Optimal Option Portfolios for Skew-Elliptical t Returns

Kyle Sung; Traian A. Pirvu

arxiv: 2601.07991 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-12 · 💱 q-fin.PM

Optimal Option Portfolios for Skew-Elliptical t Returns

Kyle Sung , Traian A. Pirvu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 15:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💱 q-fin.PM

keywords option portfolio optimizationskew-elliptical t distributionvalue at riskvariance minimizationportfolio weightsskewness effectheavy-tailed returnsnumerical optimization

0 comments

The pith

Skew-elliptical t returns allow explicit formulas for optimal option portfolio weights under variance and VaR.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper derives explicit portfolio weights for option portfolios when underlying returns follow a skew-elliptical t distribution. It measures risk with both variance and value at risk, moving beyond normal assumptions to capture heavy tails and asymmetry. Closed-form expressions are supplied for variance minimization and a VaR approximation, while numerical optimization supplies improved VaR-based weights. Direct comparison with symmetric Student t weights isolates the effect of skewness on allocations. The work shows that more accurate VaR approximations produce weights noticeably different from variance-optimal ones.

Core claim

When returns are skew-elliptical t distributed, explicit portfolio weights exist that minimize variance for option portfolios, and analogous closed-form approximations exist for VaR; numerical optimization then yields refined VaR-optimal weights. Skewness shifts these weights relative to the symmetric Student t case, and the gap between variance-optimal and VaR-optimal weights widens as the VaR approximation improves.

What carries the argument

The skew-elliptical t distribution for returns, which supplies both heavy tails and asymmetry, together with the resulting closed-form and numerical optimizations under variance and VaR risk measures.

If this is right

Closed-form weights enable rapid computation of variance-minimizing option portfolios without numerical search.
Skewness produces systematically different allocations than those obtained from symmetric heavy-tailed models.
Numerical refinement of the VaR measure moves optimal weights farther from the variance solution.
The framework supplies a direct way to quantify how asymmetry alters risk-adjusted option holdings.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same derivation path could be applied to other skew-elliptical families to test robustness of the explicit weights.
In practice the formulas might be embedded in real-time risk engines that update when new skewness estimates arrive.
Regulatory stress tests that currently rely on variance could incorporate these VaR-adjusted weights to capture tail asymmetry.
Extension to multi-asset or dynamic rebalancing settings would reveal whether the closed forms survive time variation.

Load-bearing premise

The returns on the underlying assets exactly follow a skew-elliptical t distribution.

What would settle it

Empirical returns that deviate materially from the skew-elliptical t shape, or out-of-sample backtests in which the derived weights underperform standard alternatives on realized risk.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.07991 by Kyle Sung, Traian A. Pirvu.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Optimal call and put option portfolios, under both variance and Cornish-Fisher VaR minimization, of five [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

This paper explores option portfolio optimization when the underlying returns are skew-elliptical t-distributed. We use the variance and value at risk (VaR) to measure portfolio risk. The novelty of our work is the departure from the traditional normal returns setting, allowing investors to capture both heavy-tailed and skewed market dynamics. We provide explicit portfolio weights for the variance and VaR approximation. Our second contribution is the numerical representation of portfolio weights, obtained from numerical optimization for better VaR approximations. The effect of skewness on the portfolio weights is quantified by comparing our optimal skew t weights with those generated in the Student t setting. We also find that, as expected, a better VaR approximation risk measure yields optimal portfolio weights which are more different than the variance optimal weights.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives closed-form variance weights for skew-t option portfolios and numerical VaR ones, but the approximation accuracy for nonlinear payoffs is not validated.

read the letter

The core contribution is explicit portfolio weights that minimize variance for options when the underlying follows a skew-elliptical t distribution, plus a numerical optimization step for a VaR objective. They then compare the resulting allocations to the symmetric Student-t case to measure how skewness shifts the solution. That comparison is the main new piece relative to standard normal or symmetric-t work on option portfolios. The variance case is clean because moments are available in closed form under the skew-elliptical assumption, so the weights follow directly. The numerical VaR step is a reasonable practical extension when closed-form quantiles are unavailable. The paper does a straightforward job of showing that skewness matters for the allocations once you move away from symmetric returns. The soft spot is the VaR approximation itself. Option payoffs are nonlinear, so the portfolio return distribution has no simple quantile; whatever approximation they use must be accurate enough that the reported skewness effect is not an artifact of the approximation error. The abstract and stress-test note give no error bounds or Monte-Carlo checks against the true distribution, which leaves the quantified differences open to that concern. If the approximation is only moderate, the skewness impact they highlight could shrink or change sign under a better method. This is aimed at quantitative finance researchers who already work with non-normal returns in derivatives portfolios. A reader who needs explicit weights under skew-t or wants to see how asymmetry alters mean-variance style solutions will find usable material here. The variance derivations look reproducible from the stated assumptions, so the paper is worth sending to a serious referee even though the VaR validation could be tightened.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper derives explicit portfolio weights for option portfolios when underlying returns follow a skew-elliptical t distribution, using variance (via moments) and a VaR approximation as risk measures. It additionally supplies numerical weights obtained via optimization for improved VaR approximations and quantifies skewness effects by direct comparison of the resulting skew-t weights against those from the symmetric Student-t case.

Significance. If the VaR approximation proves sufficiently accurate, the work supplies concrete, usable weights that extend mean-variance and VaR optimization beyond the normal or symmetric-t settings to distributions that jointly capture skewness and heavy tails, which is directly relevant for option-portfolio construction in markets with asymmetric risk.

major comments (2)

[Abstract / VaR-approximation derivation] Abstract and the section presenting the VaR approximation: the claim of 'explicit portfolio weights for the VaR approximation' is load-bearing for the subsequent skewness comparison, yet no error bounds, truncation analysis, or Monte-Carlo validation against the true quantile of the nonlinear option-payoff distribution is supplied; without such checks the reported differences versus Student-t weights could be driven by approximation bias rather than the skew parameter itself.
[Numerical results / weight-comparison subsection] Numerical-results section (comparison of optimal weights): the quantified effect of skewness is obtained by contrasting skew-t and Student-t optima, but the manuscript does not report sensitivity of the weight differences to the quality of the VaR approximation or to the choice of numerical optimizer; this leaves open whether the observed shifts are robust or artifacts of the particular approximation used.

minor comments (2)

[Notation and model setup] Notation for the skewness vector and degrees-of-freedom parameter should be introduced once and used uniformly; occasional re-definition disrupts readability.
[Figures] Figure legends and axis labels in the weight-comparison plots need explicit indication of which curve corresponds to variance-optimal, approximate-VaR, and numerically optimized weights.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive report. The two major comments correctly identify gaps in validation and robustness checks that we will address in revision. Below we respond point by point and indicate the planned changes.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract / VaR-approximation derivation] Abstract and the section presenting the VaR approximation: the claim of 'explicit portfolio weights for the VaR approximation' is load-bearing for the subsequent skewness comparison, yet no error bounds, truncation analysis, or Monte-Carlo validation against the true quantile of the nonlinear option-payoff distribution is supplied; without such checks the reported differences versus Student-t weights could be driven by approximation bias rather than the skew parameter itself.

Authors: We agree that the manuscript currently lacks quantitative validation of the VaR approximation. In the revised version we will add a Monte-Carlo study that simulates large samples from the skew-elliptical t distribution, computes the exact empirical quantile of the option-portfolio payoff, and compares it to the analytic approximation. We will report the resulting approximation error as a function of the skewness parameter and portfolio size, together with a short truncation-error bound for the series expansion. These additions will show that the reported weight differences are driven by skewness rather than approximation bias. revision: yes
Referee: [Numerical results / weight-comparison subsection] Numerical-results section (comparison of optimal weights): the quantified effect of skewness is obtained by contrasting skew-t and Student-t optima, but the manuscript does not report sensitivity of the weight differences to the quality of the VaR approximation or to the choice of numerical optimizer; this leaves open whether the observed shifts are robust or artifacts of the particular approximation used.

Authors: We accept that sensitivity checks are needed. The revision will include additional tables and figures that (i) vary the number of terms retained in the VaR series expansion and the Monte-Carlo sample size used for the numerical optimizer, and (ii) repeat the optimization with two alternative solvers (interior-point and differential-evolution). We will report the resulting changes in the skew-t versus symmetric-t weight differences and confirm that the qualitative skewness effects remain stable across these choices. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivations follow directly from skew-elliptical t assumption

full rationale

The paper starts from the explicit modeling assumption that returns follow a skew-elliptical t distribution and derives portfolio weights via closed-form moments for the variance objective and a stated approximation plus numerical optimization for the VaR objective. The comparison of skew-t weights to the symmetric Student-t case is performed under the same framework by setting the skewness parameter to zero, which does not reduce any result to a fitted input or self-citation by construction. No load-bearing step equates a claimed prediction to its own inputs; the central claims remain independent of the fitted values once the distributional parameters are given.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests primarily on the modeling assumption of skew-elliptical t returns; no new entities are postulated, and parameters of the distribution serve as inputs rather than fitted outputs for the weights themselves.

free parameters (2)

skewness parameter
Controls asymmetry in the skew-elliptical t distribution and is required to quantify its effect on weights.
degrees of freedom
Controls tail heaviness in the t component of the distribution.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Asset returns follow a skew-elliptical t distribution
Stated directly in the abstract as the setting that departs from normal returns.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5423 in / 1378 out tokens · 31831 ms · 2026-05-16T15:03:49.437349+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

Basnarkov, V

L. Basnarkov, V. Stojkoski, Z. Utkovski, and L. Kocarev. Option pricing with heavy-tailed distributions of logarithmic returns.International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance, 22(7):1950041, 2019

work page 2019
[2]

Black and M

F. Black and M. Scholes. The pricing of options and corporate liabilities.Journal of Political Economy, 81(3):637–654, 1973. ISSN 00223808, 1537534X. URLhttp://www.jstor.org/ stable/1831029

work page arXiv 1973
[3]

D. T. Cassidy, M. J. Hamp, and R. Ouyed. Pricing european options with a log student’s t-distribution: A gosset formula.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 389 (24):5736–5748, Dec. 2010. ISSN 0378-4371. doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2010.08.037. URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2010.08.037

work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2010.08.037 2010
[4]

D. T. Cassidy, M. J. Hamp, and R. Ouyed. Log student’s t-distribution-based option sensi- tivities: Greeks for the gosset formulae.Quantitative Finance, 13(8):1289–1302, 2013. doi: 10.1080/14697688.2012.744087. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1080/14697688.2012.744087

work page doi:10.1080/14697688.2012.744087 2013
[5]

Cesarone, M

F. Cesarone, M. L. Martino, and F. Tardella. Mean-variance-var portfolios: Miqp formulation and performance analysis.OR Spectrum, 45(3):1043–1069, 2023

work page 2023
[6]

Chen and L

R. Chen and L. Yu. A novel nonlinear value-at-risk method for modeling risk of option portfolio with multivariate mixture of normal distributions.Economic Modelling, 35:796–804, 2013

work page 2013
[7]

X. Cui, S. Zhu, X. Sun, and D. Li. Nonlinear portfolio selection using approximate para- metric value-at-risk.Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(6):2124–2139, 2013. ISSN 0378-4266. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.01.036. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0378426613000617

work page doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.01.036 2013
[8]

Deng and T

L. Deng and T. A. Pirvu. Multi-period investment strategies under cumulative prospect theory. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 12(2):1–15, 2019

work page 2019
[9]

Glasserman.Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering

P. Glasserman.Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering. Springer New York, NY, 2003. 7 Sung and Pirvu

work page 2003
[10]

C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gommers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Taylor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, R. Kern, M. Picus, S. Hoyer, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Brett, A. Haldane, J. F. del Río, M. Wiebe, P. Peterson, P. Gérard-Marchant, K. Sheppard, T. Reddy, W. Weckesser, H. Abbasi, C. Gohlke, and T. E. Oliphant. Array programmin...

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020
[11]

Hu and A

W. Hu and A. N. Kercheval. Portfolio optimization for student t and skewed t returns. Quantitative Finance, 10(1):91–105, 2010. doi: 10.1080/14697680902814225. URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1080/14697680902814225

work page doi:10.1080/14697680902814225 2010
[12]

J. D. Hunter. Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment.Computing in Science & Engineering, 9(3):90–95, 2007. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007
[13]

Jewell, Y

S. Jewell, Y. Li, and T. A. Pirvu. Non-linear equity portfolio variance reduction under delta- gamma approach analysis.Operations Research Letters, 41(6):694–700, 2013

work page 2013
[14]

Maheshwari and T

A. Maheshwari and T. A. Pirvu. Portfolio optimization under correlation constraint.Risks, 8 (1):1–19, 2020

work page 2020
[15]

Metel, T

M. Metel, T. A. Pirvu, and J. Wong. Risk management under omega measure.Risks, 5(2): 1–14, 2017

work page 2017
[16]

K. Pan. Portfolio risk management. Master’s thesis, McMaster University, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, 2023

work page 2023
[17]

X. Pang, S. Zhu, X. Cui, and J. Ma. Systemic risk of optioned portfolio: Controllability and optimization.Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 153:104701, 2023

work page 2023
[18]

Pourbabaee, M

F. Pourbabaee, M. Kwak, and T. A. Pirvu. Risk minimization and portfolio diversification. Quantitative Finance, 9(1):1325–1332, 2016

work page 2016
[19]

Shidfara, K

A. Shidfara, K. Paryaba, A. R. Yazdanian, and T. A. Pirvu. Numerical analysis for spread option pricing model of markets with finite liquidity: First-order feedback model.International Journal of Computer Mathematics, 91(12):2603–2620, 2014

work page 2014
[20]

Value-at-riskcomputationbyfourierinversion with explicit error bounds.Finance Research Letters, 6(2):95–105, 2009

J.V.Siven, J.T.Lins, andA.Szymkowiak-Have. Value-at-riskcomputationbyfourierinversion with explicit error bounds.Finance Research Letters, 6(2):95–105, 2009

work page 2009
[21]

Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, St´ efan J

P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, İ. Po- lat, Y. Feng, E. W. Moore, J. VanderPlas, D. Laxalde, J. Perktold, R. Cimrman, I. Henriksen...

work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020
[22]

M. L. Waskom. seaborn: statistical data visualization.Journal of Open Source Software, 6 (60):3021, 2021. doi: 10.21105/joss.03021. URLhttps://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03021

work page doi:10.21105/joss.03021 2021
[23]

Numericalanalysisforspreadoptionpricingmodelofmarkets with finite liquidity: Full feedback model.Applied Mathematics & Information Sciences, 10 (4):1271–1281, 2016

A.R.YazdanianandT.A.Pirvu. Numericalanalysisforspreadoptionpricingmodelofmarkets with finite liquidity: Full feedback model.Applied Mathematics & Information Sciences, 10 (4):1271–1281, 2016. 8 Sung and Pirvu

work page 2016
[24]

S. Zhu, W. Zhu, X. Pei, and X. Cui. Hedging crash risk in optimal portfolio selection.Journal of Banking & Finance, 119:105905, 2020. Appendix A. Proof of Theorem 3.1 Proof.We proceed with a modification to Lagrange multipliers by setting the linear term to a constantε, minimizing the radical term, then minimizing over all possibleε. Settingε :=ζ ⊤x, we h...

work page 2020

[1] [1]

Basnarkov, V

L. Basnarkov, V. Stojkoski, Z. Utkovski, and L. Kocarev. Option pricing with heavy-tailed distributions of logarithmic returns.International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance, 22(7):1950041, 2019

work page 2019

[2] [2]

Black and M

F. Black and M. Scholes. The pricing of options and corporate liabilities.Journal of Political Economy, 81(3):637–654, 1973. ISSN 00223808, 1537534X. URLhttp://www.jstor.org/ stable/1831029

work page arXiv 1973

[3] [3]

D. T. Cassidy, M. J. Hamp, and R. Ouyed. Pricing european options with a log student’s t-distribution: A gosset formula.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 389 (24):5736–5748, Dec. 2010. ISSN 0378-4371. doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2010.08.037. URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2010.08.037

work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2010.08.037 2010

[4] [4]

D. T. Cassidy, M. J. Hamp, and R. Ouyed. Log student’s t-distribution-based option sensi- tivities: Greeks for the gosset formulae.Quantitative Finance, 13(8):1289–1302, 2013. doi: 10.1080/14697688.2012.744087. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1080/14697688.2012.744087

work page doi:10.1080/14697688.2012.744087 2013

[5] [5]

Cesarone, M

F. Cesarone, M. L. Martino, and F. Tardella. Mean-variance-var portfolios: Miqp formulation and performance analysis.OR Spectrum, 45(3):1043–1069, 2023

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Chen and L

R. Chen and L. Yu. A novel nonlinear value-at-risk method for modeling risk of option portfolio with multivariate mixture of normal distributions.Economic Modelling, 35:796–804, 2013

work page 2013

[7] [7]

X. Cui, S. Zhu, X. Sun, and D. Li. Nonlinear portfolio selection using approximate para- metric value-at-risk.Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(6):2124–2139, 2013. ISSN 0378-4266. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.01.036. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0378426613000617

work page doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.01.036 2013

[8] [8]

Deng and T

L. Deng and T. A. Pirvu. Multi-period investment strategies under cumulative prospect theory. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 12(2):1–15, 2019

work page 2019

[9] [9]

Glasserman.Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering

P. Glasserman.Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering. Springer New York, NY, 2003. 7 Sung and Pirvu

work page 2003

[10] [10]

C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gommers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Taylor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, R. Kern, M. Picus, S. Hoyer, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Brett, A. Haldane, J. F. del Río, M. Wiebe, P. Peterson, P. Gérard-Marchant, K. Sheppard, T. Reddy, W. Weckesser, H. Abbasi, C. Gohlke, and T. E. Oliphant. Array programmin...

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

[11] [11]

Hu and A

W. Hu and A. N. Kercheval. Portfolio optimization for student t and skewed t returns. Quantitative Finance, 10(1):91–105, 2010. doi: 10.1080/14697680902814225. URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1080/14697680902814225

work page doi:10.1080/14697680902814225 2010

[12] [12]

J. D. Hunter. Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment.Computing in Science & Engineering, 9(3):90–95, 2007. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

[13] [13]

Jewell, Y

S. Jewell, Y. Li, and T. A. Pirvu. Non-linear equity portfolio variance reduction under delta- gamma approach analysis.Operations Research Letters, 41(6):694–700, 2013

work page 2013

[14] [14]

Maheshwari and T

A. Maheshwari and T. A. Pirvu. Portfolio optimization under correlation constraint.Risks, 8 (1):1–19, 2020

work page 2020

[15] [15]

Metel, T

M. Metel, T. A. Pirvu, and J. Wong. Risk management under omega measure.Risks, 5(2): 1–14, 2017

work page 2017

[16] [16]

K. Pan. Portfolio risk management. Master’s thesis, McMaster University, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, 2023

work page 2023

[17] [17]

X. Pang, S. Zhu, X. Cui, and J. Ma. Systemic risk of optioned portfolio: Controllability and optimization.Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 153:104701, 2023

work page 2023

[18] [18]

Pourbabaee, M

F. Pourbabaee, M. Kwak, and T. A. Pirvu. Risk minimization and portfolio diversification. Quantitative Finance, 9(1):1325–1332, 2016

work page 2016

[19] [19]

Shidfara, K

A. Shidfara, K. Paryaba, A. R. Yazdanian, and T. A. Pirvu. Numerical analysis for spread option pricing model of markets with finite liquidity: First-order feedback model.International Journal of Computer Mathematics, 91(12):2603–2620, 2014

work page 2014

[20] [20]

Value-at-riskcomputationbyfourierinversion with explicit error bounds.Finance Research Letters, 6(2):95–105, 2009

J.V.Siven, J.T.Lins, andA.Szymkowiak-Have. Value-at-riskcomputationbyfourierinversion with explicit error bounds.Finance Research Letters, 6(2):95–105, 2009

work page 2009

[21] [21]

Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, St´ efan J

P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, İ. Po- lat, Y. Feng, E. W. Moore, J. VanderPlas, D. Laxalde, J. Perktold, R. Cimrman, I. Henriksen...

work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

[22] [22]

M. L. Waskom. seaborn: statistical data visualization.Journal of Open Source Software, 6 (60):3021, 2021. doi: 10.21105/joss.03021. URLhttps://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03021

work page doi:10.21105/joss.03021 2021

[23] [23]

Numericalanalysisforspreadoptionpricingmodelofmarkets with finite liquidity: Full feedback model.Applied Mathematics & Information Sciences, 10 (4):1271–1281, 2016

A.R.YazdanianandT.A.Pirvu. Numericalanalysisforspreadoptionpricingmodelofmarkets with finite liquidity: Full feedback model.Applied Mathematics & Information Sciences, 10 (4):1271–1281, 2016. 8 Sung and Pirvu

work page 2016

[24] [24]

S. Zhu, W. Zhu, X. Pei, and X. Cui. Hedging crash risk in optimal portfolio selection.Journal of Banking & Finance, 119:105905, 2020. Appendix A. Proof of Theorem 3.1 Proof.We proceed with a modification to Lagrange multipliers by setting the linear term to a constantε, minimizing the radical term, then minimizing over all possibleε. Settingε :=ζ ⊤x, we h...

work page 2020