DYNAMIC RISK MEASURES AND G-EXPECTATION
DYNAMIC RISK MEASURES AND G-EXPECTATION
The Pure and Applied Mathematics. 2013. Nov, 20(4): 287-298
Copyright © 2013, Korean Society of Mathematical Education
• Received : October 04, 2013
• Accepted : November 16, 2013
• Published : November 30, 2013
PDF
e-PUB
PPT
Export by style
Article
Author
Metrics
Cited by
TagCloud
JU HONG, KIM

Abstract
A standard deviation has been a starting point for a mathematical definition of risk. As a remedy for drawbacks such as subadditivity property discouraging the diversification, coherent and convex risk measures are introduced in an axiomatic approach. Choquet expectation and 𝑔-expectations, which generalize mathematical expectations, are widely used in hedging and pricing contingent claims in incomplete markets. The each risk measure or expectation give rise to its own pricing rules. In this paper we investigate relationships among dynamic risk measures, Choquet expectation and dynamic 𝑔-expectations in the framework of the continuous-time asset pricing.
Keywords
1. INTRODUCTION
Various kinds of risk measures have been proposed and discussed to measure or quantify the market risks in theoretical and practical perspectives. A starting point for a mathematical definition of risk is simply as standard deviation. Markowitz [19] used the standard deviation to measure the market risk in his portfolio theory but his method doesn’t tell the difference between the positive and the negative deviation. Artzner et al. [2 , 3] proposed a coherent risk measure in an axiomatic approach, and formulated the representation theorems. Frittelli [12] proposed sublinear risk measures to weaken coherent axioms. Heath [16] firstly studied the convex risk measures and Föllmer & Schied [9 , 10 , 11] and Frittelli & Rosazza Gianin [13] extended them to general probability spaces. They had weakened the conditions of positive homogeneity and subadditivity by replacing them with convexity.
There exist stochastic phenomena like Allais paradox [1] and Ellsberg paradox [8] which can not be dealt with linear mathematical expectation in economics. Choquet [6] introduced a nonlinear expectation called Choquet expectation which applied to many areas such as statistics, economics and finance. But Choquet expectation has a difficulty in defining a conditional expectation. Peng [21] introduced a nonlinear expectation, 𝑔-expectation which is a solution of a nonlinear backward stochastic differential equation. It’s easy to define conditional expectation with Peng’s 𝑔-expectation. In this paper, we show that Choquet expectation is equal to 𝑔-expectation under some conditions via { Ƒt } t∈[0, T] -consistent expectation Ɛ satisfying Ɛ μ -domination and translability condition.
The coherent (or convex) risk measure which is a static risk measures is defined in section 2. Peng’s 𝑔-expectation, Choquet expectation and dynamic risk measure are introduced in section 3. The relationships between Choquet expectation and 𝑔-expectation are given as in the literature in section 4. It is shown that Choquet expectation is equal to 𝑔-expectation under some conditions via { Ƒt } t∈[0, T] -consistent expectation Ɛ in section 5.
2. STATIC RISK MEASURES
Risk measures are introduced to measure or quantify investors’ risky positions such as financial contracts or contingent claims. Let ( Ω, Ƒ , P ) be a probability space and T be a fixed horizon time. Assume that 𝒳 = Lp ( Ω, Ƒ , P ), with 1 ≤ p ≤ + ∞ is the space of financial positions to be quantified or measured. Lp ( Ω, Ƒ , P ) is endowed with its norm topology for p ∈ (1, + ∞) and with the weak topology σ ( L , + L 1 ) for p = + ∞.
Definition 2.1. A coherent risk measure ρ : 𝒳 → ℝ is a mapping satisfying for X , Y 𝒳
• (1)ρ(X) ≥ρ(Y) ifX≤Y(monotonicity),
• (2)ρ(X+m) =ρ(X) −mform∈ ℝ (translation invariance),
• (3)ρ(X+Y) ≤ρ(X) +ρ(Y) (subadditivity),
• (4)ρ(λX) = λρ(X) for λ ≥ 0 (positive homogeneity).
The subadditivity and the positive homogeneity can be relaxed to a weaker quantity, i.e. convexity
ρX + (1 − λ)Y) ≤ λρ(X) + (1 − λ)ρ(Y) ∀λ ∈ [0,1],
which means diversification should not increase the risk.
3. PENG’S 𝑔-EXPECTATION AND CHOQUET EXPECTATION
Let ( Wt ) t≥0 a standard d−dimensional Brownian motion and ( Ƒt ) t≥ 0 the augmented filtration associated with the one generated by ( Wt ) t≥0 . Let
PPT Slide
Lager Image
be the space of the adapted processes ( ξt ) t∈[0, T] such that
where ∥·∥ represents the Euclidean norm on ℝ n .
Suppose that for t ∈ [0, T ], L 2 ( Ƒt ) := L 2 (­Ω, Ƒt , P ) is the space of real-valued, Ƒt -measurable and square integrable random variables endowed with the L 2 -norm ∥·∥ 2 topology.
Let 𝑔 : ­ Ω × [0, T ] × ℝ × ℝ n → ℝ a function that 𝑔 ⟼ 𝑔( t, y, z ) is measurable for each ( y , z ) ∈ ℝ × ℝ n and satisfy the following conditions
PPT Slide
Lager Image
PPT Slide
Lager Image
PPT Slide
Lager Image
Theorem 3.1 ( [20] ) . For every terminal condition X L 2 ( ƑT ) the following backward stochastic differential equation
PPT Slide
Lager Image
PPT Slide
Lager Image
has a unique solution
PPT Slide
Lager Image
Definition 3.2. For each X L 2 ( ƑT ) and for each t ∈ [0, T ] 𝑔 -expectation of X and the conditional 𝑔-expectation of X under Ƒt is respectively defined by
Ɛ𝑔[X] := y0, Ɛ𝑔[Xt] := yt,
where yt is the solution of the BSDE (3.2).
Since 𝑔-expectation and conditional 𝑔-expectation can be considered as the extension of classic mathematical expectation and conditional mathematical expectation, they preserve most properties of classic mathematical expectation and conditional mathematical expectation except the linearity.
Definition 3.3. A real-valued set function c : Ƒ → [0, 1] is called capacity if it satisfies (1) c ( A ) ≤ c ( B ) for A B , (2) c (∅) = 0 and c (Ω­) = 1.
Definition 3.4. A capacity is called submodular or 2- alternating if
c(AB) + c(AB) ≤ c(A) + c(B).
Definition 3.5. Two measurable functions X and Y on (Ω, Ƒ ) are called comonotone if there exists a measurable function Z on (Ω, Ƒ ) and increasing functions f and 𝑔 on ℝ such that
X = f(Z) and Y = 𝑔(Z).
A risk measure ρ on Lp ( ƑT ) is called comonotonic if
ρ(X + Y) = ρ(X) + ρ(Y)
whenever X and Y are comonotonic.
Define the Choquet integral of the loss as
Then ρ : 𝒳 → ℝ satisfies monotonicity, translation invariance and positive homogeneity, and other properties according to the given conditions.
• (1) (Constant preserving)∫λdc= λ for constant λ.
• (2) (Monotonicity) IfX≤Y, then∫(−X)dc≥∫(−Y)dc.
• (3) (Positive homogeneity) For λ ≥ 0,∫λ(−X)dc= λ∫(−X)dc.
• (4) (Translation invariance)∫(−X+m)dc=∫(−X)dc+m,m∈ ℝ.
• (5) (Comonotone additivity) IfXandYare comonotone functions, then
PPT Slide
Lager Image
• (6) (Subadditivity) Ifcis submodular or concave function, then
PPT Slide
Lager Image
The static risk measures do not account for payoffs or new information according to the time evolution(refer to [25 , 26] ).
Definition 3.6. A dynamic risk measures are defined as the mappings ( ρt ) t∈[0, T] satisfying
• (1)ρt:Lp(ƑT) →L0(­Ω,Ƒt,P), for allt∈ [0,T],
• (2)ρ0is a static risk measure,
• (3)ρT(X) = −X   P−a.s., for allX∈Lp(ƑT).
4. NONLINEAR EXPECTATIONS AND NONLINEAR PRICING
To quantify riskiness of financial positions, coherent (or convex) risk measures, Choquet expectation and 𝑔-expectation are widely used. It depends on practitioner’s appropriate choices. The paper [5] shows that the pricing with the coherent risk measure is less than one with the Choquet expectation.
Denote the Choquet expectation 𝒞(·) as 𝒞 𝑔 (·) with respect to the capacity V 𝑔 defined as
V𝑔(A) := Ɛ𝑔[IA] ∀AƑT.
Theorem 4.1 ( [5] ). If Ɛ 𝑔 [·] is a coherent risk measure, then Ɛ𝑔 [·] is bounded by the Choquet expectation 𝒞𝑔 (·), that is
Ɛ𝑔[X] ≤ 𝒞𝑔(X), X ∈ L2(Ω, Ƒ, P)
But if Ɛ𝑔 [·] is a convex risk measure, then the above inequality does not hold generally.
Theorem 4.2 ( [15] ). Let 𝑔 be convex function with respect to z, independent of y and deterministic. Let 𝑔 also satisfy (3.1). Then ρ𝑔 ( X ) ≤ 𝒞𝑔 [− X ] for X L 2 ( ƑT ) if and only if ρ𝑔 is a coherent risk measure. Here ρ𝑔 ( X ) is defined as ρ𝑔 ( X ) := Ɛ𝑔 [− X ] for X L 2 ( ƑT ).
Note that ρ 𝑔 : L 2 ( ƑT ) ⟼ ℝ is a coherent (or convex) risk measure if and only if 𝑔 is independent of y and is positively homogeneous and subadditive (or convex) with respect to z (see [23 , 14 , 22] ).
The positive homogeneity and comonotonic additivity hold in the Choquet expectation. The time consistency holds in the 𝑔-expectation.
E[ξ + η] = E[ξ] + E[η] ∀ξ, ηL2(Ω, Ƒ, P).
The above equality holds for the Choquet expectation if ξ and η are comonotonic. But if 𝑔 is nonlinear, the above equality does not hold for the 𝑔-expectation even if ξ and η are comonotonic. These facts means that 𝑔-expectation is more nonlinear than the Choquet expectation on L 2 (Ω, Ƒ , P ) [15] .
The following Lemmas (4.3) and (4.6), Proposition (4.4), and Theorem (4.5) are from the paper [5] .
Lemma 4.3. For any X L 2 (Ω, Ƒ T , P ), there exists unique η L 2 (Ω, Ƒt , P ) such that
Ɛ𝑔[IAX] = Ɛ𝑔[IAη] ∀AƑt.
The η is called the conditional 𝑔-expectation of X and it is written as Ɛ𝑔 [ X | Ƒ t ]. This Ɛ𝑔 [ X | Ƒ t ] is exactly the yt which is the solution of BSDE (3.2).
Proposition 4.4. Let μ = { μt } t∈[0, T] be a continuous functions. Suppose that g ( t , y , z ) = μt | zt | and the process ( zt } t∈[0, T) is one dimensional. Then for any ξ L 2 (Ω, Ƒ , P ), the conditional 𝑔-expectation satisfies
Ɛ𝑔[ξ|Ƒt] = ess supQQEQ[ξ|Ƒt] for μ > 0
where Q is a set of probability measures defined as
PPT Slide
Lager Image
Theorem 4.5 ( [5] ). Suppose that 𝑔 satisfies the given Hypotheses. Then there exists a Choquet expectation whose restriction to L 2 (Ω, Ƒ , P ) is equal to a 𝑔-expectation if and only if 𝑔 is independent of y and is linear in z, i.e. there exists a continuous function v ( t ) such that
𝑔(y, z, t) = v(t)z.
Lemma 4.6. Suppose that 𝑔 is a convex (or concave) function. If Ɛ𝑔 [·] is comonotonic additive on
PPT Slide
Lager Image
, then Ɛ𝑔 [·| Ƒ t ] is also comonotonic additive on
PPT Slide
Lager Image
for any t ∈ [0, T ).
Corollary 4.7. Suppose that 𝑔 is a convex (or concave) function. If Ɛ𝑔 [·] is a Choquet expectation on
PPT Slide
Lager Image
then Ɛ𝑔 [·| Ƒ t ] is also a Choquet expectation on
PPT Slide
Lager Image
for any t ∈ [0; T ).
5.Ƒt-CONSISTENT EXPECTATION
In this section, an { Ƒ t } t∈[0, T] -consistent expectation Ɛ is defined as a nonlinear functional on L 2 ( Ƒ T ). We’ll show that Choquet expectation is an { Ƒ t } t∈[0, T] -consistent expectation Ɛ under some conditions.
Definition 5.1. A nonlinear expectation is defined as a functional Ɛ : L 2 ( Ƒ T ) → ℝ satisfying
• (1) (Monotonicity) IfX≥YP-a.s., thenƐ(X) ¸Ɛ(Y). Moreover, under the inequality X ≥ Y ,Ɛ(X) =Ɛ(Y) if and only ifX=YP-a.s..
• (2) (Constancy)Ɛ(c) =c∀c∈ ℝ.
Definition 5.2. An { Ƒ t } t∈[0, T] - consistent expectation is defined as the nonlinear expectation Ɛ such that if for any X L 2 ( ƑT ) and any t ∈ [0; T ] there exists η L 2 ( Ƒt ) satisfying
PPT Slide
Lager Image
The η satisfying (5.1) is called conditional { Ƒ t } t∈[0, T] - consistent expectation of X under Ƒ t and denoted by Ɛ [ X | Ƒt ].
Definition 5.3. It is called that { Ƒ t } t∈[0, T] -consistent expectation Ɛ is dominated by Ɛu ( u > 0) if
Ɛ[X + Y ] − Ɛ[X] ≤ Ɛu[Y] ∀X, YL2(ƑT )
where Ɛu is 𝑔-expectation with 𝑔( t , y , z ) = u | z |.
An { Ƒ t } t∈[0, T] -consistent expectation Ɛ is called to satisfy the translability condition if
PPT Slide
Lager Image
The following theorem tells us the relationships between conditional 𝑔-expectation and { Ƒ t } t∈[0, T] -consistent expectation.
Theorem 5.4 ( [7] ). Let Ɛ : L 2 ( ƑT ) → ℝ be a { Ƒ t } t∈[0, T] - consistent expectation . If Ɛ is Ɛu - dominated for some u > 0 and if it satisfies translability condition (5.2), then there exists a unique 𝑔 which is independent of y, satisfies the assumptions (3.1) and |𝑔( t , z )| ≤ u | z | such that
Ɛ[X] = Ɛ𝑔[X] and Ɛ[X|Ƒt] = Ɛ𝑔[X|Ƒt] ∀XL2(ƑT ).
Theorem 5.5 ( [11] ). For the Choquet integral with respect to a capacity c, the following are equivalent.
• (1)ρ0(X) := ∫(−X)dc is a convex risk measure onL2(ƑT).
• (2)ρ0(X) := ∫(−X)dc is a coherent risk measure onL2(ƑT).
• (3)ForQc:={Q∈M1,f|Q[A] ≤c(A) ∀A∈ƑT},
PPT Slide
Lager Image
• (4)The set function c is submodular. In this case,Qc=Qmax.
The set ℳ 1,f = ℳ 1,f (Ω, Ƒ ) in Theorem (5.3) is the one of all finitely additive set functions Q : Ƒ → [0; 1] which is normalized to Q [­Ω] = 1. The Qmax is defined as
PPT Slide
Lager Image
where Aρ is defined as
Aρ := {XL2(ƑT) ρ(X) ≤ 0 }.
From the viewpoint of Proposition (4.4) and Theorem (4.5), the set Qc of (5.3) is unnecessarily too large so that it could be reduced to a suitable set of probability measures for consistency, i.e.
PPT Slide
Lager Image
It can be shown that Qc is indeed the set of equivalent martingale measures by the following Proposition (5.6).
Proposition 5.6 ( [11] ). If Q << P on Ƒ , then Q is equivalent to P if and only if
PPT Slide
Lager Image
P-a.s.
Assume that the capacity c is submodular. Under the new set Qc as in (5.4), we define a nonlinear expectation
PPT Slide
Lager Image
as
PPT Slide
Lager Image
We will show that the above Ɛ [ X ] satisfies all the assumptions of Theorem (5.4). It is easy to show that Ɛ [ X ] satisfies the monotonicity and constancy in the Defini- tion (5.1) but if X Y , Ɛ [ X ] = Ɛ [ Y ] if and only if X = Y P -a.s.. Suppose that X Y and Ɛ [ X ] = Ɛ [ Y ]. We prove it contrapositively. Suppose X = Y P -a.s. does not hold. Let A = { w ∈ Ω | X Y } ∈ Ƒ. Then EQ [1 AX ] > EQ [1 AY ] for each Q Qc and there exists a
PPT Slide
Lager Image
such that EQ [1 AX ] > r > EQ [1 AY ]. By taking supremum on the left hand side first, we have ess sup QQc EQ [1 AY ], > r > EQ [1 AY ] and so ess sup QQc EQ [1 AX ], > r ≥ ess sup EQ [1 AY ], it’s a contradiction.
We need the stability property of a set Qc to show that Ɛ [ X ] is a { Ƒ t } t∈[0, T] - consistent expectation. In the following definitions, the stopping times σ and τ can be replaced by t ∈ [0, T ] without any loss.
Definition 5.7. Let Q 1 and Q 2 be two equivalent probability measures and σ be a stopping time. The probability measure
[A]:=EQ1[Q2[Aσ, A ∈ ƑT
is called the pasting of Q 1 and Q 2 in σ .
Note that by the monotone convergence theorem for conditional expectation
PPT Slide
Lager Image
is a probability measure and
PPT Slide
Lager Image
Definition 5.8. A set 𝒬 of equivalent probability measures on (Ω, Ƒ) is called stable if, for any Q 1 , Q 2 ∈ 𝒬 and the stopping time σ , also their pasting in σ is contained in 𝒬.
Proposition 5.9 ( [11] ). The set 𝒬c of equivalent martingale measures is stable.
Theorem 5.10 ( [11] ). Let 𝒬 be a set of equivalent probability measures. If 𝒬 is stable, then the following holds for X ∈ L2T )
PPT Slide
Lager Image
From the Theorem (5.10), we can easily see that Ɛ [ X ] is a {
PPT Slide
Lager Image
} t ∈ [0,T] -consistent expectation condition (5.1), Ɛ[1 AX ] = Ɛ[ X |
PPT Slide
Lager Image
]] ∀ A
PPT Slide
Lager Image
.
Let us show that {
PPT Slide
Lager Image
} t ∈ [0,T] -consistent expectation Ɛ is dominated by Ɛμ (μ>0). Since Ɛ [ X + Y ] − Ɛ [ X ] ≤ ess sup Q∈𝒬c EQ [ Y ] and there exists 𝑔-expectation Ɛμ with 𝑔( t, y, z ) = μz satisfying Ɛμ [ X ] = ess sup Q∈𝒬c EQ [ Y ] by Theorem (4.5), Ɛ is dominated by Ɛμ . Note that Ɛμ -dominated nonlinear expectation Ɛ implies that Ɛ is lower semi-continuous [7] .
Finally we show that {
PPT Slide
Lager Image
} t ∈ [0,T] -consistent expectation Ɛ satisfies the translability condition. Let X L 2 (
PPT Slide
Lager Image
) and β L 2 (
PPT Slide
Lager Image
). Then by the de¯nition of Ɛ we have
PPT Slide
Lager Image
Therefore, the nonlinear expectation Ɛ defined as (5.5) satisfies the all the conditions of Theorem (5.4). Thus the results so far can be summarized in the following Theorem (5.11).
Theorem 5.11. Let the nonlinear expectation Ɛ be defined as (5.5). Then there exists a unique 𝑔 which is independent of y, satisfies the assumptions (3.1) and |𝑔(t; z)| ≤ μ|z| such that
PPT Slide
Lager Image
Note that the generator 𝑔 in Theorem (5.11) should be the form of 𝑔( t ; y ; z ) = μtz which is linear in z and so Ɛ 𝑔 = Ɛμ to be consistent to the results of Theorem (4.5).
In fact, for 𝑔( t, y, z ) = μtz , let us consider the BSDE
PPT Slide
Lager Image
The above differential equation (5.6) is reduced to
By Girsanov’s Theorem, (
PPT Slide
Lager Image
t ) 0≤tT is a Q -Brownian motion under Q defined as
Therefore we have the relations
Ɛ 𝑔 [ X ] = EQ [ X ], Ɛ𝑔 [ X | Ƒt ] = EQ [ X | Ƒt ]
which means that 𝑔-expectation is a classical mathematical expectation.
Proposition 5.12 ( [23] ) . Let the risk measure
PPT Slide
Lager Image
be defined as
where 𝑔 satisfies the conditions (3.1). Moreover, if 𝑔 is sublinear in (y; z), i.e. positively homogeneous in (y; z) and subadditive in (y; z), then
PPT Slide
Lager Image
is a dynamic coherent and time-consistent risk measure.
Note that if 𝑔 satisfies both positive homogeneity and subadditivity, 𝑔 is indepen- dent of y . The proposition (5.12) and Theorem (4.2) tells us that for Theorem (5.11) to hold the linearity of 𝑔 is necessary.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the research grant of Sungshin Women’s University in 2013.
References
Allias M. 1953 Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulates et axiomes de l’ecole americaine Econometrica 21 503 - 546    DOI : 10.2307/1907921
Artzner P. , Delbaen F. , Eber J.-M. , Heath D. 1997 Thinking coherently Risk 10 68 - 71
Artzner P. , Delbaen F. , Eber J.-M. , Heath D. 1999 Coherent measures of risk Mathematical Finance 9 203 - 228    DOI : 10.1111/1467-9965.00068
Campana A. , Ferretti P. Distortion risk measures and discrete risks, Working paper
Chen Z. , Chen T. , Davison M. 2005 Choquet expectation and Peng's g-expectation The Annals of Probability 33 1179 - 1199    DOI : 10.1214/009117904000001053
Choquet G. 1953 Theory of capacities Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 5 131 - 195
Coquet F. , Hu Y. , Memin J. , Peng S. 2002 Filtration consistent nonlinear expectations and related g-expectations Probability Theory and Related Fields 123 1 - 27    DOI : 10.1007/s004400100172
Ellsberg D. 1961 Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms Quart. J. Econom. 75 643 - 669    DOI : 10.2307/1884324
Follmer H. , Schied A. 2002 Convex measures of risk and trading constraints Finance & Stochastics 6 429 - 447    DOI : 10.1007/s007800200072
Föllmer H. , Schied A. , Sandmann K. , Schönbucher P.J. 2002 Advances in Finance and Stochastics Springer-Verlag Robust preferences and convex measures of risk
Föllmer H. , Schied A. 2004 Stochastic Finance: An introduction in discrete time Walter de Gruyter Berlin
Frittelli M. 2000 Representing sublinear risk measures and pricing rules http://www.mat.unimi.it/users/frittelli/pdf/Sublinear2000.pdf
Frittelli M. , Rosazza Gianin E. 2002 Putting order in risk measures Journal of Banking & Finance 26 1473 - 1486    DOI : 10.1016/S0378-4266(02)00270-4
Jiang L. 2006 Convexity, translation invariance and subadditivity for g-expectation and related risk measures Annals of Applied Provability 18 245 - 258
He K. , Hu M. , Chen Z. 2009 The relationship between risk measures and choquet expectations in the framework of g-expectations Statistics and Probability Letters 79 508 - 512    DOI : 10.1016/j.spl.2008.09.025
Heath D. 2000 Back to the future Plenary lecture at the FirstWorld Cogress of the Bachelier Society Paris
El Karoui N. , Peng S. G. , Quenez M.-C. 1997 Backward stochastic differential equations in finance Math. Finance 7 1 - 71    DOI : 10.1111/1467-9965.00022
Kusuoka S. 2001 On law invariant coherent risk measures Adv. Math. Econ. 3 83 - 95    DOI : 10.1007/978-4-431-67891-5_4
Markowitz H. 1952 Portfolio selection The Journal of Finance 26 1443 - 1471
Pardoux E. , Peng S.G. 1990 Adapted solution of a backward stochastic differential equation Systems and Control Letters 14 55 - 61    DOI : 10.1016/0167-6911(90)90082-6
Peng S. , El Karoui N. , Mazliak L. 1997 Backward SDE and related g-expectations;Backward stochastic differential equations Pitman Res. Notes Math. Ser. 364 141 - 159
Peng S. 2006 Modeling Derivatives Pricing Mechanisms with their Generating Functions
Rosazza Gianin E. 2006 Some examples of risk measures via g-expectations Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 39 19 - 34    DOI : 10.1016/j.insmatheco.2006.01.002
S. Wang 1996 Premium calculation by transforming the layer premium density Astin Bulletin 26 71 - 92    DOI : 10.2143/AST.26.1.563234
Riedel F. 2003 Dynamic coherent risk measures Stochastic Processes and their Applications 112 185 - 200
Wang T. 1999 A class of dynamic risk measures http://web.cenet.org.cn/upfile/57263.pdf