Ekeland·Traian A. Pirvu
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate the Merton portfolio management problem in the context of non-exponential discounting. This gives rise to time-inconsistency of the decision-maker. If the decision-maker at time t=0 can commit his/her successors, he/she can choose the policy that is optimal from his/her point of view, and constrain the others to abide by it, although they do not see it as optimal for them. If there is no commitment mechanism, one must seek a subgame-perfect equilibrium strategy between the successive decision-makers. In the line of the earlier work by Ekeland and Lazrak we give a precise definition of equilibrium strategies in the context of the portfolio management problem, with finite horizon, we characterize it by a system of partial differential equations, and we show existence in the case when the utility is CRRA and the terminal time T is small. We also investigate the infinite-horizon case and we give two different explicit solutions in the case when the utility is CRRA (in contrast with the case of exponential discount, where there is only one). Some of our results are proved under the assumption that the discount function h(t) is a linear combination of two exponentials, or is the product of an exponential by a linear function.

Explore related subjects

q-fin.PMmath.OCmath.PR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ivar Ekeland, Traian A. Pirvu. 2007-08-03. Investment and Consumption without Commitment. https://arxiv.org/abs/0708.0588

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Portfolio Choice with Competing Precautionary and Accumulation Goals

We study optimal portfolio choice for a household managing two goals at once. A random-deadline precautionary goal, such as a medical emergency, must be paid in full whenever it arrives and is affordable; a fixed-deadline accumulation goal, such as a target retirement lifestyle, may be declined at its deadline. We show that precautionary saving crowds out growth-oriented investment, and deadline pressure is amplified by the competing precautionary claim. We characterize the value function as the unique viscosity solution of an HJB equation, and derive the household's optimal terminal funding rule. The household funds the fixed-deadline goal exactly when the direct benefit at least offsets the resulting drop in the value of keeping the precautionary goal funded. We calibrate the model and find that both flexibility and fungibility are most valuable at intermediate wealth. Committing in advance to fund a goal sacrifices flexibility, while managing each goal in its own account sacrifices fungibility.

q-fin.PM↗
arXiv2026

Taming the Greeks: Option Portfolios with Inductive Biases

We present an end-to-end deep learning framework for systematic options trading that directly embeds hedging behavior through explicit control of portfolio-level risk exposures. While neural networks trained to optimize risk-adjusted performance have been shown to outperform traditional rules-based strategies, such approaches remain agnostic to the sensitivities of the resulting portfolios with respect to specific underlying risk factors. We propose a general training objective that combines a performance-driven loss with a differentiable risk-sensitivity penalty, enforcing neutrality to selected risk dimensions. Unlike reinforcement learning methods that approximate optimal hedging policies via simulated market dynamics, our framework operates entirely on historical data and jointly optimizes risk-adjusted returns and targeted risk constraints in a single learning problem. We instantiate the framework on static delta-neutral straddle portfolios with the penalty directed at first-order directional exposure, and evaluate two penalty variants -- an exposure-normalized penalty and a Greek-ratio drift penalty. Empirical results on Nasdaq 100 equity options demonstrate that appropriately calibrated regularization simultaneously improves out-of-sample risk-adjusted performance relative to an unregularized baseline while reducing realized directional exposure.

q-fin.PM↗
arXiv2026

Return-Decay Residuals and Tail-Risk Forecasting: Timing Artifacts, Conditional Inference, and Cross-Market Evidence

Can residuals from fitted return-decay curves predict future factor tail losses, and do they measure crowding? We distinguish economic edge, overlapping performance statistics, and predictive evidence. A Gaussian counterexample produces a same-month crash-risk ratio of 1.61 without predictable future returns. An eight-factor US reconstruction finds no robust advantage under the original specification. A geographic extension tests six factors in Europe, Japan, and Asia Pacific excluding Japan, with matched baselines and separate 2015-2024 and 2025-August 2026 evaluations. For 2015-2024, pooled regional log loss increases by 0.00704 with frozen augmentation and 0.00233 with annual refitting, although Brier rankings differ and a matched-history US comparison favors the residual. Controlled diagnostics link ranking reversals to feature histories and validation-selected penalties. Holding reference penalties fixed largely removes the reversal, while attribution to history and reselection depends on decomposition order. Sparse validation events do not necessarily imply sensitivity to individual validation months. An equivalent-basis experiment isolates regularization effects: large gaps between representations often reflect poor component forecasts rather than substantial gains over a simple Sharpe baseline. Established sequential bounds allow dependent, nonstationary forecast comparisons under a disclosed research filtration; all 48 intervals include zero and permit nontrivial benefits. These findings establish sensitivity to representation, target definition, and scoring rule, without identifying crowding or establishing prospective forecasting value. Forecasts, unfavorable findings, configurations, and provenance are retained.

q-fin.PM↗