arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.12515

Arbitrage in Estimate Nothing: an example

Johannes Brutsche·Julian Sester·Thorsten Schmidt
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We give a two-period counterexample to the absence of arbitrage for the posterior-weighted pricing rule in Estimate nothing by Duembgen and Rogers. Both physical models have strictly positive transition densities, and each model is equipped with an equivalent martingale measure. Nevertheless, the mixed price of a single derivative falls deterministically from $5/2$ to $2$ between two trading dates. If these prices are tradable, shorting the derivative and closing the position one period later yields a certain profit. A finite-state appendix also illustrates the failure of recursive consistency.

Explore related subjects

q-fin.MFq-fin.PR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Johannes Brutsche, Julian Sester, Thorsten Schmidt. 2026-09-11. Arbitrage in Estimate Nothing: an example. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.12515

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Negative Oil & Nickel Squeeze: A Feedback Model for Extreme Commodity Futures Prices

On April 20, 2020, the May front-month WTI oil futures contract, one day before its expiration date, opened near $\$17/$barrel and dropped far below zero in a single trading day, reaching an intraday low of $-\$40.32$ and settling at $-\$37.63$. Such market behavior was unforeseen at the time. This event, and the March 2022 nickel squeeze, illustrate how constraints on physical delivery create pressure to close futures positions and distort futures prices. We develop a feedback model that connects the resulting price distortion to a roll option, and to the imbalance between delivery-constrained long and short positions. Under lognormal benchmark dynamics, the roll-option value is shown to satisfy a pricing PDE which is nonlinear because its payoff depends on the observed futures price, which itself includes the feedback correction. Remarkably, in both cases, there is an explicit solution in terms of classical Black-Scholes-Margrabe exchange option formulas, up to solving a scalar equation. We show this allows that prices may go negative under distortion of a positive-price lognormal model. An analogous construction applies when the lognormal base is switched to Bachelier normal dynamics. Illustrations based on WTI and nickel show the imbalance required to reproduce the extreme event prices under the benchmark assumptions.

q-fin.MF↗
arXiv2026

Portfolio Choice under General Utility with Transaction Costs and Search Frictions

We study finite-horizon portfolio optimization with proportional transaction costs and trading opportunities arriving at the jump times of a Cox process. Borrowing and short-selling are prohibited, while utility functions need not be concave, increasing, or differentiable. The admissible class includes differentiable utilities with asymptotic elasticity greater than or equal to one. The associated Hamilton--Jacobi--Bellman equation is semi-linear and nonlocal, with control entering only through a zeroth-order term. We show that the normalized equation admits a unique bounded solution that is continuous in all state variables and classical in time and log-price. The proof combines a contraction argument with interior Schauder estimates, and verification identifies the value function and yields an optimal Markovian feedback strategy. Numerical examples with non-concave utilities exhibit, at fixed time and pre-trade wealth, multiple intervals associated with the same trading action, departures from the usual buy--no-trade--sell ordering, and abrupt switches in the optimal post-trade risky weight.

q-fin.MF↗
arXiv2026

Path-Space Robust Bayesian Portfolio Selection

A Bayesian investor learns an unknown asset drift by Kalman--Bucy filtering and trades using the resulting estimate, but the observation model used for learning may itself be misspecified. We make the portfolio robust to an adversary who distorts the law of observed prices and pays a relative-entropy penalty. A single distortion affects both trading returns and learning, since wealth and the drift estimate respond to the same observed prices. The observation market is complete, so the fixed-target problem becomes an optimization over terminal tracking errors. Entropy duality removes the adversary's inner optimization, and the pricing budget reduces the investor's problem to one scalar equation for the budget multiplier. We show that the resulting payoff is replicable, and together with its worst-case measure forms an attained saddle. The robust position has the same sign as the non-robust one but a smaller size, and it tends to zero far from the target. A robust mean--variance investor also aims lower and starts with a smaller position. The non-robust strategy can fail badly --- with a known nonzero drift, its worst-case cost is infinite at every level of ambiguity. Learning can make this cost finite, but whether it does depends on the shape of the prior, not only on its mean and variance. The robust payoff remains worst-case optimal for any prior: it limits the error on price paths that a driftless model explains better than the reference model, which is where the non-robust error is largest.

q-fin.MF↗