Advances in Risk Management

44 INCORPORATING DIVERSIFICATION INTO RISK MANAGEMENT

Our analysis incorporates market frictions such as illiquidity and trans-
action costs into the portfolio rebalancing decision. The price of portfolio
insurance is also derived. When combined with the original portfolio, this
contract ensures non-negative portfolio values in every scenario considered
by the regulator. Furthermore, the amount of required portfolio insurance
is determined by the firm’s willingness to rebalance their portfolio once this
contract is available.

APPENDIX A: PROOF OF PROPOSITION 2.2.2

Recall the properties of Proposition 2.2.1 regarding the acceptance setAη.
Consider two portfoliosη 1 andη 2 and letη∗ 1 be the closest portfolio on the acceptance
setAη. In other words,η∗ 1 =η′such that inf {‖η 1 −η′‖ 2 :η′∈Aη}. Similarly defineη∗ 2 as the
equivalent quantity forη 2. Therefore, by definition,

ρ(η 1 )=

∥∥

η 1 −η∗ 1

∥∥

2

ρ(η 2 )=

∥∥

η 2 −η∗ 2

∥∥

2

and the following holds by the triangle inequality property of norms:
∥∥
η 1 +η 2 −η∗ 1 −η∗ 2

∥∥

2 ≤

∥∥

η 1 −η∗ 1

∥∥

2 +

∥∥

η 2 −η∗ 2

∥∥

2 =ρ(η^1 )+ρ(η^2 )

However, the quantityη∗ 1 +η∗ 2 is also in the acceptance set sinceAηis convex and
closed under multiplication byγ≥0. For two portfoliosη∗ 1 ,η∗ 2 ∈Aηconvexity implies
η∗=^12 η∗ 1 +^12 η∗ 2 ∈Aηwhile 2η∗=η∗ 1 +η∗ 2 ∈Aηas a consequence ofAηbeing closed under
multiplication of positive scalars. Therefore,

ρ(η 1 +η 2 )≤

∥∥

η 1 +η 2 −η∗ 1 −η∗ 2

∥∥

2 =

∥∥

(η 1 +η 2 )−(η∗ 1 +η∗ 2 )

∥∥

2

sinceη∗ 1 +η∗ 2 is an element ofAηbut need not be optimal. Hence,ρ(η 1 +η 2 )≤ρ(η 1 )+
ρ(η 2 ) and subadditivity is proved.
Consider two portfoliosη 1 andη 2 and letPη 1 ≥Pη 2 a.s. The proof for monotonic-
ity follows by recognizing thatη 1 =η 1 −η 2 +η 2 andρ(η 1 −η 2 )=0 since the portfolio
η 1 −η 2 always generates a non-negative payoff implyingη 1 −η 2 ∈Aη. Applying subad-
ditivity,ρ(η 1 )=ρ(η 1 −η 2 +η 2 )≤ρ(η 2 ), demonstrates thatρ(η 1 )≤ρ(η 2 ) and monotonicity
is proved.
Consider a portfolioηand a scalarγ≥0. Defineη∗as in the proof of subadditivity.
The functionρ(η) is defined as‖η−η∗‖ 2 which implies that:

γρ(η)=γ‖η−η∗‖ 2 =‖γη−γη∗‖ 2 ≥‖γη−(γη)∗‖ 2 =ρ(γη)

sinceγη∗is in the acceptance set but need not be optimal in terms of minimizing the
distance to the acceptable set. The reverse direction is proved by definingρ(γη)as‖γη−
(γη)∗‖ 2 =γ‖η−(γη)
∗
γ ‖^2 ≥γρ(η) since
1
γ(γη)
∗is an element ofAηbut need not be optimal.

Thus,ρ(γη) andγρ(η) are equal and positive homogeneity is proved.
Consider two portfoliosη 1 andη 2 that differ only in terms of the riskfree asset with
η2,0>η1,0. It suffices to show thatρ(η 2 )≤ρ(η 1 ). Consider a portfolio that is a combination
ofη 1 and another portfolioγηcforγ≥0 that consists entirely of an amountη2,0−η1,0in
riskfree capital. This new portfolio is equivalent toη 2 and implies that:

η 2 =η 1 +γηc⇒ρ(η 2 )=ρ(η 1 +γηc)≤ρ(η 1 )+ρ(γηc)