Abstract
Measures of risk appear in two categories: Risk capital measures serve to determine the necessary amount of risk capital in order to avoid ruin if the outcomes of an economic activity are uncertain and their negative values may be interpreted as acceptability measures (safety measures). Pure risk measures (risk deviation measures) are natural generalizations of the standard deviation. While pure risk measures are typically convex, acceptability measures are typically concave. In both cases, the convexity (concavity) implies under mild conditions the existence of subgradients (supergradients). The present paper investigates the relation between the subgradient (supergradient) representation and the properties of the corresponding risk measures. In particular, we show how monotonicity properties are reflected by the subgradient representation. Once the subgradient (supergradient) representation has been established, it is extremely easy to derive these monotonicity properties. We give a list of Examples.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J.M., Heath, D.: Coherent measures of risk. Mathematical Finance 9, 203–228 (1999)
Basset, G., Koenker, R., Kordas, G.: Pessimistic portfolio allocation and Choquet expected utility. Journal of Financial Economics 2, 477–492 (2004)
Bonnans, F., Shapiro, A.: Perturbation Analysis of Optimization Problems. Springer Verlag, New York, 2000
De Giorgi, E.: Reward-risk portfolio selection and stochastic dominance. Journal of Banking & Finance 29 (4), 895–926 (2005)
Delbaen, F.: Coherent measures of risk on general probability spaces. In: K. Sandmann, P. Schönbucher (eds.), Advances in Finance and Stochastics. Essays in Honour of Dieter Sondermann. Springer Verlag, New York, 2002, pp. 1–38
Denneberg, D.: Distorted probabilities and insurance premiums. In: Proceedings of the 14th SOR, Ulm. Athenäum, Frankfurt, 1989
Föllmer, H., Schied, A.: Convex measures of risk and trading constraints. Stochastics and Finance 6, 429–447 (2002)
Föllmer, H., Schied, A.: Robust preferences and convex measures of risk. In: K. Sandmann, P. Schönbucher (eds.), Advances in Finance and Stochastics. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 2002, pp. 39–56
Frittelli, M., Rosazza Gianin, E.: Dynamic convex risk measures. In: G. Szegö (ed.), Risk measures for the 21st century, chap. 12. J. Wiley and Sons, New York, 2004, pp. 227–248
Hewitt, E., Stromberg, K.: Real and Abstract Analysis. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1969
Jaschke, S., Küchler, U.: Coherent risk measures, valuation bounds, and (μ; σ)- portfolio optimization. Finance and Stochastics 5, 181–200 (2001)
Kusuoka, S.: On law invariant risk measures. Advances In Mathematical Economics 3, 83–95 (2001)
Lehmann, E.: Some concepts of dependence. Ann. Math. Stat. 37, 1137–1153 (1966)
Neveu, J.: Discrete Parameter Martingals. North Holland, Amsterdam, 1975
Ogryczak, W., Ruszczynski, A.: Dual stochastic dominance and related mean risk models. SIAM Journal on Optimization 13, 60–78 (2002)
Rockafellar, R., Uryasev, S.: Optimization of conditional value-at-risk. Journal of Risk 2, 21–41 (2000)
Rockafellar, R., Uryasev, S., Zabarankin, M.: Deviation measures in risk analysis. Tech. rep., ISE Dept.,Univerity of Florida (2002). Research report, http://www.ise.ufl.edu/uryasev
Rockafellar, R., Uryasev, S., Zabarankin, M.: Generalized deviations in risk analysis. Tech. rep., ISE Dept.,Univerity of Florida (2004). Research report, http://www.ise.ufl.edu/uryasev
Ruszczynski, A., Shapiro, A.: Optimization of convex risk functions. In: G. Calafiore, F. Dabbene (eds.), Probabilistic and Randomized Methods for Design Under Uncertainty. Springer Verlag, 2006
Strassen, V.: The existence of probability measures with given marginals. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 36, 423–439 (1965)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pflug, G. Subdifferential representations of risk measures. Math. Program. 108, 339–354 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-006-0714-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-006-0714-8