\section*{ToDo's}

\section{Introduction}

We study many-player games of wealth-consumption optimisation under the forward performance framework in a Merton market model featuring common-noise. In each game, the agents trade in a specific stock affected by a common market signal and seek to optimise their wealth and consumption process while having relative concerns towards the average wealth and consumption of the other agents. The core features of our model are (a) relative consumption concerns, (b) relative wealth concerns, (c) asset specialisation, (d) game competition (finite-player and mean field games) and (e) the forward performance processes (FPP) view. The former (a)--(d) have been analysed in  \cite{lackersoret2020many} through the lens of the classical utility framework. At the same time, here we subscribe to the elegantly argued (supported by empirical evidence) FPP paradigm of \cite{AnthropelosGengZariphopoulou2020} to view the upstream \cite{lackersoret2020many} through its light. The arguments here using FPPs, competition and the presence of consumption make the analysis involved revealing elements not present in \cite{lackersoret2020many} (despite the similarity to (a)--(d)) or \cite{karatzas1997explicit,sethi1992infinite}.

Throughout we consider fund managers that trade between their individual stock and common riskless asset, so called problem of \emph{asset specialisation}.  This theory developed from the initial works of \cite{brennan1975optimal}, \cite{coval1999home}, \cite{merton1969lifetime} to further developments in \cite{van2009information}, \cite{uppal2003model},   \cite{kacperczyk2005industry},  \cite{LackerZariphopoulou2017, lackersoret2020many},  \cite{AnthropelosGengZariphopoulou2020}.
These works report on agents' asset specialisation for a variety of reasons, like familiarity, trading costs and constraints, reduction of learning costs, industry specialisation. Competition games, of $2$-player, $n$-player or mean field type, in the context of asset specialisation, has received much attention recently and, to avoid repeating the arguments there, we defer to the introductions of   \cite{LackerZariphopoulou2017,lackersoret2020many,platonov2020forward,AnthropelosGengZariphopoulou2020} that relate specifically to our context. More generally to the monographs \cite{carmona2018probabilistic} for a long-view of mean field games theory and applications.

The literature on portfolio management for agents with utility preferences with performance concerns is a growing one, benchmarking is a feature of human nature and critical for fund managers who need to keep the fund competitive. We refer to the excellent economic and finance motivations found in \cite{AnthropelosGengZariphopoulou2020} and also  \cite{BielagkLionnetDosReis2017,LackerZariphopoulou2017,lackersoret2020many}. In this work, we build on the structure proposed firstly in \cite{EspinosaTouzi2015} and then in \cite{FreiDosReis2011}, and afterwards expanded by \cite{BielagkLionnetDosReis2017,LackerZariphopoulou2017,deng2020relative,lackersoret2020many}. Additionally, we point the reader to the beautiful introductions of \cite{LackerZariphopoulou2017,lackersoret2020many} who brought those concepts to the framework of mean field games. Further, those works also make for an excellent review of mean field games in the context of the Merton problem, which is the framework underlying our work. Investment under performance concerns has been taken up in many variants, most recently: \cite{deng2020relative} analyse a partial information finite-player CARA utility game with performance concerns employing Forward Backward SDE (FBSDE) machinery (market model with stochastic coefficients) and applying deep learning techniques for their numerical study, see \cite[Table 1]{deng2020relative}. \cite{fu2020mean} work in the same context but address the mean field game in the full non-Markovian framework and using mean field FBSDEs, see also \cite[Table 1]{fu2020mean}. Aspects of investment under relative consumption are much less explored, only in \cite{lackersoret2020many}.

At the core of our work, are the ideas behind the \textit{forward investment performance criteria}  introduced and developed by Musiela and Zariphopoulou \cite{musiela2006investments,MusielaZariphopoulou2007} and  \cite{henderson2007horizon} as a way to solve portfolio optimisation problems without two specific drawbacks from the classical utility theory. When entering the market, investors prescribe their risk profile at horizon time and therefore cannot adapt it to changes in market conditions or update risk preferences; additionally, the investment time horizon is fixed, and the portfolio is derived in respect to this temporal reference point. The forward criteria (portfolio) optimisation problem is formulated as a maximisation of the conditional expectation of a stochastic utility function across all points in time. Hence, time-horizons are arbitrary, which is more realistic for practitioners. In essence, the forward \textit{dynamic} performance map is built with the property of dynamic consistency taken as the starting point and then deriving a certain consistency condition.

\textit{Forward performance processes} (FPP), as defined in Musiela and Zariphopoulou
\cite{MusielaZariphopoulou2009}, capture the time evolution of such stochastic utility functions and since then much progress has been done in characterising such processes in a variety of settings and assumptions \cite{berrier2011forward}, \cite{KarouiMrad2013}, \cite{Zitkovic2009}, \cite{MusielaZariphopoulou2008-TomKurzFestschrift}, \cite{Anthropelos2014}, \cite{elkaroui2018consistent},
\cite{KarouiHillairetMrad2019},
\cite{chong2018optimal},
\cite{GobetMrad2018},
\cite{kallblad2018dynamically},
\cite{kallblad2020black},
\cite{li2020game}. For excellent literature overviews on the developments of FPP we point the reader to \cite{chong2019pricing}, \cite{avanesyan2020construction}, \cite{matoussi2020dynamic} and \cite{kallblad2020black}. Particularly clear is \cite{kallblad2020black} who provides a near taxonomic breakdown of the literature of the forward criteria in respect to their behaviour in time and associated explored approaches to then discuss an optimal investment and consumption problem. Here, as in \cite{kallblad2020black} or \cite{avanesyan2020construction}, we focus on a class of forward investment-consumption criteria with the specific property that they are differentiable in time (a dynamics without volatility). In \cite{avanesyan2020construction} the authors study an optimal portfolio selection problem (no consumption, no competition) under the FPP of power form in an incomplete market. Their arguments make use of HJB machinery and, like in this work or \cite{chong2018optimal}, an assumption of "separable power factor form" for the FPP is made (Assumption \ref{ass:form-of-U-V-mean-field-g-with-f} below). Lastly, a general form of the utility dynamics is made with a non-zero diffusion component and the driving market model is fully stochastic multi-factor one coined "EVE correlation" models. The study of consumption with FPPs (or forward utility) was considered in \cite{berrier2011forward,elkaroui2018consistent,chong2018optimal}; interesting is \cite{chong2018optimal} who manage the difficulty associated to having a FPP dynamics featuring a volatility component by assuming the volatility to be exogenously postulated by the agent as a market perception; their FPP consumption optimisation problem yields non-uniqueness.

Competition within the framework of FPP is in its infancy. The concept originated in \cite{geng2017passive} for a two-player game in the CRRA context with a Merton market model, and its vision is expanded upon in \cite{AnthropelosGengZariphopoulou2020}, still within a two-player game but allowing for random coefficients in an incomplete market model. A formulation of \textit{mean field forward performance games} and the concept of \textit{mean field forward equilibrium} were proposed in \cite{platonov2020forward}, by merging \cite{geng2017passive} and \cite{LackerZariphopoulou2017}, where also the finite-player game is addressed within the CARA utility framework. In these three works, the forward performance dynamics follows an ODE (i.e., there is no volatility). From a competition perspective, the FPP approach reflects that agents need not all have the same time-horizons since, in particular, under asset specialisation different industries have different timeframes (although quarterly reporting are common points of reference), see \cite{AnthropelosGengZariphopoulou2020} for a full discussion.

The FPP framework is not the only theory seeking to overcome limitations of the classical utility theory. An alternative from the 90s are so-called Epstein-Zin preferences within the recursive utility framework \cite{epstein1989substitution}, \cite{epstein1991substitution}, \cite{weil1989equity} expanding on the theoretical framework of Kreps-Porteus \cite{krepsporteus1978}.
For the consumption problem, the classic CRRA utility optimisation yields a strict relation between the agent's risk tolerance $\delta$ and \textit{Elasticity of intertemporal substitution} (EIS), namely that $\textrm{EIS}^{\textrm{classic, \cite{lackersoret2020many}}}=\delta$
(e.g., see \cite{lackersoret2020many}) and disentangling both was at heart the Epstein-Zin preferences.  As for EIS and as argued in \cite{thimme2017intertemporal}, ``higher interest rates increase the overall wealth of the consumer due to higher cash-flows in future periods. The effect that consumers spend a part of this higher future income already today is called ``income effect''. On the other hand, with higher interest rates a smaller fraction of today's consumption has to be saved in order to have an additional unit of consumption tomorrow. This motive to save more today and postpone today's consumption is called the ``substitution effect''. Consumers with a high EIS are more willing to substitute consumption over time, which has a direct impact on the substitution effect''. Now, classic theory yields $\textrm{EIS}^{\textrm{classic, \cite{lackersoret2020many}}}=\delta$, however, the risk tolerance is atemporal relating how a consumer substitutes consumption across different states of the world while EIS is intertemporal relating how a consumer substitutes consumption between now and later \cite{cundy2018essays}. Thus classic utility framework cannot capture how agent competition, with or without performance concerns, changes EIS.

Full time-continuous stochastic preferences capturing ``intertemporal substitution'' of Hindy-Huang-Kreps \cite{hindy1992intertemporal} have been used to understand consumption optimisation \cite{benth2001optimal,bank2001optimal} and Arrow-Debreu equilibria \cite{bank2001existence} using L\'evy processes and singular stochastic control to discuss. More recently, \cite{aase2016recursive} revisited the EIS discussion using \cite{duffie1992asset,duffie1992stochastic}'s stochastic recursive utility in continuous time specified to the Kreps-Porteus \cite{krepsporteus1978} family. Forthcoming is \cite{gueant2021} (also \cite{bismuthgueant2019}) who recast the MFG of \cite{LackerZariphopoulou2017} under the Epstein-Zin / Kreps-Porteus recursive utility framework. Nonetheless, inspecting these reference one sees a few of the criticism aimed at the standard utility framework, as highlighted in \cite{AnthropelosGengZariphopoulou2020}, appearing again. E.g., in \cite{campani2019approximate} we see a dependence on investment's horizon ``The investor's horizon also plays a crucial role in optimal policies''  and that the underlying model is fixed the investment timeframe.

With this work, we investigate an $n$-player and mean field game for asset specialising agents who optimise wealth-consumption with relative wealth-consumption concerns through the power of the FPP framework. The tractability of our setting with FPPs yields findings not seen in the classic utility theory. Namely, \textbf{our contributions are}

    (I) We expand the concept of CRRA FPP to a game-theoretical framework both for finite-player games and mean field games working for tractability within the common-noise Merton market model. The MFG approach is based on the simpler concept work \cite{platonov2020forward} for CARA FPP (wealth optimisation only), and \cite{lackersoret2020many} for the classical CRRA investment-consumption utility problem. For both games, we provide explicit expressions for the quantities of interest. From a methodological point of view, we solve the control problem by combining convex duality with HJB-type arguments.

    (II) With the inclusion of consumption, the CRRA FPP wealth-consumption problem does not have a unique solution but a class of them indexed by some $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$ interpreted as \emph{market consumption intensity}. This parameter is present in the single-agent optimisation (no competition/performance concerns) and both games settings. It is common to all players and encapsulates the time-weight the environment assigns to the utility from consumption when compared to the accumulation of wealth.
    The tractability of our setting, exposes the $\kappa$ parameter to clearly enable an extra layer of interpretable market modelling (see Section \ref{sec:examplesInterpretations}) and, critically, when $\kappa=0$ we recover classic utility theory results  \cite{lackersoret2020many} also \cite{karatzas1997explicit,sethi1992infinite}.

    (III) We show that the CRRA FPP framework (even without competition) encapsulates the same key feature of the Epstein-Zin preferences recursive utility. It breaks the strict relation between risk tolerance $\delta$ and \textit{Elasticity of intertemporal substitution} (EIS) of the classical utility theory, and at the same time keeps its core features of independence from the investment time-horizon and flexibility towards updating risk preferences. These features stand to span a fresh breath of new economics studies on EIS in the scope of FPP (and its features).

We show that competition/performance concerns in our model ($\theta\neq 0,~\theta\in(0,1]$) additionally re-scales the agent's perception of consumption, namely,
    \begin{align*}
                \textrm{EIS}^{\textrm{with competition} (\theta\neq 0)}_t
                = \frac{\textrm{EIS}^{\textrm{no competition} (\theta=0)}}{1+\kappa\theta(1-\delta)\frac1{\gamma_t}},
\quad \textrm{where}\quad
\textrm{EIS}^{\textrm{no competition} (\theta=0)}=(1-\kappa)\delta,
    \end{align*}
compared with $\textrm{EIS}^{\textrm{classic, \cite{lackersoret2020many}}}=\delta$, where $(\gamma_t)_{t \geq 0}$ represents the \emph{elasticity of conformity} of the agent in relation to the market and is time dependent, $\delta>0$ is the agent's risk tolerance and $\kappa\in \mathbb{R}$ is market consumption intensity that affects all agents in the market. \cite{bismuthgueant2019} finds related results using Epstein-Zin recursive utility.

\smallskip
\textbf{Organisation of the paper.}
In Section \ref{sec2} we introduce the financial market and notation. In Sections \ref{sec:FRPCwithaverage} and \ref{sec:MFG-forward-consumption} we study the finite-agent and mean field game respectively, and in each part we study particular tractable case allowing for explicit calculations and examples. The interpretations of equilibria, parameter relations and the models are left for the final Section \ref{sec:examplesInterpretations}.

\section{Asset specialisation and relative performance concerns}
\label{sec2}

We formulate our working market models mimicking the construction presented in \cite{LackerZariphopoulou2017,lackersoret2020many,platonov2020forward}.

\textbf{The market.} The market environment has one riskless asset and $n$ risky securities which serve as proxies for two distinct asset classes. We assume their prices to be of log-normal type, each driven by two independent Brownian motions. More precisely the price $(S^i_t)_{t\geqslant 0}$ of the stock $i$ traded exclusively by the $i$-th agent solves
\begin{align}
\label{stock}
\frac{dS_{t}^{i}}{S_{t}^{i}}
&
=\mu _{i}dt+\nu _{i}dW_{t}^{i}+\sigma _{i}dB_{t},
\end{align}
with constant parameters $\mu_i>0$, $\sigma_i\geqslant 0$ and $\nu_i\geqslant 0$ with $\sigma_i+\nu_i>0$. We refer the reader to \cite{LackerZariphopoulou2017,lackersoret2020many} for an in-depth motivation of the model. The one-dimensional standard Brownian motions $B,W^1,\dots,W^n$ are independent. When $\sigma_i > 0$, the process $B$ induces a correlation between the stocks, and thus we call $B$ the \emph{common noise} and $W^{i}$ an \emph{idiosyncratic noise}. The independent Brownian motions $B,W^1,\dots,W^n$ are defined on a probability space $(\Omega, \mathbb{F}, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P})$ endowed with the natural filtration $\mathbb{F}=(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\geqslant 0}$ generated by them and satisfies the usual conditions.

We recall the case of \textit{single common stock}, where for any $i  = 1,\dots,n ,~ (\mu_i,\sigma_i) = (\mu,\sigma),~ \nu_i = 0,$ for some $\mu, \sigma >0$ and independent of $i$. The single common stock case has been explored in great generality in \cite{EspinosaTouzi2015,FreiDosReis2011,BielagkLionnetDosReis2017} incorporating portfolio constraints, general stock price dynamics and risk-sharing mechanisms.

We aim to contribute to the literature on mean field
games and FPP by providing an explicitly solvable example. As argued by \cite{lackersoret2020many}, outside linear-quadratic structures such is very rare, and it is one of these rarities we bring here. We work with the very tractable model \eqref{stock} and include common noise, heterogeneous agents, a mean field interaction through the controls in addition to the state processes and FPPs.

\textbf{Agents' wealth.} Each agent $i=1,\ldots,n$ trades using a self-financing strategy, $(\pi _{t}^{i})_{t \geqslant 0}$, representing the (discounted by the bond) fraction of wealth invested in the $i$-th stock and consumption policy $(c^i_t)_{t \geqslant 0}$, representing the instantaneous rate of consumption per unit of wealth. The $i^{th}$ agent's wealth dynamics $(X^i_t)_{t\geqslant 0}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{def:agentsWealthX-i-consumption}
dX_{t}^{i} =
 \pi_t^iX_t^{i}\Big(\mu _{i}dt+\nu _{i}dW_{t}^{i}+\sigma _{i}dB_{t}\Big)- c^i_t X^i_t dt, \qquad \textrm{with}\quad X_0^i=x_0^i \in \mathbb{R}.
\end{equation}

A portfolio investment-consumption strategy is deemed \textit{admissible} if it belongs to the admissibility set $\mathcal{A}^i$, defined as
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{A}^i
=
\Big\{
(\pi^i,c^i)&:
\textrm{$\mathbb{F}$-progressively measurable $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}_+$-valued process } (\pi^i_t,c^i_t)_{t \geqslant 0},
\\
& \qquad
\textrm{such that }
\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_0^t (|\pi_s|^2 + |c_s|^2 ) ds \Big]< \infty,\
 \textrm{for any } t>0
\Big\}.
\end{align*}

\textbf{The Agents' interaction and relative performance concerns.} Each manager measures the performance of her strategy taking into account the policies of the others. Each agent engages in a form of social interaction that affects that agent's perception of wealth, all in a multiplicative fashion modelled through the geometric average wealth of all agents. The \emph{relative performance metric} of manager $i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, denoted $\breve X^i$ is defined to be
\begin{align}
\label{eq:xminusaverage-consumption}
 \breve X^i = \frac{X^i}{{\widetilde X}^{\theta_i}},
\quad\textrm{where}\quad
\widetilde{X}:=\Big(\prod_{k=1}^{n}X^{k}\Big)^{\frac1n}
\quad\textrm{and}\quad \theta_i\in[0,1].
\end{align}
Similarly to \cite[{Remark 3.3}]{LackerZariphopoulou2017},  \cite[Section 2]{lackersoret2020many} or \cite[Section 2]{platonov2020forward}, it is natural to replace the average wealth $\widetilde X$ in \eqref{eq:xminusaverage-consumption} by the average over all other agents. With that in mind we define for convenience $\widetilde{X}^{(-i)} = \Big(\prod_{k \neq i}X^k\Big)^{\frac1{n-1}}$. This leads us further to a second version of \eqref{eq:xminusaverage-consumption}, the \textit{relative performance wealth process},
\begin{align}
\label{eq:xminusaverage-lessi-consumption}
    \widehat X^i = \frac{X^i}{{\Big(\widetilde{X}^{(-i)}}\Big)^{\theta_i}},
    \qquad\textrm{where}\qquad
    \widetilde{X}^{(-i)} = \Big(\prod_{k \neq i}^nX^k\Big)^{\frac{1}{n-1}}.
\end{align}
In the same vein we introduce the \emph{relative consumption metric}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:c-hat-i}
 \hat{c}^i = \dfrac{c^i}{\Big(\tilde{c}^{(-i)}\Big)^{\theta_i}}, \quad \text{where} \quad \tilde{c}^{(-i)} = \Big(\prod_{k \neq i}^{n} c^k\Big)^{\frac1{n-1}}.
\end{align}
We obtain the dynamics for \emph{the average performance wealth} $Y = \widetilde X^{(-i)}$,
\begin{align*}
\frac{d Y_t}{ Y_t} = (\eta_t - \bar{c}_t^{(-i)})  d t+\frac{1}{n-1} \sum_{k \neq i}^n \nu_{k} \pi_{k} d W_{t}^{k}+\overline{\sigma \pi}^{(-i)} d B_{t}, \quad Y_{0}=\bigg( \prod_{k \neq i}^n x_{0}^{k}\bigg)^{\frac1{n-1}},
\end{align*}
where we define the helpful auxiliary quantities
\begin{align*}
    &\eta := \overline{\mu\pi}^{(-i)}-\frac{1}{2}\left(\overline{\Sigma \pi^{2}}^{(-i)}-\big(\overline{\sigma \pi}^{(-i)}\big)^{2}-\frac{1}{n-1} \overline{(\nu \pi)^{2}}^{(-i)}\right), \quad \overline{\mu \pi}^{(-i)} := \frac1{n-1}\sum_{k \neq i}^{n} \mu_k \pi^k_t,\\
    &\overline{(\nu \pi)^{2}}^{(-i)} = \frac1{n-1} \sum_{k\neq i}^{n} (\nu_k\pi^k_t)^2,\quad\overline{\sigma \pi}^{(-i)} := \frac1{n-1} \sum_{k \neq i}^{n} \sigma_k \pi^k_t ,\quad \overline{\Sigma \pi^2}^{(-i)} := \frac1{n-1}\sum_{k \neq i}^{n} \Sigma_k (\pi^k_t)^2,  \\
    &\qquad\bar{c}^{(-i)}_t = \frac1{n-1} \sum_{k \neq i}^{n} c^k_t, \quad  \Sigma_k = \sigma_k^2 + \nu_k^2.
\end{align*}
Via It\^o's formula one finds the dynamics of \emph{relative performance wealth} $\widehat X^i$ to be
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:widehat-x-consumption}
    \frac{d \widehat X^i_t}{\widehat X^i_t} = \xi_i dt -  \big(c^i_t - \theta_i\bar{c}_t^{(-i)}\big) + \bigg(\nu_i\pi^i_tdW^i_t - \theta_i\Big( \frac1{n-1}\sum_{k \neq i}^{n} \nu_k \pi^k_t dW^k_t\Big)\bigg) + \bigg(\sigma_i \pi^i_t - \theta_i \overline{\sigma \pi}^{(-i)}\bigg) dB_t,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
    \xi_i := \mu_i \pi^i_t - \theta_i \overline{\mu \pi}^{(-i)} + \frac{\theta_i}2\overline{\Sigma\pi^2}^{(-i)} + \frac{\theta_i^2 }{2}\bigg(\big(\overline{\sigma\pi}^{(-i)}\big)^2 + \frac{1}{n-1}\overline{(\nu\pi)^2}^{(-i)}\bigg) - \theta_i \sigma_i\pi^i_t \overline{\sigma \pi}^{(-i)}.
\end{align*}

\section{The finite player forward optimisation game}
\label{sec:FRPCwithaverage}
\subsection{Forward relative performance}

Each manager $i\in\{1,\cdots,n\}$ measures the output of her relative performance metric using a forward relative utility as modelled by an $\mathcal{F}_t$-progressively measurable random field $Q^i:\Omega \times \mathbb{R}\times [0,\infty) \to \mathbb{R}$ for $i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$. The below criteria follows those proposed in \cite{geng2017passive} (power-type) and later in \cite{platonov2020forward} (exponential-type) for a forward-performance game.

The formulation here is inspired in the first step of the usual strategy of solving a Nash equilibria games, namely, the best response of an agent to the actions of all other agents. Take manager $i$ and assume all other agents $j\neq i$ have acted with a policy $(\pi^j,c^j)$ then for any strategy $(\pi^i,c^i)\in \mathcal{A}^i$, the process $Q^i(\widehat X^i_t,t)$ is a (local) supermartingale, and there exists $\pi^{i,*},c^{i,*}\in \mathcal{A}^i$ such that $Q^i(\widehat X^{i,*}_t,t)$ is a (local) martingale where $\widehat X^{i}$ and $\widehat X^{i,*}$ solves \eqref{eq:xminusaverage-lessi-consumption} with strategies $(\pi^i,c^i)$ and $(\pi^{i,*},c^{i,*})$ respectively.

This version of a relative criterion is (implicit and) endogenously parametrised by the policies of all other managers $j\neq i$ over which there is no assumption on their optimality. In Nash-game language, we solve the so-called best response.
\begin{definition}[Forward relative performance for the manager]
\label{def:ForwardUtilityBestResponse-consumption}
Each manager $i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$ satisfies the following conditions: let for any $j\neq i,~(\pi^j,c^j)\in\mathcal{A}^j$ be arbitrary but fixed and admissible policies, in other words, the other managers have fixed their investment-consumption admissible strategies.

For $(\pi^i,c^i) \in \mathcal{A}^i$, define the   $\mathbb{F}$-progressively measurable random field $Q^i:\Omega\times \mathbb{R}\times [0,\infty)\to \mathbb{R}$ as
\begin{align*}
Q^i(x,t):= U^{i}(x,t) + \int_0^t V^{i}(\hat c_s^i x,s)ds,
\end{align*}
where $\hat c^i$ is given by \eqref{eq:c-hat-i} and
$U^i,V^i:\Omega\times \mathbb{R}\times [0,\infty)\to \mathbb{R}$ are two other $\mathbb{F}$-progressively measurable random fields.

The random field $Q^i$ is a \emph{forward relative performance process for $i$-th manager} if, for all $t\geqslant 0$, the following conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}[i)]
	\item The mappings $x \mapsto U^{i}(x,t)$ and $y \mapsto V^{i}(y,t)$ are $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.~strictly increasing and strictly concave;
    \item For any $(\pi^{i,*},c^{i,*})\in \mathcal{A}^i,~Q^i(\widehat X^i_t,t)$ is a (local) supermartingale, where $\widehat X^i$ is the relative performance wealth process given in \eqref{eq:xminusaverage-lessi-consumption};
    \item There exists $(\pi^{i,*},c^{i,*})\in \mathcal{A}^i$ such that $Q^i(\widehat X^{i,*}_t,t)$ is a (local) martingale, where $\widehat X^{i,*}$ solves \eqref{eq:xminusaverage-lessi-consumption} with the strategies $(\pi^{i,*},c^{i,*})$ being used. The strategy $(\pi^{i,*},c^{i,*})$ is said to be optimal.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}

In the above definition, we do not make explicit references to the initial conditions $U^i(x,0)$, $V^i(x,0)$ but we assume that admissible ($\mathcal{F}_0$-measurable) initial data
exists such that the above definition is viable. Contrary to the classical expected utility case, the forward performance process is an manager-specific input. Once it is chosen, the supermartingale and martingale properties impose conditions on the drift of the process. Under enough regularity, these conditions lead to the forward performance SPDE (see \cite{MusielaZariphopoulou2010,KarouiMrad2013}) which, in our case, reduces to a PDE with stochastic coefficients (see Proposition \ref{prop:BestResponses-n-playerGame-average-n-1-consumption} below).

Since we are working in a log-normal market, it suffices to study smooth relative performance criteria of zero volatility (of the FPP map). Such processes are extensively analysed in \cite{MusielaZariphopoulou2010-space-time-monotone} in the absence of relative performance concerns. There, a concise characterisation of the forward criteria is given along necessary and sufficient  conditions for their existence and uniqueness. In that setting, the zero-volatility forward processes are always time-decreasing processes. We point to the reader that this does not have to be case if relative performance concerns are present (see also \cite{geng2017passive,platonov2020forward}).
Before proving the main result of the subsection, we make a standing assumption regarding the regularity of the FPP map.
\begin{assumption}
\label{ass:regularity-u-n-player-consumption}
Assume that the partial derivatives $U^i_t(x,t),~U^i_{x}(x,t),~U^i_{xx}(x,t)$ and $V^i_{y}(y,t),V^i_{yy}(y,t)$ exist for all $t \geqslant 0, ~x, y \in \mathbb{R},~\mathbb{P}$-a.s.

Furthermore, $x \mapsto U(x,t)$ and $y \mapsto V(y,t)$ are strictly increasing ($U_x,V_y > 0$) and strictly concave ($U_{xx},V_{yy} < 0$) for any $t \geqslant 0,~ x,y \in \mathbb{R},~ \mathbb{P}$-a.s.
\end{assumption}
From Assumption \ref{ass:regularity-u-n-player-consumption}, the It\^o decomposition of the forward map is
\begin{align}
\label{eq:SDEforForwardUtilityField-consumption}
d Q^i(x,t)=U^i_t(x,t)dt + V^i(\hat c_t^i x,t) dt,\quad \textrm{for }i\in\{1,\dots,n\}, \qquad Q^i(x,0) = u^i_0(x).
\end{align}

For posterior use, we recall the notion of Fenchel-Legendre transform applied to a random field $V$ under the above assumption.
\begin{definition}
Let $V:\Omega\times \mathbb{R} \times [0,\infty)  \to \mathbb{R}$ be a random field such that $y\mapsto V(y,t)$ is a $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.~strictly concave function for all $t\geq 0$. Define the random field $\widetilde V: \Omega\times \mathbb{R} \times [0,\infty) \to \mathbb{R}$ as $\widetilde V(y,t) := \sup_{x \in \mathbb{R}} \big \{ V(x,t) - yx\big\}$ for any $y\in\mathbb{R}$, $t\geq 0$ and $\omega \in \Omega$.

Then, we call $\widetilde V$ the \emph{Fenchel-Legendre transform} of $V$.
\end{definition}

For a map $V$ satisfying Assumption \ref{ass:regularity-u-n-player-consumption}, its differentiability and strict concavity ensures $\widetilde V$ is always well-defined and can be computed (up to a closed form).

\subsection{Best responses}

Here we derive a PDE with random coefficients and an optimal investment-consumption strategy for a smooth relative performance criteria of zero-volatility of some agent $i$ assuming that all other agents $j\neq i$ have made their investment decisions.
\begin{proposition}[Best responses]
\label{prop:BestResponses-n-playerGame-average-n-1-consumption}
Fix $i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$.
Assume that each manager $j\neq i$ follows $(\pi^j,c^j)\in\mathcal{A}^j$. Consider the PDE with stochastic coefficients for $(x,t)\in \mathbb{R}\times [0,\infty)$ given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:SPDE-step01-consumption}
\nonumber
U^{i}_t& = \bigg(\theta_i\overline{ \mu\pi}^{(-i)} - \frac{\theta_i \sigma_i \overline{ \sigma\pi}^{(-i)} (\mu_i - \theta_i \sigma_i \overline{ \sigma\pi}^{(-i)})}{\nu_i^2+\sigma_i^2} - \frac{\theta_i}2 \overline{\Sigma \pi^2}^{(-i)} - \frac{\theta_i^2}{2} \big(\big(\overline{\sigma\pi}^{(-i)}\big)^2 + \frac1{n-1} \overline{(\nu\pi)^2}^{(-i)}\big)\bigg)xU^{i}_x
\\
\nonumber
& \qquad \qquad +  \frac{(\mu_i - \theta_i \sigma_i \overline{\sigma\pi}^{(-i)})^2}{2(\nu_i^2+\sigma_i^2)} \frac{(U^{i}_x)^2}{U^{i}_{xx}}
+  \frac12\bigg(  \Big(\theta_i\overline{\sigma\pi}^{(-i)}\Big)^2 \Big( \frac{ \sigma_i^2 }{\nu_i^2+\sigma_i^2} -1 \Big)-\frac{\theta_i^2}{n-1}\overline{(\nu\pi)^2}^{(-i)}\bigg) x^2 U^{i}_{xx}\\
& \qquad \qquad  + \theta_i  \bar c_t^{(-i)}U_x^i - \widetilde {V}^i (U^i_x,t),
\end{align}
where $\widetilde V^i$ stands for Fenchel-Legendre transform of $V^i$ in variable $y$.  Assume that for admissible initial conditions $U^i(\cdot,0)=u^i_0(\cdot),~ V^i(\cdot,0)=v^i_0(\cdot)$, the PDE has a smooth solution $(U^i,V^i)$, that is not necessarily unique, but satisfy Assumption \ref{ass:regularity-u-n-player-consumption}.

Define the strategy $(\pi^{i,*}, c^{i,*})$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:best-responses-pi-n-player-consumption}
\pi^{i,*}_t
&=\frac1{\nu_i^2+\sigma_i^2} \Big({\theta_i \sigma_i \overline{(\sigma\pi )}^{(-i)}_t}
- \big(\mu_i-\theta_i \sigma_i \overline{(\sigma\pi )}^{(-i)}_t\big)\frac{U^{i}_x(\widehat X^{i,*}_t ,t)}{U^{i}_{xx}(\widehat X^{i,*}_t ,t)\widehat X^{i,*}_t}\Big),
\\
\label{eq:best-responses-c-n-player-consumption}
c^{i,*}_t
&= \dfrac{(V^i_x)^{-1}\Big(U^i_x(\widehat X^{i,*}_t,t) \big(\tilde{c}^{(-i)}_t\big)^{\theta_i},t\Big)\big(\tilde{c}^{(-i)}_t\big)^{\theta_i}}{\widehat X^{i,*}_t}.
\end{align}
where $\widehat X^{i,*}$ solves \eqref{eq:widehat-x-consumption} with $(\pi^{i,*},c^{i,*})$ being used.

Then, in the sense of Definition \ref{def:ForwardUtilityBestResponse-consumption}, if $(\pi^{i,*}, c^{i,*})\in\mathcal{A}^i$ and if $\widehat X^{i,*}$ is well-defined, then $Q^i(x,t)$ is a forward relative performance process for manager $i$ and, moreover, the policy $(\pi^{i,*},c^{i,*})$ is optimal.
\end{proposition}

Let us recall the concept of a CRRA utility map. Following e.g., \cite[{Section 5}]{MusielaZariphopoulou2009}, we say a utility map $U$ is of \textit{Constant Relative Risk Aversion} (CRRA) type if the \emph{local risk tolerance function} $r:\Omega\times\mathbb{R}\times [0,\infty)\to \mathbb{R}$, given by the quotient $r(x,t)=-U_x(x,t)/U_{xx}(x,t)$ is linear in space, i.e. $r(x,t) = \delta x,$ for any $\delta > 0$ and $t \geqslant 0,~x \in \mathbb{R}$. This is the case for the classical power utility function, see Section \ref{sec:FPPinitapowerrisk} below.

By direct inspection of the expression for $\pi^{i,*}$ in \eqref{eq:best-responses-pi-n-player-consumption}, if the local risk tolerance function $r^i(x,t)= \delta_i x$, for any $t > 0$ (e.g. CRRA utilities) then the optimal investment strategy will be constant throughout time if additionally all other agents also choose a constant investment strategy.

\begin{corollary}[Constant investment strategies under CRRA]
Assume $U^i$ and $V^i$ to be of CRRA type, i.e., the \emph{local risk tolerance function} is linear in space uniformly. Assume further that all agents $j\neq i$ invest according to constant investment strategies $\pi^j\in\mathbb{R}$. Then, $\pi^{i,*}$ is constant.

\end{corollary}
At this point it is not clear that if the agents $j\neq i$ use deterministic continuous consumption strategies $c^j$ then the optimal consumption strategy $c^{i,*}$ in \eqref{eq:best-responses-c-n-player-consumption} is also so. We next prove the ``best responses'' result, Proposition \ref{prop:BestResponses-n-playerGame-average-n-1-consumption}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:BestResponses-n-playerGame-average-n-1-consumption}]
From \eqref{eq:xminusaverage-lessi-consumption} we have access to the dynamics of $d\widehat X^i$ and of $d(X^i_t\big(\overline{X}^{(-i)}_t\big)^{-\theta_i})$. Using \eqref{eq:SDEforForwardUtilityField-consumption}, we apply the It\^o formula to $Q^i(\widehat X^i_t ,t)=Q^i\big(X^i_t \big(\overline{X}^{(-i)}_t\big)^{-\theta_i} ,t\big)$, and obtain using the notation set before \eqref{eq:widehat-x-consumption}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:generalSDEafterItoWentzell-consumption}
\nonumber
 d Q^i(\widehat X^i_t ,t)
&= U^{i}_t(\widehat X^i_t ,t)dt + U^{i}_x(\widehat X^i_t ,t) d \widehat X^i_t + \frac12 U^{i}_{xx}(\widehat X^i_t ,t) d \langle \widehat X^i_t \rangle + V^{i}(\hat c^i_t\widehat X_t^i, t) dt
\\
\nonumber
&
=U^{i}_t(\widehat X^i_t ,t)dt
+ U^{i}_x(\widehat X^i_t ,t)\bigg(\mu_i \pi^i_t - \theta_i \overline{\mu \pi}^{(-i)} + \frac{\theta_i}2\overline{\Sigma\pi^2}^{(-i)}\\
\nonumber
& \qquad + \frac{\theta_i^2}{2}\Big(\big(\overline{\sigma\pi}^{(-i)}\big)^2 + \frac{1}{n-1}\overline{(\nu\pi)^2}^{(-i)}\Big)- \theta_i \sigma_i\pi^i_t \overline{\sigma \pi}^{(-i)}\bigg)\overline{X}^i
_t dt
\\
& \qquad
+ U^{i}_x(\widehat X^i_t ,t)\big(\sigma_{i}\pi_t^i - \theta_i\overline{\sigma\pi}^{(-i)} \big)\widehat{X}^i
_tdB_t
\\
\nonumber
& \qquad + U^{i}_x(\widehat X^i_t ,t) \widehat{X}^i_t \bigg(\nu_i\pi^i_tdW^i_t - \theta_i\Big( \frac1{n-1}\sum_{k \neq i}^{n} \nu_k \pi^k_t dW^k_t\Big)\bigg)
\\
\nonumber
&\qquad + \frac12 U^{i}_{xx}(\widehat X^i_t ,t)\bigg( (\nu_i\pi^i_t )^2
+\frac{\theta_i^2}{n-1}\overline{(\nu\pi )^2}^{(-i)}
+ \Big(\sigma _{i}\pi_t^i- \theta_i\overline{\sigma\pi}^{(-i)}\Big)^2
\bigg)\big(\widehat{X}^i_t\big)^2dt, \\
\nonumber
&
\qquad - U^{i}_x(\widehat X^i_t ,t)\big(c^i_t - \theta_i\bar{c}^{(-i)}_t \big)\widehat X_t^i dt + V^{i}(\hat c^i_t\widehat X_t^i, t) dt,
\end{align}
with $U^i(\widehat X^i_0 ,0)=U^i\big(x^i_0(\overline x_0^{(-i)})^{-\theta_i},0\big)=u^i_0\big(x^i_0(\overline x_0^{(-i)})^{-\theta_i}\big)$ and we used that the $B,W^j$ are all i.i.d.

By Definition \ref{def:ForwardUtilityBestResponse-consumption}, the process $Q^i(\widehat X^i_t,t)$ becomes a martingale at the optimal $(\pi^{i,*},c^{i,*})$, hence, direct computations using first order conditions ($\partial_{\pi^i} \textrm{``drift''}= \partial_{c^i} \textrm{``drift''}=0$) yield

\begin{align}
\label{eq:optimstrategy-consumption}
\nonumber
&\begin{cases}
U^{i}_x \big( \mu_i - \theta_i \sigma_i \overline{\sigma \pi}^{(-i)}\big)\widehat X_t^i + \frac12 U_{xx}^{i}\Big[2 \pi^i_t \nu_i^2 + 2\big(\sigma_{i}\pi_t^i - \theta_i\overline{\sigma\pi}^{(-i)} \big)\sigma_i \Big](\widehat X_t^i)^2 =0, \\
-U^{i}_x(\widehat X_t^i,t)\widehat X_t^i + V^{i}_x(\hat{c}^i_t\widehat X_t^i,t)\frac{\widehat X_t^i}{\big(\tilde{c}^{(-i)}_t\big)^{\theta_i}} = 0,
\end{cases}
\\
& \qquad\Leftrightarrow\quad
\begin{cases}
 \pi^i_t
&=
\dfrac1{\nu_i^2+\sigma_i^2} \Big({\theta_i \sigma_i \overline{\sigma\pi}^{(-i)}} - \big(\mu_i - \theta_i \sigma_i \overline{\sigma \pi}^{(-i)}\big)\frac{U^i_x(\widehat X^i_t ,t)}{U^i_{xx}(\widehat X^i_t ,t)\widehat X^i_t}\Big), \\
c^i_t &= \dfrac{(V^i_x)^{-1}\Big(U^i_x(\widehat X^i_t,t) \big(\tilde{c}^{(-i)}_t\big)^{\theta_i},t\Big)\big(\tilde{c}^{(-i)}_t\big)^{\theta_i}}{\widehat X_t^i}.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
Injecting $\pi^i_t $ in the drift term of \eqref{eq:generalSDEafterItoWentzell-consumption} and simplifying we arrive at the consistency condition \eqref{eq:SPDE-step01-consumption}, we do not carry out this step explicitly, nonetheless, using that the pair $(U^{i},V^{i})$ solves \eqref{eq:SPDE-step01-consumption}, equation \eqref{eq:generalSDEafterItoWentzell-consumption} simplifies to
\begin{align}
\label{eq:SDEafterItoWentzell and choice of Ut-average-n-1-consumption}
\nonumber
    d Q^i(\widehat X^i_t ,t)
    &
    = U^{i}_x(\widehat X^i_t ,t)\Big(\nu _{i}\pi_t^idW_{t}^{i}-\theta_i\big(\frac1{n-1}\sum_{k\neq i}^n \pi_t^k\nu_{k}dW_{t}^{k}\big)\Big)\widehat X^i_t
    + U^{i}_x(\widehat X^i_t ,t)\Big(\sigma_{i}\pi_t^i - \theta_i\overline{(\pi \sigma)}^{(-i)}_t \Big)\widehat X^i_t dB_t\\
    &
        \qquad +\frac12 U^{i}_{xx}(\widehat X^i_t ,t)\frac1{\nu_i^2+\sigma_i^2} \bigg| {\pi^i_t}(\nu_i^2+\sigma_i^2) -\Big( \theta_i \sigma_i \overline{ \sigma\pi}^{(-i)} - \mu_i\frac{U^i_x(\widehat X^i_t ,t)}{U^i_{xx}(\widehat X^i_t ,t)\widehat X^i_t} \Big)\bigg|^2(\widehat X^i_t)^2dt \\
    \nonumber
    &
        \qquad+ V^{i}(\hat c^i_t\widehat X_t^i, t) dt - U^{i}_x(\widehat X^i_t ,t)c^i_t \widehat X_t^i dt -  \widetilde V^i(U^i_x(\widehat X_t^i,t),t)dt.
\end{align}
The concavity assumption of $U^{i}(x,t)$ implies that the second line of the term above is non-positive and vanishes when \eqref{eq:optimstrategy-consumption} holds. At the same time by the definition of $\widetilde V^i$, the Fenchel-Legendre transform of $V^i$, we notice that
$$\widetilde V^i(U^i_x(\widehat X^i_t,t),t) = V^i(\hat c^{i,*}_t\widehat X_t^i,t)-U^i_x(\widehat X_t^i,t)c^{i,*}_t \widehat X^i_t,$$
that yields non-positivity and extremality of the last line of \eqref{eq:SDEafterItoWentzell and choice of Ut-average-n-1-consumption}, when $c^i = c^{i,*}$.  We can conclude that, if $(\pi^{i,*}_t,c^{i,*}_t)= (\pi^i_t,c^i_t)\in \mathcal{A}^i$ and the associated process $\widehat X^{i,*}$ is well-defined (solution to \eqref{eq:widehat-x-consumption} with $(\pi^{i,*},c^{i,*})$), the process $U^i(\widehat X^{i,*}_t,t)$ is a local-martingale, otherwise it is a local supermartingale. The result concludes.
\end{proof}
Here in contrast with \cite{lackersoret2020many} we do not know the explicit form of the utility, it being part of the solution, hence we exploit a convex duality to prove the extremality argument and combine with HJB type methodology. In \cite{geng2017passive} or \cite{platonov2020forward} the authors only explored the investment problem and hence the above issue does not appear.

\subsection{Forward performance with initial CRRA power preference}
\label{sec:FPPinitapowerrisk}

For $i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, let the dynamics of $Q^i$ be given by \eqref{eq:SDEforForwardUtilityField-consumption}.
Then we find one part of the solution to PDE \eqref{eq:SPDE-step01-consumption} as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Solution Postulation-consumption}
U^i(x,t) & = \begin{cases}
    \frac1{1-\frac1{\delta_i}} x^{1-\frac1{\delta_i}}f_i(t), & \delta \neq 1,~ \delta >0,\\
    \log(x)f_i(t) + h_i(t), & \delta = 1,
    \end{cases}
\end{align}
where $(f_i(t))_{t\geqslant 0},(h_i(t))_{t\geqslant 0}$ are the random maps independent of $x$ satisfying $f_i(0)=1$ and $h_i(0) = 0$, are sufficiently integrable and $t\mapsto f_i(t),~ t\mapsto h_i(t)$ are differentiable.
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:skipping delta=1 case}
For the sake of simplicity we omit the presentation for the logarithmic utility. At the same time we emphasise that the optimal policy for this case coincides with the general power case with $\delta_i = 1$ plugged inside.
\end{remark}
At the same time, the structure of the  consistency condition \eqref{eq:SPDE-step01-consumption} yields, see \cite[Proposition 4.5]{elkaroui2018consistent}, the form of $V^i$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Solution Postulation-consumption-V}
    V^i(x,t) & = \frac1{\epsilon_i}\frac1{1-\frac1{\delta_i}} x^{1-\frac1{\delta_i}} g_i(t),
\end{align}
where $(g_i(t))_{t\geqslant 0}$ is the random map independent of $x$ satisfying $g_i(0)=1$ and sufficiently integrable. We refer to the constants $\delta_i>0,~ \delta_i \neq 1,~\theta_i\in[0,1]$ and $\epsilon_i > 0$ as \emph{personal risk tolerance} and \emph{competition weight}, respectively, whereas $\epsilon_i > 0$ captures the \emph{relative importance the agent assigns to the wealth compared to consumption}.

In this case of initial power preferences we have, as before, that the \emph{local risk tolerance function} for $U^i$ satisfies $r^i=-U^i_x/U^i_{xx}=\delta_ix$, and hence
\begin{align*}
    \pi^{i,*}_t &=\frac1{\nu_i^2+\sigma_i^2} \Big({\theta_i \sigma_i \overline{ \sigma\pi}^{(-i)}} + (\mu_i - \theta_i \sigma_i \overline{\sigma\pi }^{(-i)})\delta_i\Big).
\end{align*}
We now proceed to find this case's optimal consumption map $c^i$ and utilities fields. Injecting the expressions above for $U^i(x,t),~V^i(x,t)$ in \eqref{eq:SPDE-step01-consumption} together with optimal consumption given by \eqref{eq:optimstrategy-consumption} yields an ODE system for $(f_i, g_i, c^i)$, we have
\begin{align}
\label{eq:system-equations-n-player-consumption}
\begin{cases}
    c^i_t = \big(\tilde c_t^{(-i)}\big)^{\theta_i(1-\delta_i)}\epsilon_i^{-\delta_i} \bigg( \dfrac{g_i(t)}{f_i(t)}\bigg)^{\delta_i}, \\
    f^\prime_i(t) + \Big(\rho_i + \big(1-\frac1{\delta_i}\big)\theta_i \bar{c}_t^{(-i)}\Big) f_i(t) + \frac{\epsilon_i^{-\delta_i}}{\delta_i} \big(\tilde c_t^{(-i)}\big)^{\theta_i(1-\delta_i)}  f_i(t)
\bigg(\dfrac{g_i(t)}{f_i(t)}\bigg)^{\delta_i} = 0,
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:lambda-consumption}
    \nonumber
    \rho^i_t &:= -\Big(1-\frac1{\delta_i}\Big) \bigg(\theta_i\overline{\mu\pi}^{(-i)} - \frac{\theta_i \sigma_i \overline{\sigma\pi}^{(-i)} (\mu_i - \theta_i \sigma_i \overline{ \sigma\pi}^{(-i)})}{\nu_i^2+\sigma_i^2} - \frac{\theta_i}2 \overline{\Sigma \pi^2}^{(-i)}\\
    &\qquad\qquad - \frac{\theta_i^2}{2} \Big(\big(\overline{\sigma\pi}^{(-i)}\big)^2 + \frac1{n-1} \overline{(\nu\pi)^2}^{(-i)}\Big)  -\delta_i\frac{(\mu_i - \theta_i \sigma_i \overline{ \sigma\pi}^{(-i)})^2}{2(\nu_i^2+\sigma_i^2)}\\
    \nonumber
    & \qquad \qquad
    - \frac1{2\delta_i} \Big(\Big(\theta_i\overline{\sigma\pi}^{(-i)}\Big)^2 \Big( \frac{ \sigma_i^2 }{\nu_i^2+\sigma_i^2} -1 \Big)-\frac{\theta_i^2}{n-1}\overline{(\nu\pi)^2}^{(-i)}\Big) \bigg).
\end{align}
We have two equations for three unknowns, now we need one further assumption for the nature of $f_i$ and $g_i$ in order to solve the system.
\begin{assumption}
    \label{ass:form-of-g-n-player-example}
    Let $g_i(t) = f_i(t)^{\kappa_i}$, where $\kappa_i \in \mathbb{R}$.
\end{assumption}
\begin{remark}
    Here, as opposed to \cite{lackersoret2020many} (also \cite{karatzas1997explicit,sethi1992infinite}) where one is naturally led to $\kappa=0$, we have a non-trivial time-dependence of the consumption utility. At this point we would like to highlight the FPP approach naturally supports the time dynamics of the utilities, in contrast with the HJB approach, that does not additionally weight the integrand with a function of time.
\end{remark}
We have two distinct cases.

\emph{Case 1: Let $\kappa_i \neq 1$.}

    We obtain and solve a classical ODE of \textit{Bernoulli equation} type (we omit the dependence in $t$ for simplification)
\begin{align*}
    f^\prime_i + a_i(t)f_i + b_i(t)f_i^{1 - (1-\kappa_i)\delta_i} = 0
    \quad\textrm{where}\quad
        a_i(t) := \rho_t^i - \theta_i \bar{c}^{(-i)}_t
        \ \textrm{ and }\
        b_i(t) := \frac{\epsilon_i^{-\delta_i}}{\delta_i} \big(\tilde c_t^{(-i)}\big)^{\theta_i(1-\delta_i)}.
\end{align*}
Substituting $k_i(t) = f_i(t)^{(1-\kappa_i)\delta_i}$ and we find the ODE for $k_i(t)$
\begin{align*}
    \frac1{(1-\kappa_i)\delta_i}k_i^\prime + a_i(t)k_i + b_i(t)= 0,
\end{align*}
Hence, solving the ODE we have
\begin{align*}
k_i(t)=e^{-(1-\kappa_i)\delta_i\int_0^t a_i(s) ds} - (1-\kappa_i)\delta_i \int_0^te^{-(1-\kappa_i)\delta_i\int_s^t a(r)dr} b_i(s) ds.
\end{align*}
and $f_i(t) = k_i(t)^{\frac1{(1-\kappa_i)\delta_i}}$, $g_i(t) =
\frac1{\epsilon_i}f_i(t)^{\kappa_i} =
\frac1{\epsilon_i} k_i(t)^{\frac{\kappa_i}{(1-\kappa_i)\delta_i}}$. Plugging the expressions for $f_i$ and $g_i$ in the first equation of \eqref{eq:system-equations-n-player-consumption}, the general form of the consumption strategy, we can extract the form of optimal consumption map.

\emph{Case 2. Let $\kappa_i = 1$.} A strong simplification occurs and we have by direct injection in \eqref{eq:system-equations-n-player-consumption}
\begin{align*}
    c^i_t = \big(\tilde c_t^{(-i)}\big)^{\theta_i(1-\delta_i)} \epsilon_i^{\delta_i}.
\end{align*}

\subsection{The Forward Nash equilibrium}

In view of the \emph{best responses} of Proposition \ref{prop:BestResponses-n-playerGame-average-n-1-consumption} we now solve for the \emph{simultaneous best responses} as to establish the existence of a Nash equilibrium.
\begin{definition}[Forward Nash equilibrium]
\label{def:ForwardNashEquilibrium-consumption}
Define the tuple of $n-1$ strategy pairs ($\pi^{*,-i},c^{*,-i}) := \big((\pi^{1,*},c^{1,*}),\dots,(\pi^{i-1,*},c^{i-1,*}),(\pi^{i+1,*},c^{i+1,*}),\dots,(\pi^{n,*},c^{n,*})\big)$, where for any $i\in \{1,\dots, n\}$ we have $(\pi^{i,*},c^{i,*})\in\mathcal{A}^i$.
Let for $\big(\pi^i,c^i\big) \in \mathcal{A}^i$. Let  $Q^i$ be the $\mathbb{F}$-progressively measurable random field  satisfying
$$Q^i(x,t):= U^{i}(x,t) + \int_0^t V^{i}(\hat c_s^i x,s)ds,$$ where $\hat c^i$ is given by \eqref{eq:c-hat-i} with $c^j = c^{j,*},~j\neq i$ and
$U^i,V^i:\Omega\times \mathbb{R}\times [0,\infty)\to \mathbb{R}$ are two other $\mathbb{F}$-progressively measurable random fields.

A forward Nash equilibrium consists of $n$-triples of $\mathcal{F}_t$-adapted maps $(Q^i,\pi^{i,*},c^{i,*})$ with $i=1,\dots,n$ such that for any $t\geqslant 0$ the following conditions hold.
\begin{enumerate}
    \item The mappings $x \mapsto U^{i}(x,t)$ and $y \mapsto V^{i}(y,t)$ are $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.~strictly increasing and strictly concave;
	\item $Q^i(\widehat X^{i}_t(\pi^{*,-i},c^{*,-i}),t)$ is a (local) supermartingale for $\widehat X^{i}(\pi^{*,-i},c^{*,-i})$ and $\hat c^{i,*}$ given by \eqref{eq:widehat-x-consumption} and \eqref{eq:c-hat-i} respectively with all managers $j\neq i$ acting according to $(\pi^{j,*},c^{j,*})$;
	\item $Q^i(\widehat X^{i,*}_t(\pi^{*,-i},c^{*,-i}),t)$  is a (local) martingale for $\widehat X^{i}(\pi^{*,-i},c^{*,-i})$ and $\hat c^{i,*}$ given by \eqref{eq:widehat-x-consumption} and \eqref{eq:c-hat-i} respectively with \emph{all} managers $j$ acting according to $(\pi^{j,*},c^{j,*})$.
\end{enumerate}
If for all $j \in \{1,\dots,n\}$, $\pi^j_t = \pi^j$ are constant and $c_t^j$ is continuous and deterministic for any $t \geqslant 0,~ \mathbb{P}$-a.s., we say we have a \emph{strong forward Nash equilibrium}.
\end{definition}
Under appropriate integrability conditions plus the martingale/supermartingale characterisations, we have for some agent $i$, for any $(\pi^i,c^i)\in\mathcal{A}^i$
\begin{align*}

	\mathbb{E}[ Q^i(\widehat X^{i,*}_t(\pi^{*,-i},c^{*,-i}),t) ]
	& = \mathbb{E}[ Q^i(\widehat X^{i,*}_0(\pi^{*,-i},c^{*,-i}),0) ]
	\\
	&
	 = \mathbb{E} [ Q^i(x^i_0 (\overline{x}^{(-i)}_0)^{-\theta_i} ,0) ]
	\\
	&
	= Q^i(x^i_0 (\overline{x}^{(-i)}_0)^{-\theta_i} ,0)
	\geqslant \mathbb{E}[ Q^i(\widehat X^{i}_t(\pi^{*,-i},c^{*,-i}),t) ].
\end{align*}
As expected, no manager can increase the expected utility of her relative performance metric by unilateral decision.

The solvability of the general forward Nash equilibrium seems very difficult for a general forward criteria as one needs to solve the following system for the $\pi^{i,*},c^{i,*}$ (see Proposition \ref{prop:BestResponses-n-playerGame-average-n-1-consumption}, in particular \eqref{eq:optimstrategy-consumption}) and the corresponding PDEs with random coefficients for $U^i$ and $V^i$:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:GeneralStrategySystem-consumption}
\begin{cases}
 \pi^{i,*}_t (\nu_i^2+\sigma_i^2)
 = \theta_i \sigma_i\overline{\sigma\pi}^{(-i)}
- \big(\mu_i-\theta_i \sigma_i \overline{\sigma\pi}^{(-i)}\big)\dfrac{U^i_x(\widehat X^{i,*}_t,t)}{U^i_{xx}(\widehat X^{i,*}_t,t)\widehat X^{i,*}_t},
\\
-U^{i}_x(\widehat X_t^{i,*},t)\widehat X_t^{i,*} + V^{i}_x\Big(\frac{c^{i,*}_t}{\big(\tilde{c}^{(-i)}_t\big)^{\theta_i}}\widehat X_t^{i,*},t\Big)\frac{\widehat X_t^{i,*}}{\big(\tilde{c}^{(-i)}_t\big)^{\theta_i}} = 0.
\end{cases}
\end{align}

\subsection*{Equilibrium with FPPs of  separable power factor form}

In order to obtain explicit results we focus on the \textit{separable power factor form} case of \eqref{eq:Solution Postulation-consumption}-\eqref{eq:Solution Postulation-consumption-V} for which $U^i_x/U^i_{xx}=V^i_x/V^i_{xx}=-\delta_i x$. More notably, at the level at which we have formulated our problem we recover the results of \cite[{Theorem 3}]{lackersoret2020many} for which one has $U^i_x/U^i_{xx}=-\delta_ix$, for all $t$ (note their Remark 5).
\begin{assumption}
\label{ass:form-of-g-n-player}
    Set $g_i(t) := f_i(t)^{\kappa}$ in \eqref{eq:Solution Postulation-consumption}-\eqref{eq:Solution Postulation-consumption-V} for some $\kappa\in \mathbb{R}$ for any $i = 1,\dots,n$.
\end{assumption}

One can see that the PDE given by \eqref{eq:SPDE-step01-consumption} depends on the two unknown functions $U$ and $V$, and thus makes for an under-determined system.
Hence, Assumption \ref{ass:form-of-g-n-player} is essential to ensure that the equation is solvable for the unique Nash equilibrium to be given later in \eqref{eq:Nash-pi-n-player-consumption}--\eqref{eq:Nash-c-n-player-consumption}.
At the same time we have to assume the $\kappa$ to be constant among the whole population in order to get a solution for the Nash equilibria.

\begin{theorem}
\label{theo:nPlayerForwardNashGame-consumption}
Let the conditions of Proposition \ref{prop:BestResponses-n-playerGame-average-n-1-consumption} hold for all agents $i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$. Assume furthermore that agents have separable power factor form forward maps $U^i,V^i$ with initial conditions.
\begin{align*}
U^i(0,x)
=
\epsilon_iV^i(0,x)
=
\frac1{1-\frac1{\delta_i}}x^{1-\frac1{\delta_i}},\quad
\epsilon_i>0,\ \delta_i>0,\ \delta_i \neq 1,
\end{align*}
as in \eqref{eq:Solution Postulation-consumption}-\eqref{eq:Solution Postulation-consumption-V}. Define the quantities
\begin{align*}
\varphi^\sigma_{n} :=
\frac1n\sum_{k=1}^n  \delta_k \frac{\sigma_k \mu_k }{{\nu_k^2+\sigma_k^2 \big(1+\frac{\theta_k(1-\delta_k)}{n-1}\big) }}
,\qquad
\psi^\sigma_n :=
\frac1{n-1}\sum_{i=k}^n  \theta_k(1-\delta_k) \frac{\sigma^2_k}{{\nu_i^2+\sigma_i^2 \big(1+\frac{\theta_k(1-\delta_k)}{n-1}\big) }},
\\
\lambda_i = \epsilon_i^{-\frac{\delta_i}{1 + \frac{\theta_i}{n-1}(1-\delta_i)}} \Big(\widetilde{\epsilon^{\delta}}\Big)^{\frac{\theta_i(1-\delta_i)}{{(\overline{\theta(1-\delta)}-1) \big(1 + \frac{\theta_i}{n-1}(1-\delta_i)\big)}}},
\quad
\beta_i
= \frac1{1 + \frac{\theta_i}{n-1}(1-\delta_i)}\bigg(\frac{\theta_i(1-\delta_i)}{\overline{\theta(1-\delta)}-1} \overline{\rho\delta}-{\rho_i\delta_i}\bigg),
\\
\widetilde{\epsilon^{\delta}}
= \Bigg(\prod_{k = 1}^n \epsilon_k^{\frac{\delta_k}{1 + \frac{\theta_k}{n-1}(1-\delta_k)}}\Bigg)^{\frac1n},
\quad
\overline{\rho\delta}
= \frac1n \sum_{k = 1}^n \frac{\rho_k \delta_k}{1 + \frac{\theta_k}{n-1}(1-\delta_k)},
\quad
\overline{\theta(1-\delta)} = \frac1{n-1}\sum_{k = 1}^n \frac{\theta_k(1-\delta_k)}{1 + \frac{\theta_k}{n-1}(1-\delta_k)}.
\end{align*}
Let as well, for $i=1,\dots,n$, the map $\rho^i_t$ be defined as
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:rho-n-player}
    \nonumber
    \rho^i_t = \rho_i&:= -\Big(1-\frac1{\delta_i}\Big) \bigg(\theta_i\overline{\mu\pi}^{(-i)} - \frac{\theta_i \sigma_i \overline{\sigma\pi}^{(-i)} (\mu_i - \theta_i \sigma_i \overline{ \sigma\pi}^{(-i)})}{\nu_i^2+\sigma_i^2} - \frac{\theta_i}2 \overline{\Sigma \pi^2}^{(-i)}\\
    &\qquad\qquad - \frac{\theta_i^2}{2} \Big(\big(\overline{\sigma\pi}^{(-i)}\big)^2 + \frac1{n-1} \overline{(\nu\pi)^2}^{(-i)}\Big)  -\delta_i\frac{(\mu_i - \theta_i \sigma_i \overline{ \sigma\pi}^{(-i)})^2}{2(\nu_i^2+\sigma_i^2)}\\
    \nonumber
    & \qquad \qquad
    - \frac1{2\delta_i} \Big(\Big(\theta_i\overline{\sigma\pi}^{(-i)}\Big)^2 \Big( \frac{ \sigma_i^2 }{\nu_i^2+\sigma_i^2} -1 \Big)-\frac{\theta_i^2}{n-1}\overline{(\nu\pi)^2}^{(-i)}\Big) \bigg).
\end{align}
where the relevant expressions for $\overline {\sigma\pi}^{(-i)},~\overline {\mu\pi}^{(-i)},~\overline {(\nu\pi)^2}^{(-i)}$ and $\overline {\Sigma \pi^2}^{(-i)}$ are given below in \eqref{eq:pisigma-nplayers}, \eqref{eq:pimu-nplayers}, \eqref{eq:pinu-nplayers}, \eqref{eq:piSigma-nplayers} respectively.

If $\psi^\sigma_{n}\neq 1$ and Assumption \ref{ass:form-of-g-n-player} holds ($\kappa_i=\kappa$ for all $i$) then a unique \emph{forward Nash equilibrium} exists with the optimal strategies $\pi^{i,*}$ and $c^{i,*}$ given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Nash-pi-n-player-consumption}
    \pi^{i,*}
    &=
    \frac1{{\nu_i^2+\sigma_i^2 \big(1+\frac{\theta_i(1-\delta_i)}{n-1}\big) }}
    \Big(\theta_i \sigma_i(1-\delta_i) \Big(1+\frac1{n-1}\Big) \frac{\varphi^\sigma_n}{1-\psi^\sigma_n}  +  \mu_i \delta_i \Big),
    \\
\label{eq:Nash-c-n-player-consumption}
    c^{i,*}_t &=
    \begin{cases}
        \bigg(\frac{1}{\beta_i} + \Big(\frac1{\lambda_i} - \frac1{\beta_i}\Big)e^{-(\kappa-1)\beta_it} \bigg)^{-1}, & \beta_i \neq 0,
        \\
        \big((\kappa-1)t + \frac1{\lambda_i}\big)^{-1}, & \beta_i = 0,
    \end{cases}
\end{align}
and $\rho^i_t$ in \eqref{eq:rho-n-player} is constant in time. Moreover, the Nash equilibrium strategy is strong if $\kappa > 1$ and $\kappa < 1, ~\beta_i > \lambda_i$.

The forward Nash equilibria is given by the $n$-triples $\{(Q^{i,*},\pi^{i,*},c^{i,*})\}_{i=1,\dots,n}$ where the $Q^{i,*}(x,t) = U^{i,*}(x,t) + \int_0^t V^{i,*}(\hat{c}^i_sx,s) ds$, with $U^{i,*},V^{i,*}$ the solution of \eqref{eq:SPDE-step01-consumption} (of the form \eqref{eq:Solution Postulation-consumption}-\eqref{eq:Solution Postulation-consumption-V}) with the optimal strategies $\pi^{\cdot,*},c^{\cdot,*}$ plugged-in.
\end{theorem}

In Section \ref{sec:examplesInterpretations} the parameter $\kappa$ is interpreted as \textit{market consumption intensity} and we discuss at length its economic features and comparative interpretation in Section \ref{sec:examplesInterpretations} below. The investment strategy  \eqref{eq:Nash-pi-n-player-consumption} is a classical expression matching that of \cite{LackerZariphopoulou2017,lackersoret2020many,platonov2020forward}. The expression for the consumption strategy \eqref{eq:Nash-c-n-player-consumption} has similarities to the results found in \cite[Equation (5)]{lackersoret2020many} with the crucial difference from $\kappa$. If $\kappa = 0$ then the results coincide with \cite{lackersoret2020many}.

\begin{proof}
\emph{Step 1. Finding the investment strategy.}

First, we deal with the investment policy.
Injecting the condition $U_x/U_{xx}=-\delta_ix$ in \eqref{eq:GeneralStrategySystem-consumption}, the system to be solved in order to ascertain the Nash equilibrium is ($i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$)
\begin{align*}
\pi^{i,*}_t (\nu_i^2+\sigma_i^2)
&
=
\theta_i \sigma_i (1-\delta_i)  \Big(\frac1{n-1}\sum_{k=1,k\neq i}^n  \sigma_{k}\pi^{k,*}_t \Big)
+  \mu_i \delta_i \\
&
=
\theta_i \sigma_i(1-\delta_i)  \Big( \frac n{n-1} \overline{\sigma\pi} -\frac1{n-1} \sigma_i\pi^{i,*}\Big)
+  \mu_i \delta_i
\\
\Leftrightarrow
\pi^{i,*}_t
&=
\frac1{{\nu_i^2+\sigma_i^2 \big(1+\frac{\theta_i(1-\delta_i)}{n-1}\big) }}
\Big(\theta_i \sigma_i (1-\delta_i)\frac n{n-1} \overline{\sigma\pi}  +  \mu_i \delta_i \Big).
\end{align*}
The final line yields the expression for $\pi^{i,*}$ as a function of the unknown $\overline{\sigma\pi}$. To determine the latter, multiply both sides by $\sigma_i$ and average over $i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, this yields a solvability condition
\begin{align}
\label{eq:pisigma-nplayers}
\overline{\sigma\pi}
=
\overline{\sigma\pi}
\psi^\sigma_n
+
\varphi^\sigma_n
\quad \Leftrightarrow\quad
\overline{\sigma\pi}
=\frac{\varphi^\sigma_n}{1-\psi^\sigma_n}\quad \textrm{as long as }\quad \psi^\sigma_n\neq 1.
\end{align}
Plugging the expression $\overline{\sigma\pi}$ in that for $\pi^{i,*}$ yields the result. That the optimal strategies are constant is now obvious and one finds that the corresponding $\rho$ (see \eqref{eq:rho-n-player}) is time-independent with $\rho_t^i = \rho_i$.

\emph{Step 2. Finding the explicit form of $\rho_i$.}

Just like for $\overline {\sigma\pi}$, we obtain an expression for $\overline {\mu\pi}$ by multiplying $\pi^{i,*}$ by $\mu_i$ and averaging on both sides, we have
\begin{align}
\label{eq:pimu-nplayers}
\overline {\mu\pi } = \frac n {n-1}\frac{\varphi^\sigma_n}{1-\psi^\sigma_n} \psi^\mu_n + \phi^\mu_n,
\qquad
\overline{\mu\pi}^{(-i)}
	= \frac n{n-1} \overline {\mu\pi } - \frac1{n-1}\mu_i\pi^i.
\end{align}
where $\varphi^\mu_{n}$, $\psi^\mu_{n}$ are defined as
\begin{equation*}
\varphi^\mu_{n}
:=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^{n} \delta_{k} \frac{\mu^2_{k}}{\nu_{k}^{2}+\sigma_{k}^{2}(1+\frac{(1-\delta_k)\theta_{k}}{n-1})}
, \qquad
\psi^\mu_n
:= \frac{1}{n-1}\sum_{k=1}^{n}\theta_{k}(1-\delta_k)\frac{\mu_k \sigma_{k}}{\nu_{k}^{2}+\sigma_{k}^{2}(1+\frac{(1-\delta_k)\theta_{k}}{n-1})} .
\end{equation*}
Similarly, defining
\begin{align}
\label{eq:pinu-nplayers}
\overline{(\nu\pi)^2}:=\frac1{n-1}\sum_{k\neq i} (\nu_k\pi^k_t)^2,
\quad\textrm{we have}\quad
\overline{(\nu\pi )^2}
=
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^n
\Big(\dfrac{\nu_k\theta_k \sigma_k \cdot \frac n{n-1} \cdot \frac{\varphi^\sigma_n}{1-\psi^\sigma_n}  +  \nu_k\mu_k \delta_k }{{\nu_k^2+\sigma_k^2 \big(1+\frac{\theta_k(1-\delta_k)}{n-1}\big) }}\Big)^2,
\end{align}
together with $\overline{(\nu\pi)^2}^{(-i)}=\frac {n}{n-1} \overline {(\nu\pi)^2} - \frac1{n-1} (\nu_i\pi^i)^2$.
Finally $\overline{\Sigma \pi^2} = \overline{(\nu\pi)^2} + \overline{(\sigma\pi)^2}$, and like \eqref{eq:pinu-nplayers},
\begin{align}
\label{eq:piSigma-nplayers}
    \overline{(\sigma\pi)^2} = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^n \bigg(\dfrac{\sigma_k\theta_k \sigma_k  \frac n{n-1} \frac{\varphi^\sigma_n}{1-\psi^\sigma_n}  +  \sigma_k\mu_k \delta_k }{{\nu_k^2+\sigma_k^2 \big(1+\frac{(1-\delta_k)\theta_k}{n-1}\big) }}\bigg)^2, \quad\text{with}\quad \widehat{\Sigma \pi^2} = \frac{n}{n-1}\overline{\Sigma \pi^2} - \frac1{n-1}(\nu_i^2+\sigma_i^2)(\pi^i)^2.
\end{align}

Replacing these expressions in that for constant $\rho^i_t = \rho_i$ in equation \eqref{eq:lambda-consumption} from Section \ref{sec:FPPinitapowerrisk} the expression in the result's statement follows.

\emph{Step 3. Finding the consumption strategy and relative performance utilities.}

The system of equations \eqref{eq:system-equations-n-player-consumption} under Assumption \ref{ass:form-of-g-n-player}, i.e., $g_i(t) = f_i(t)^{\kappa}$, becomes
\begin{align}
\label{eq:system-equations-n-player-consumption-rewritten}
\begin{cases}
    c^i_t = \epsilon_i^{-\delta_i}\big(\tilde c_t^{(-i)}\big)^{\theta_i(1-\delta_i)} f_i(t)^{(\kappa-1)\delta_i}, \\
    f^\prime_i(t) + \Big(\rho_i + \theta_i \big(1-\frac1{\delta_i}\big)\bar{c}_t^{(-i)}\Big) f_i(t) + \frac{\epsilon_i^{-\delta_i}}{\delta_i} \big(\tilde c_t^{(-i)}\big)^{\theta_i(1-\delta_i)}  f_i(t)^{(\kappa-1)\delta_i+1} = 0,
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where $\rho$ is given by \eqref{eq:rho-n-player}.
We mainly follow the machinery of the proof \cite[{Theorem 2.2}]{lackersoret2020many} to obtain the closed form solution.
We repeat these arguments, but emphasise the notable discrepancies.
Substituting the LHS of the first equation of \eqref{eq:system-equations-n-player-consumption-rewritten} into the second, we obtain the linear ODE to solve for
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:solution-f-as-a-function-of-c}
    f_i(t) = \exp \Big(-\int_0^t \big(\rho_i + \theta_i\big(1-\frac1{\delta_i}\big)\bar{c}_s^{(-i)} + \frac1{\delta_i}c^i_s \big) ds\Big).
\end{align}

Now plugging it back in the first equation of \eqref{eq:system-equations-n-player-consumption-rewritten} we obtain
\begin{align}
   c^i_t\exp\Big((\kappa-1)\int_0^t c^i_s ds\Big) &=\epsilon_i^{-\delta_i} \big(\tilde c_t^{(-i)}\big)^{\theta_i(1-\delta_i)} e^{(\kappa-1)\delta_i\rho_it}\exp \Big((\kappa-1)(1-\delta_i)\theta_i\int_0^t \big( \bar{c}_s^{(-i)}\big) ds\Big).

\end{align}
After rewriting it with respect to $\tilde c_t = \Big(\prod_{k = 1}^n c^k_t\Big)^{\frac1n}$ and $\bar c_t = \frac1n\sum_{k=1}^n c^k_t$, we get
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:solving-nash-eq-consumption}
    c^i_t\exp\Big((\kappa-1)\int_0^t c^i_s ds\Big) &=\epsilon_i^{-\frac{\delta_i}{1 + \frac{\theta_i}{n-1}(1-\delta_i)}} \tilde c_t^{\frac{n}{n-1}\frac{\theta_i(1-\delta_i)}{1 + \frac{\theta_i}{n-1}(1-\delta_i)}} e^{\frac{(\kappa-1)\rho_i\delta_i}{1 + \frac{\theta_i}{n-1}(1-\delta_i)}t}\\
    \nonumber
    &\qquad \qquad \times\exp \Big((\kappa-1)\frac{n}{n-1}\frac{\theta_i(1-\delta_i)}{1 + \frac{\theta_i}{n-1}(1-\delta_i)}\int_0^t \bar{c}_s ds\Big).
\end{align}
We take the geometric average to the equation \eqref{eq:solving-nash-eq-consumption} over $i = 1,\dots ,N$ to get
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:equation-consictency-for-average-c}
    \tilde{c}_t \exp\Big((\kappa-1) \int_0^t \bar{c}_sds\Big)  = \Big(\widetilde{\epsilon^{\delta}}\Big)^{-1} e^{(\kappa-1)\overline{\rho \delta}t} \bigg(\tilde{c}_t \exp\Big((\kappa-1) \int_0^t \bar{c}_sds\Big)\bigg)^{\overline{\theta(1-\delta)}},
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
    \widetilde{\epsilon^{\delta}} = \Bigg(\prod_{k = 1}^n \epsilon_k^{\frac{\delta_k}{1 + \frac{\theta_k}{n-1}(1-\delta_k)}}\Bigg)^{\frac1n},
    \quad \overline{\rho\delta} = \frac1n \sum_{k = 1}^n \frac{\rho_i \delta_i}{1 + \frac{\theta_k}{n-1}(1-\delta_k)},
    \quad \overline{\theta(1-\delta)} = \frac1{n-1}\sum_{k = 1}^n \frac{\theta_k(1-\delta_k)}{1 + \frac{\theta_k}{n-1}(1-\delta_k)}.
\end{align*}

Hence we obtain that
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:consistency-geom-aver-c-n-player}
    \tilde{c}_t\exp\Big((\kappa-1) \int_0^t \bar{c}_sds\Big) = \Big(\widetilde{\epsilon^{\delta}}\Big)^{\frac{1}{\overline{\theta(1-\delta)}-1}} e^{\frac{(\kappa-1)\overline{\rho\delta}}{\overline{\theta(1-\delta)}-1}t}.
\end{align}
Using the previous equation we rewrite \eqref{eq:solving-nash-eq-consumption} for
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:solving-nash-eq-consumption-final-form}
   c^i_t\exp\Big((\kappa-1)\int_0^t c^i_s ds\Big) &= \lambda_i e^{\beta_i(\kappa-1)t},
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
    \lambda_i = \epsilon_i^{-\frac{\delta_i}{1 + \frac{\theta_i}{n-1}(1-\delta_i)}} \Big(\widetilde{\epsilon^{\delta}}\Big)^{\frac{n}{n-1}\frac{\theta_i(1-\delta_i)}{{(\overline{\theta(1-\delta)}-1) (1 + \frac{\theta_i}{n-1}(1-\delta_i))}}}, \quad
    \beta_i = \frac1{1 + \frac{\theta_i}{n-1}(1-\delta_i)}\bigg(\frac{n}{n-1}\frac{\theta_i(1-\delta_i)}{\overline{\theta(1-\delta)}-1} \overline{\rho\delta}-{\rho_i\delta_i}\bigg).
\end{align*}
We now consider two distinct cases $\kappa \neq 1$ and $\kappa = 1$.

\emph{Case 1: Let $\kappa \neq 1$.} Integrating the \eqref{eq:solving-nash-eq-consumption-final-form}, from $0$ to $t$ and taking logarithm, we get
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:nash-equilibrium-integral-form-consumption-n-players}
    (\kappa-1)\int_0^t c_s^i ds =
    \begin{cases}
        \log\Big(1+ \frac{\lambda_i}{\beta_i}\big(e^{(\kappa-1)\beta_it}-1\big)\Big) , & \beta_i \neq 0, \\
        \log(1+ \lambda_i(\kappa-1)t), & \beta_i = 0.
    \end{cases}
\end{align}
Finally differentiating \eqref{eq:nash-equilibrium-integral-form-consumption-n-players} with respect to $t$, we obtain
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:nash-equilibrium-c-n-player}
    c_t^i =
    \begin{cases}
        \bigg(\frac{1}{\beta_i} + \Big(\frac1{\lambda_i} - \frac1{\beta_i}\Big)e^{-(\kappa-1)\beta_it} \bigg)^{-1}, & \beta_i \neq 0,\\
        \big((\kappa-1)t + \frac1{\lambda_i}\big)^{-1}, & \beta_i = 0.
    \end{cases}
\end{align}

By direct inspection it is obvious, that for certain combinations of parameters, namely $\kappa < 1,~ \beta_i < \lambda_i$ and $\kappa < 1,~\beta_i = 0$, the optimal consumption $c$ in not continuous and even can be negative. (however, the first case is admissible, due to the exponential convergence of the integral), see Table \ref{table:consumptionSignAsMapofParameters} below for a summary.

Now from the first line of \eqref{eq:system-equations-n-player-consumption-rewritten}, we get that
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:f-final-form-n-player}
    f_i(t) = \Big(\big(c_t^i\big)^{\frac1{\delta_i}}\big(\tilde{c}_t^{(-i)}\big)^{\theta_i(\frac1{\delta_i}-1)}\epsilon_i\Big)^{\frac1{\kappa-1}} \quad \text{and thus} \quad g_i(t) = \Big(\big(c_t^i\big)^{\frac1{\delta_i}}\big(\tilde{c}_t^{(-i)}\big)^{\theta_i(\frac1{\delta_i}-1)}\epsilon_i\Big)^{\frac\kappa{\kappa-1}}.
\end{align}
\emph{Case 2: Let $\kappa = 1$.} Then \eqref{eq:solving-nash-eq-consumption-final-form} immediately yields $c_t^i = \lambda_i$ which is the same result if one sets $\kappa=1$ in \eqref{eq:nash-equilibrium-c-n-player}.

\end{proof}

We comment further on the admissibility of $c^*$ in Section \ref{sec:examplesInterpretations}. It happens that $c^*$ can be admissible but not form a strong equilibrium while $\pi^*$ will always do so.

\begin{remark}[Open question]
\label{rem:open-question-after-nash-n-player}
To obtain a Nash equilibria result we are restricted to $\kappa$ being constant across the whole population of agents, and the same will happen for the MFG case of next Section. The constraint is technical in nature and stems from the difficulty in expressing the consistency equation for the averages of all $c^i$ (i.e., \eqref{eq:consistency-geom-aver-c-n-player} is not longer reachable) without which the system cannot be solved. At the same time, for a ``best responses" all the $\kappa_i$'s may be distinct.
The open question is then, if one allows for different $\kappa_i$'s how to carry out the aggregation procedure as to express the consistency equation for the averages of all $c^i$?

An example of how this problem was overcome can be found in \cite{BielagkLionnetDosReis2017}. There, aggregation was achieved through so-called \textit{weighted-dilated inf-convolution}.
\end{remark}

Lastly, if one sets $\kappa=0$ then our FPP solution can be rewritten in respect to a time horizon $T$ to recover exactly the results of \cite{lackersoret2020many} (and \cite{LackerZariphopoulou2017} if $V^i=0$) and those of \cite{geng2017passive} for two players and no consumption. Such calculations are straightforward hence omitted. We close the section with a simplification corollary for the single stock case.

\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:single-stock-n-player}
Let $\mu_i = \mu,~\sigma_i = \sigma,~\nu_i  = 0$, for all $i = 1,\dots, n$ and $\mu,\sigma > 0$. Then $\lambda_i,\beta_i$ are expressed as
\begin{align}
    \label{lambda-n-player-single-stock}
    \lambda_i &= \epsilon_i^{-\frac{\delta_i}{1 + \frac{\theta_i}{n-1}(1-\delta_i)}} \Big(\widetilde{\epsilon^{\delta}}\Big)^{\frac{\theta_i(1-\delta_i)}{{(\overline{\theta(1-\delta)}-1) (1 + \frac{\theta_i}{n-1}(1-\delta_i))}}},\\
    \label{beta-n-player-single-stock}
    \beta_i &= \frac{\mu^2}{2\sigma^2\big(1+\frac{\theta_i}{n-1}(1-\delta_i)\big)}\Big(1-\frac{\delta_i}{1 + \frac{\theta_i}{n-1}(1-\delta_i)}\Big)\Big(1 -\frac{\theta_i}{\theta_{\textrm{crit}}\big(1+\frac{\theta_i}{n-1}\big)}\Big)\Big(\delta_i + \frac{\theta_i}{\theta_{\textrm{crit}}}(1-\delta_i) \Big),
\end{align}
where $\theta_{\textrm{crit}} = \dfrac{1-\frac1{n-1}\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{\theta_k(1-\delta_k)}{1+\frac{\theta_k}{n-1}(1-\delta_k)}}{\frac1{n-1}\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{\delta_k}{1+\frac{\theta_k}{n-1}(1-\delta_k)}}.$

Then, if $\theta_{\text{crit}}\neq 1$ then a \emph{Nash equilibrium} exists, with the optimal strategy $(\pi^{i,*},c^{i,*})$ given by
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:n-player-single-stock-optimal-investment}
    \pi^{i,*} &= \frac{\mu}{\sigma^2 \big(1+\frac{\theta_i}{n-1}(1-\delta_i)\big)} \Big(\delta_i + \frac{\theta_i}{\theta_{\textrm{crit}}}(1-\delta_i) \Big),\\
    \label{eq:n-player-single-stock-optimal-consumption}
    c^{i,*}_t &=
    \begin{cases}
        \bigg(\frac{1}{\beta} + \Big(\frac1{\lambda} - \frac1{\beta}\Big)e^{-(\kappa-1)\beta t} \bigg)^{-1}, & \beta \neq 0,\\
        \big((\kappa-1)t + \frac1{\lambda}\big)^{-1}, & \beta = 0.
    \end{cases}
\end{align}
Furthermore, the Nash equilibrium is strong, if either $\kappa > 1$, or $\kappa <1,~ \lambda_i <  \beta_i$.
\end{corollary}

\section{The mean field forward optimisation game} \label{sec:MFG-forward-consumption}

By inspection of Theorem \ref{theo:nPlayerForwardNashGame-consumption} one sees that the optimal strategies and FPP of an agent depends on that agent's specific parameters (model parameters, initial wealth, risk tolerance and performance concern, etc.) and on certain averages of the parameters of all agents. This motivates an MFG approach to the game. In this section, and inspired by the results in the previous one and \cite{platonov2020forward}, we formalise the concept of CRRA forward mean field Nash game. We use the concept of \emph{type distributions} introduced in \cite{LackerZariphopoulou2017} and also used in \cite{lackersoret2020many,platonov2020forward}.

We focus on initial forward maps that at time $t=0$ are of power type,
\begin{align*}
U^i(x,m,0) & = \epsilon_i V^i(x,m,0) = \begin{cases}
    \frac{1}{1-\frac1{\delta_i}}\big(x m^{-\theta_i}\big)^{1-\frac1{\delta_i}}, & \delta_i \neq 1,\\
    \log(xm^{-\theta_i}), & \delta_i=1,
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
where $x,m$ denote the wealth of agent and the average wealth of other agents respectively (for $U^i$) or the consumption of the agent and the average consumption of the other agents respectively (for $V^i$). We refer to $\delta_i>0$ and $\theta_i\in[0,1]$ as \emph{personal risk tolerance}, \emph{competition weight} parameters, respectively, whereas $\epsilon_i > 0$ captures the \emph{relative importance the agent assigns to the wealth compared to consumption}.
Here, as in previous section (see Remark \ref{rem:skipping delta=1 case}), we skip the logarithmic utility case

For the $n$-agent game, we define for each agent $i=1,\dots,n$ the \emph{type vector}
\begin{equation*}
\zeta_i := (x^i_0,\delta_{i},\theta_{i},\epsilon_i,\mu_{i},\nu_{i},\sigma_{i}),
\end{equation*}
which characterises uniquely each agent $i$.
These \emph{type vectors} induce an empirical measure, called the \emph{type distribution}, which is the probability measure on the \emph{type space}
\begin{align}
\label{def:exp-type-space}
\mathcal{Z}^e  := \mathbb{R} \times (0,\infty) \times [0,1] \times (0,\infty) \times (0,\infty) \times [0,\infty) \times [0,\infty),
\end{align}
given by
\[
m_n(A) = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n1_A(\zeta_i), \ \text{ for Borel sets } A \subset \mathcal{Z}^e .
\]
Assume now that as the number of agents becomes large, $n\rightarrow\infty$, the above empirical measure $m_n$ has a weak limit $m$, in the sense that $\int_{\mathcal{Z}^e } f\,dm_n \rightarrow \int_{\mathcal{Z}^e } f\,dm$ for every bounded continuous function $f$ on $\mathcal{Z}^e $. For example, this holds almost surely if the $\zeta_i$'s are i.i.d.\ samples from $m$. Let $\zeta=(\xi,\delta,\theta,\epsilon,\mu,\nu,\sigma)$ denote a an $\mathcal{Z}^e$-valued random variable with this limiting distribution $m$.

The \emph{mean field game} (MFG) we define next allows us to derive the limiting strategy as the outcome of a self-contained equilibrium problem, which intuitively represents a game with a continuum of agents with type distribution $m$. Rather than directly modelling a continuum of agents, we follow the MFG paradigm of modelling a single generic agent, who we view as randomly selected from the population. The probability measure $m$ represents the distribution of type parameters among the continuum of agents; equivalently, the generic agent's type vector is a random variable with law $m$. Heuristically, each agent in the continuum trades in a single stock driven by two Brownian motions, one of which is unique to this agent and one of which is common to all agents. We extend the Forward Nash equilibrium of Definition \ref{def:ForwardNashEquilibrium-consumption} to the MFG setting below.

\subsection{Agents as type-distribution samples  and the market}

Let $(\Omega, \mathcal{F},\mathbb{F} = (\mathcal{F})_{t \geqslant 0},\mathbb{P})$ be a stochastic basis supporting two independent Brownian motions $W = (W_t)_{t \geqslant 0}$ and $B = (B_t)_{t \geqslant 0}$ together with a random vector $\zeta$ having distribution $m$ and given by
\[
\zeta = (\xi,\delta,\theta,\epsilon,\mu,\nu,\sigma),
\]
with values in the space $\mathcal{Z}^e $ defined in \eqref{def:exp-type-space}, and
independent of $W$ and $B$.
Let $\mathbb{F} = (\mathcal{F}_t)_{t \in [0,T]}$ denote the smallest filtration satisfying the usual assumptions for which $\zeta $ is $\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{MF}}_0$-measurable and both $W$ and $B$ are adapted. Let also $\mathbb{F}^B=(\mathcal{F}^B_t)_{t \in [0,T]}$ denote the natural filtration generated by the Brownian motion $B$.

The \emph{generic agent's} wealth process solves
\begin{align}
\label{def:X-MFG-consumption}
dX_t = \pi_tX_t(\mu dt + \nu dW_t + \sigma dB_t) - c_t X_t dt, \quad X_0 = \xi,
\end{align}
where the pair $(\pi,c)$ must belong to the admissible set \begin{align*}
    \mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{MF}} = \Big\{(\pi,c)&:
\textrm{$\mathbb{F}$-progressively measurable $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}_+$-valued process } (\pi_t,c_t)_{t \geqslant 0},
\\
& \qquad
\textrm{such that }
\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_0^t (|\pi_s|^2 + |c_s|^2 ) ds \Big]< \infty,\
 \textrm{for any } t>0
\Big\}.
\end{align*}
The random variable $\xi$ is the initial wealth of the generic agent, whereas $(\mu,\nu,\sigma)$ are the market parameters. In the sequel, the parameters $\delta,~\theta$ and $\epsilon$ will affect the risk and consumption preferences of the generic agent. Each agent among the continuum will have different preference parameters and hence these seven parameters are $\mathcal{F}_0$-random, and each has the exact same interpretation an in the $n$-player game of the earlier section.

\subsection{The mean field equilibrium}

The formulation of the forward Nash game of Section \ref{sec:FRPCwithaverage} drives the formulation of the mean field game we discuss here, see also \cite{lackersoret2020many,platonov2020forward}. Recall that in the MFG-formulation the \emph{generic agent} has no influence on the average wealth of the continuum of agents, as but one agent amid a continuum.

We next introduce the concept of \emph{mean field (MF)-forward relative performance}, $\pi^*,c^*$ is  the \emph{MF-equilibrium} and, the main object of interest the \emph{MF-Forward relative performance equilibrium}.
\begin{assumption}
\label{ass:regularity-u-consumption-mfg}
Assume that the derivatives $U_t(x,t),~U_{x}(x,t),~U_{xx}(x,t)$ and $V_{y}(y,t),V_{yy}(y,t)$ exist for all $t \geqslant 0, ~x, y \in \mathbb{R},~\mathbb{P}$-a.s. and furthermore, $x \mapsto U(x,t)$ and $y \mapsto V(y,t)$ are strictly increasing ($U_x,V_y > 0$) and strictly concave ($U_{xx},V_{yy} < 0$) for any $t \geqslant 0,~ x,y \in \mathbb{R},~ \mathbb{P}$-a.s.
\end{assumption}
Given this setup we next define our concept of equilibrium in genre of \cite{platonov2020forward}.
\begin{definition}[MF-CRRA-Forward relative performance equilibrium (for the generic manager)]
\label{def:MFG-Forward-problem-consumption}
Let $(\overline{X}_t)_{t\geqslant 0}$ and $(\overline{\Gamma}_t)_{t\geqslant 0}$ be the $\mathbb{F}^{B}$-adapted square integrable stochastic processes representing the geometric average wealth and geometric average consumption of the continuum of agents respectively. Let $(\pi,c)\in \mathcal{A}^{\mathrm{MF}}$ and $X^{\pi,c}$ solve \eqref{def:X-MFG-consumption} with $\pi$ and $c$.

Set a $\mathbb{F}^{\mathrm{MF}}$-progressively measurable random field $(Q(x,t))_{t\geqslant 0}$, satisfying the dynamics
\begin{align}
\label{eq:StructureQgeneral}
    Q(x,t) & = U(x,t) + \int_0^t V(\hat c_s x,s)ds,
\end{align}
where $\hat c_t = c_t \overline{\Gamma_t}^{-\theta}$ and
$U,V:\Omega\times \mathbb{R}\times [0,\infty)\to \mathbb{R}$ are two other $\mathbb{F}$-progressively measurable random fields.

The field $Q$ is an \emph{MF-forward relative performance} for the \emph{generic manager} if, for all $t\geqslant 0$, the following conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}[i)]
	\item The mappings $x \mapsto U(x,t), y \mapsto V(y,t)$, are $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.~strictly increasing and strictly concave;
	\item  For any $(\pi,c) \in \mathcal{A}^{\textrm{MF}}$, $Q( X_t^{\pi,c}\overline X_t^\theta,t)$ is a (local) supermartingale and $X^{\pi,c}$ is the \emph{generic agent's} wealth process solving \eqref{def:X-MFG-consumption} for the strategy $(\pi,c)$;
	\item There exists $(\pi^{*},c^*)\in \mathcal{A}^{\textrm{MF}}$ such that $Q( X^*_t \overline X_t^\theta,t)$ is a (local) martingale where $X^*$ solves \eqref{def:X-MFG-consumption} with $(\pi^{*},c^{*})$ plugged in as the strategy;
	\item We call $(\pi^*,c^*)$ of point iii) a \emph{MF-equilibrium} if $\overline X_t = \exp\mathbb{E}[\log X^*_t| \mathcal{F}^B_t]$ and $\overline \Gamma_t = \exp\mathbb{E}[\log c^*_t| \mathcal{F}^B_t]$ for all $t\geqslant 0$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.~where $X^*$ solves \eqref{def:X-MFG-consumption} with $(\pi^{*},c^*)$ plugged in as the strategy.
\end{enumerate}
We denote the sextuple $(U,V,\pi^*,c^*,\overline X,\overline \Gamma)$ satisfying i)-iv) the \emph{MF-Forward relative performance equilibrium}.
The MF-equilibrium is said to be \emph{strong} if $\pi^*$ is constant in time and $\mathcal{F}^0$-measurable and $c^*_t$ is continuous and $\mathcal{F}^0$-measurable for any $t\geqslant 0$.
\end{definition}

The last point can be understood as a fixed point argument which creates a compatibility condition between the generic agent within the continuum of agents. In fact, conditionally on the BM $B$ each agent faces an independent noise $W$ and an independent type vector $\zeta$. As argued in  \cite{LackerZariphopoulou2017,lackersoret2020many,platonov2020forward}, conditionally on $B$, all agents faces i.i.d. copies of the same optimisation problem. The law of large numbers suggests that the geometric average terminal wealth of the whole population should be $\exp\mathbb{E}[\log X_t^*|\mathcal{F}^B_t]$.

Our construction allows us to identify $\exp\mathbb{E}[\log X_t^*|\mathcal{F}^B_t]$ with a certain dynamics and, in turn, treat this component as an additional uncontrolled state process. This avoids altogether the conceptualisation of the master equation for models with different types of agents. The latter is left for future research.

It is unclear if the definition for forward MFG we propose is sufficiently tractable (concretely point iv)) to address the case of random coefficients or the general setting of a forward utility map with a full It\^o-field representation (with volatility). This same issue is already present in the upstream works  \cite{LackerZariphopoulou2017,lackersoret2020many} if one wanted to generalise to random coefficients there. Nonetheless, the definition works very well within the Merton market model setup, yielding a particularly tractable framework of study to understand the inherent difficulties of the general case. Additionally, our goal is to further interpret the results as this is one of the 1st works combining MFGs with forward performance criteria (also \cite{platonov2020forward}).

\subsection{Solving the optimisation problem}

We now present the main result of this section which is the existence of a \emph{MF-Forward relative performance equilibrium} for the generic manager according to Definition \ref{def:MFG-Forward-problem-consumption} within the context of a structural assumption similar to that of Equation \eqref{eq:Solution Postulation-consumption}.

From the methodological point of view, the problem is solved as before. Apply It\^o's formula to $Q(Z^{\pi,c}_t,t)$, determine the optimal strategy $(\pi^*,c^*)$ and the consistency condition (the PDE) for $Q$ such that the first three conditions of Definition \ref{def:MFG-Forward-problem-consumption} hold. The last condition, to show that $(\pi^*,c^*)$ is indeed the MFG Forward equilibrium will follow by construction as the whole formulation is built with the fixed-point condition embedded from the start.

We next present the \textit{separable power factor form}  assumption for $U$ and $V$.
\begin{assumption}
\label{ass:form-of-U-V-mean-field-g-with-f}
Let $U(x,t),V(t,x)$ admit the following form, for $x,y\in \mathbb{R}$, $t\geq 0$,
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:mfg-forms-of-U-V}
    U(x,t) = \frac1{1-\frac1{\delta}}x^{1-\frac1{\delta}}f(t), \qquad V(y,t) =\frac1{\epsilon} \frac1{1-\frac1{\delta}}y^{1-\frac1{\delta}}g(t),
\end{align}
for $t \mapsto f(t)$ differentiable for any $t \geqslant 0$ and $f(0) = 1$, for some random variable $\epsilon > 0$ and $g(t) = f(t)^\kappa$ for some $\kappa \in \mathbb{R}$ (where we have $g(0)=1^\kappa=1$).

The parameter $\delta>0,\delta\neq 1$ represents the agent's risk tolerance while $\epsilon>0$, associated to the consumption element, represents the relative importance the agent assigns to the consumption compared to wealth. The parameter $\kappa$ represent the market consumption intensity.
\end{assumption}
In view of the previous section, this assumption is a natural one to make in order to solve \eqref{eq:MF-SPDE-consumption} below (see additionally \cite{elkaroui2018consistent}, \cite[Definition 2.9]{avanesyan2020construction} or \cite[Section 4]{chong2018optimal}).

\begin{theorem
\label{theo:MFG-solution-consumption}

Assume that $\delta>0,~\theta\in[0,1],~\mu>0,~\sigma\geqslant 0,~\nu\geqslant 0$ such that $\sigma^2+\nu^2>0$.
Define constants $\psi^\sigma,\varphi^\sigma,\psi^\mu,\varphi^\mu$, assume they are finite and have explicit form given by
\begin{align*}
\psi^\sigma&:= \mathbb{E}\Big[\theta(1-\delta)\frac{ \sigma^2}{\nu^2+\sigma^2}\Big],
\quad
\varphi^\sigma:= \mathbb{E}\Big[\delta \frac{\mu\sigma }{\nu^2+\sigma^2}\Big],
\quad\\
\psi^\mu&:=\mathbb{E}\Big[\theta(1-\delta)\frac{ \mu \sigma}{\nu^2+\sigma^2}\Big],
\quad
\varphi^\mu:=\mathbb{E}\Big[ \delta \frac{\mu^2 }{\nu^2+\sigma^2} \Big].
\end{align*}
Assume further $\psi^\sigma\neq 1$ and define for some $\kappa \in \mathbb{R}$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:mfg-equilibrium-pi}
    \pi^*
    &=
    \frac1{{\nu^2+\sigma^2}}\Big( \theta (1-\delta)\sigma \frac{\varphi^\sigma}{1-\psi^\sigma}  +  \mu \delta \Big),
    \\
\label{eq:mfg-equilibrium-c}
    c^*_t &=
    \begin{cases}
        \bigg(\frac{1}{\beta} + \Big(\frac1{\lambda} - \frac1{\beta}\Big)e^{-(\kappa-1)\beta t} \bigg)^{-1}, & \beta \neq 0,\\
        \big((\kappa-1)t + \frac1{\lambda}\big)^{-1}, & \beta = 0.
    \end{cases}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
    \lambda&=\epsilon^{-\delta}\big(e^{\mathbb{E}[\delta\log \epsilon]}\big)^{\frac{\theta(1-\delta)}{\mathbb{E}[ \theta(1-\delta)]-1}},
    \qquad
    \beta = \frac{\theta(1-\delta)}{\mathbb{E}[ \theta(1-\delta)]-1}\mathbb{E}[\rho \delta] -\rho\delta,
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:rho-mfg}
    \rho &= -\Big(1-\frac1{\delta}\Big)  \bigg(\theta\overline{\mu\pi^*} - \frac{\theta}2 \overline{\Sigma (\pi^*)^2} - \frac{\theta \sigma \overline{\sigma\pi^*}(\mu - \theta \sigma \overline{\sigma\pi^*})}{\nu^2+\sigma^2} -   \frac{\theta^2}{2} \big(\overline{\sigma\pi^*}\big)^2 \\
    \nonumber
    &\qquad\qquad  -\delta\frac{(\mu - \theta \sigma \overline{ \sigma\pi^*})^2}{2(\nu^2+\sigma^2)}
    - \frac1{2\delta} \Big(\theta\overline{\sigma\pi^*}\Big)^2  \Big(\frac{ \sigma^2 }{\nu^2+\sigma^2} -1 \Big) \bigg),
\end{align}
where $\overline{ \sigma \pi^*},~\overline{ \mu \pi^*}$ and $\overline{\Sigma(\pi^*)^2}$ are given by \eqref{eq:sigma-pi-pverline}, \eqref{eq:ConsistencyExpressions-alphasigma-alphamu} and \eqref{eq:ConsistencyExpressions-Sigmapi} respectively.

Take the field $Q$ of \eqref{eq:StructureQgeneral} with $U,V$ satisfying Assumptions \ref{ass:regularity-u-consumption-mfg} and \ref{ass:form-of-U-V-mean-field-g-with-f} (for the $\kappa$ above), and the consistency PDE
\begin{align}
\label{eq:MF-SPDE-consumption}
\nonumber
U_t
&=
\theta \bigg(
\frac{\varphi^\sigma}{1- \psi^\sigma}\psi^\mu+\varphi^\mu
+ \frac{\sigma \frac{\varphi^\sigma}{1-\psi^\sigma}(\mu - \theta\sigma \frac{\varphi^\sigma}{1-\psi^\sigma})}{\nu^2+\sigma^2} - \frac\theta2 \overline{\Sigma(\pi^*)^2}-\frac{\theta}2\Big(\frac{\varphi^\sigma}{1-\psi^\sigma}\Big)^2
  \bigg) xU_x
\\
&
\qquad \qquad
+  \frac{\big(\mu -\theta\sigma \frac{\varphi^\sigma}{1- \psi^\sigma}\big)^2}{2(\nu^2+\sigma^2)}   \frac{(U_x)^2}{U_{xx}}
+ \frac 12  \cdot \theta^2
\Big(\frac{\varphi^\sigma}{1-\psi^\sigma}\Big)^2
\Big(\frac{\sigma^2}{\nu^2+\sigma^2}-1 \Big)x^2U_{xx}\\
\nonumber
& \qquad \qquad  + \theta U_x^i \bar c_t- \widetilde {V} (U_x,t),
\end{align}
where $\overline{\Sigma(\pi^*)^2}$ is given by \eqref{eq:ConsistencyExpressions-Sigmapi}, $\bar c_t = \mathbb{E}[c^*_t]$, where $c^*$ is from \eqref{eq:mfg-equilibrium-c} and $\widetilde{V}$ is Fenchel-Legendre transform of $V$ (with initial condition of power type according to Assumption \ref{ass:form-of-U-V-mean-field-g-with-f} with $t=0$).

Then, there exists a unique (parameterised by $\kappa$) strong MF-Forward CRRA relative performance equilibrium in the sense of Definition \ref{def:MFG-Forward-problem-consumption}. The MF-equilibrium strategy is given by $(\pi^*,c^*)$ from \eqref{eq:mfg-equilibrium-pi},~\eqref{eq:mfg-equilibrium-c} and MF-forward CRRA relative performance utility is given by $Q$, for $U,V$ satisfying \eqref{eq:MF-SPDE-consumption} and $\overline X_t = \exp{\mathbb{E} \big[\log(X_t^{\pi^*,c^*})\big]},~\overline \Gamma_t = \exp{\mathbb{E} [\log(c_t^*)]}$. Moreover, MF-equilibrium strategy is strong, if either $\kappa > 1$ or $\kappa < 1, ~\beta > \lambda$.

If $\psi^\sigma=1$, then there exists no strong MF-equilibrium.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof
We proceed in several steps in order to construct the constant MF-equilibrium. To that end we must solve ii)-iii) in Definition \ref{def:MFG-Forward-problem-consumption} for given processes $\overline X,\overline \Gamma$  associated to some $(\pi,c)\in \mathcal{A}_{\textrm{MF}}$. Condition iv), for MF-equilibrium allows us to focus only on processes of the form $\overline X_t = \exp\mathbb{E}[\log X_t| \mathcal{F}^B_t]$ and $\overline \Gamma_t=\exp\mathbb{E}[\log c_t| \mathcal{F}^B_t]$ where $X$ solves \eqref{def:X-MFG-consumption} for some strategy $(\pi,c) \in \mathcal{A}_{MF}$.

\emph{Step 0. The dynamics of the average wealth process.} To solve the above problem given $(\overline X_t)_{t\geqslant 0}$ it suffices to restrict ourselves to processes $(\overline X_t)_{t\geqslant 0}$ satisfying $\overline X_t = \exp\mathbb{E}[\log X^\pi_t| \mathcal{F}^B_t],~\mathbb{P}$-a.s.
We then have by applying It\^o's formula and arguments from \cite{LackerZariphopoulou2017} $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.
\begin{align*}
\nonumber
\overline X_t
& = \exp \mathbb{E}[\log X_t| \mathcal{F}^B_t]
\\
&
=  \exp\mathbb{E}\Big[ \log\xi + \int_0^t \big(\mu \pi_s - \frac12 \pi_s^2(\nu^2+\sigma^2)\big) ds + \int_0^t\nu \pi_s dW_s + \int_0^t\sigma \pi_s dB_s - \int_0^t c_s ds\Big| \mathcal{F}^B_t\Big]
\\
&
= \exp \Big[\overline{\log\xi} + \int_0^t \big(\overline{\mu \pi}-\frac12\overline{\Sigma \pi^2}\big)  ds + \int_0^t \overline{\sigma \pi} dB_s - \int_0^t\overline{c}_sds\Big]\\
&
= \overline\xi+  \Big( \int_0^t\eta\overline X_s ds +\int_0^t\overline{\sigma \pi}\overline X_s dB_s - \int_0^t \bar{c}_s\overline X_s ds \Big),
\end{align*}
where, for consistency of notation with respect to the previous section, we denote
\begin{align*}
\eta &:= \overline {\mu\pi} - \frac12(\overline{\Sigma\pi^2} - \overline{\sigma\pi}^2), \quad
\overline \xi:=\exp\mathbb{E}[ \log\xi],
\quad
\overline{\mu \pi}:=\mathbb{E}[\mu \pi]
,\quad
\overline{\sigma \pi}:=\mathbb{E}[ \sigma \pi], \quad \bar{c} = \mathbb{E}[c].
\end{align*}
Hence for $(\pi,c) \in \mathcal{A}^{\textrm{MF}}$ we can define the process $Z^{\pi,c} = X^{\pi,c}  \overline{X^{\pi,c}}^{-\theta}$ and by It\^o formula we derive its dynamics to obtain
\begin{align*}
\frac{d Z^{\pi,c}_t}{Z^{\pi,c}_t}
&= \big(\mu \pi_t-\theta \overline{\mu \pi} + \frac{\theta}2\overline{\Sigma\pi^2} + \frac{\theta^2}2 \overline{\sigma\pi}^2 -\theta\sigma\pi_t \overline{\sigma\pi} \big)dt + \nu \pi_t d W_t +\big(\sigma \pi_t-\theta \overline{\sigma \pi} \big)dB_t,\\
&\qquad-(c_t-\theta\bar{c}_t)dt,
\quad Z^{\pi,c}_0=\xi (\overline \xi)^{-\theta},
\end{align*}
and solve the MFG Forward performance problem in Definition \ref{def:MFG-Forward-problem-consumption} with its help.

Applying It\^o's formula to $U(Z^{\pi,c}_t,t)$ yields
\begin{align}
\label{eq:generalSDEafterItoWentzell-MFG-consumption}
\nonumber
 d Q(Z^{\pi,c}_t ,t)
&= U_t(Z^{\pi,c}_t ,t)dt + U_x(Z^{\pi,c}_t ,t) d Z^{\pi,c}_t + \frac12 U_{xx}(Z^{\pi,c}_t ,t) d \langle Z^{\pi,c}_t \rangle + V(Z^{\pi,c}_t ,t)dt
\\ \nonumber
&
=\Big[U_t(Z^{\pi,c}_t ,t)
+ U_x(Z^{\pi,c}_t ,t) \big(\mu \pi_t - \theta \overline{\mu \pi}+ \frac{\theta}2\overline{\Sigma\pi^2} + \frac{\theta^2}2 \overline{\sigma\pi}^2 -\theta\sigma\pi_t \overline{\sigma\pi}\big) Z^{\pi,c}_t\\
&
\qquad +\frac12 U_{xx}(Z^{\pi,c}_t ,t) \Big( (\nu \pi_t )^2 + \big(\sigma \pi_t - \theta \overline{ \sigma \pi } \big)^2\Big)(Z^{\pi,c}_t)^2\Big]dt
\\ \nonumber
&
\qquad
+ U_x(Z^{\pi,c}_t ,t) \nu\pi_t Z^{\pi,c}_t dW_{t}
+ U_x(Z^{\pi,c}_t ,t)\big(\sigma \pi_t- \theta \overline{ \sigma \pi} \big)Z^{\pi,c}_t dB_t\\
\nonumber
&
\qquad
+ U_x(Z^{\pi,c}_t ,t)(c_t - \theta \bar{c}_t)dt + V(\hat{c}_tZ^{\pi,c}_t,t)dt,
\end{align}
with $U(Z^{\pi,c}_0 ,0)=U(\xi\big(\bar \xi)^{-\theta},0\big)= \frac1{1-\frac1{\delta}}\big(\xi(\bar \xi)^{-\theta}\big)^{1-\frac1{\delta}} $ and we used that the $B,W$ are all i.i.d.

\emph{Step 1. Finding the candidate best responses strategies $\pi^*,c^*$.} As before, the process $U(Z^{\pi,c}_t,t)$ becomes a Martingale at the optimum $\pi$. Direct computations using first order conditions ($\partial_{\pi} \textrm{``drift''}=\partial_{c} \textrm{``drift''}=0$) yield
\begin{align}
    \nonumber
    &\begin{cases}
        0 + U_x \cdot \big( \mu -0 -\theta\sigma\overline{\sigma \pi}\big)Z^{\pi,c}_t + \frac12 U_{xx} \Big(2 \pi \nu^2 + 2\big(\sigma \pi_t- \theta \overline{\sigma \pi} \big) \sigma \Big)\big(Z^{\pi,c}_t\big)^2 = 0,\\
        -U_x(Z^{\pi,c}_t,t) Z^{\pi,c}_t + V_x(\hat{c}_t Z^{\pi,c}_t,t)\frac{Z^{\pi,c}_t}{\big(\overline{c}^{(-i)}_t\big)^{\theta_i}} = 0,
    \end{cases}
    \\
    \label{eq:best-responses-mfg}
    \Rightarrow & \qquad
    \begin{cases}
        \pi_t &= \frac1{\nu^2+\sigma^2}\Big(\theta \sigma \overline{\sigma\pi} +  (\mu -\theta\sigma\overline{\sigma \pi})\dfrac{U_x}{U_{xx}Z^{\pi,c}_t}\Big),
        \\
        c_t &= \dfrac{(V_x)^{-1}\Big(U_x(Z^{\pi,c}_t,t) \tilde{c}_t^{\theta},t\Big)\tilde{c}_t^{\theta}}{Z^{\pi,c}_t}.
    \end{cases}
\end{align}
Now we inject into the first equation the CRRA constraint $U_x/U_{xx}=-\delta x$ for any $t \geqslant 0$ $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.~and use the Assumption \ref{ass:form-of-U-V-mean-field-g-with-f} to get
\begin{align*}
\pi_t =\frac1{\nu^2+\sigma^2}\Big(\theta \sigma \overline{\sigma\pi} +  (\mu -\theta\sigma\overline{\sigma \pi}) \delta\Big)
\quad\textrm{and}\quad
        c_t = \tilde c_t^{\theta(1-\delta)} {f(t)}^{\delta(\kappa-1)},

\end{align*}
By inspection it is clear that $\pi^*$ is a $\mathcal{F}_0^{\textrm{MF}}$-measurable RV which is independent of time and is well defined as long as $\overline{\sigma\pi}$ is finite. At the same time the derivation of the closed form of the optimal consumption needs further investigation.

\emph{Step 2. The optimality of the strategy.} The argument is similar to that in \cite{platonov2020forward}. The original constant strategy $\pi$ is a MF-equilibrium if and only if for all $t\geqslant 0,~\mathbb{P}$-a.s.
\begin{align*}
    &\begin{cases}
        \mathbb{E}[\log X^{\pi,c}_t| \mathcal{F}^B_t] = \mathbb{E}[\log X^{\pi^*,c^*}_t| \mathcal{F}^B_t],\\
        \mathbb{E}[\log c_t| \mathcal{F}^B_t] = \mathbb{E}[\log c^*_t| \mathcal{F}^B_t],
    \end{cases}\\
    \Leftrightarrow \quad
    &\begin{cases}
        \overline{\log\xi} + \big(\overline{\mu \pi} - \frac12 \overline{\Sigma \pi^2} \big)t + \overline{\sigma \pi} B_t - \int_0^t\bar{c}_sds =
        \overline{\log\xi} + \big(\overline{\mu \pi^*}-\frac12\overline{\Sigma (\pi^*)^2}\big) t + \overline{\sigma \pi^*} B_t-\int_0^t\overline{c^*_s}ds,\\
        \tilde{c}_t = \tilde{c}^*_t,
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
where we denote $\tilde{c}_t := \exp\mathbb{E}[\log c_t| \mathcal{F}^B_t] = \exp\mathbb{E}[\log c^*_t| \mathcal{F}^B_t] =: \tilde{c}^*_t$.
After taking expectations in the first equation it follows that $\pi$ is a MG-equilibrium if and only if the following three conditions hold $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.
\begin{align}
\label{eq:equilibrium-big-condition}
\begin{cases}
    \overline{\sigma \pi}=\overline{\sigma \pi^*},
    \big(\overline{\mu \pi} -\frac12\overline{\Sigma \pi^2}\big)t - \int_0^t \overline{c_s}ds =\big(\overline{\mu \pi^*} -\frac12\overline{\Sigma (\pi^*)^2}\big)t - \int_0^t \overline{c^*_s}ds,\\%\label{eq:equilibrium-geom-c}
    \tilde{c}_t = \tilde{c}^*_t.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
Using \eqref{eq:best-responses-mfg} (with $U_x/U_{xx}=-\delta x$ replaced in) one derives (using the expressions $\varphi^\sigma,\psi^\sigma$)
\begin{align*}
\sigma \pi^* & =  \theta(1-\delta)\frac{ \sigma^2}{\nu^2+\sigma^2} \overline{\sigma \pi} +  \delta \frac{\mu\sigma }{\nu^2+\sigma^2}
\qquad  \Rightarrow  \quad
\overline{\sigma \pi^*}
= \overline{\sigma \pi} \psi^\sigma + \varphi^\sigma.
\end{align*}
Using that $\overline{\sigma \pi}=\overline{\sigma \pi^*}$ yields solvability if $\psi^\sigma=\mathbb{E}\big[\theta(1-\delta)\frac{ \sigma^2}{\nu^2+\sigma^2}\big]\neq 1$. Thus
\begin{align}
\label{eq:sigma-pi-pverline}
    \overline{\sigma \pi^*}=\overline{\sigma \pi}=\frac{\varphi^\sigma}{1-\psi^\sigma}=\textrm{Const.},
\end{align}
and the \eqref{eq:mfg-equilibrium-pi} follows. To exploit the next condition we are to solve PDE \eqref{eq:MF-SPDE-consumption} under Assumption \ref{ass:form-of-U-V-mean-field-g-with-f}. Together with the optimal candidate consumption we have
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:mfg-solving-equilibrium-system}
    \begin{cases}
        c^*_t = \epsilon^{-\delta}(\tilde c_t)^{\theta(1-\delta)} f_i(t)^{(\kappa-1)\delta}, \\
        f^\prime(t) + \Big(\chi - \theta \big(1-\frac1{\delta}\big)\big(\overline{\mu\pi} -  \frac12\overline{\Sigma \pi^2} - \bar{c}_t \big)\Big) f(t) + \frac{\epsilon^{-\delta}}{\delta} (\tilde c_t)^{\theta(1-\delta)}  f(t)^{(\kappa-1)\delta+1} = 0,
    \end{cases}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}

    \chi &:= \Big(1-\frac1{\delta}\Big)  \bigg( \frac{\theta \sigma \overline{\sigma\pi^*}(\mu - \theta \sigma \overline{\sigma\pi^*})}{\nu^2+\sigma^2} +   \frac{\theta^2}{2} \big(\overline{\sigma\pi^*}\big)^2 \\
    &\qquad\qquad  +\delta\frac{(\mu - \theta \sigma \overline{ \sigma\pi^*})^2}{2(\nu^2+\sigma^2)}
    + \frac1{2\delta} \Big(\theta\overline{\sigma\pi^*}\Big)^2  \Big(\frac{ \sigma^2 }{\nu^2+\sigma^2} -1 \Big) \bigg).
\end{align*}
After we plug the first equation of \eqref{eq:mfg-solving-equilibrium-system} into the second we solve for
\begin{align*}
    f(t) = \exp\Big(- \int_0^t \Big(\chi - \theta\big(1-\frac1{\delta}\big) \big(\overline{\mu\pi} -  \frac12\overline{\Sigma \pi^2} - \bar{c}_s \big) + \frac1\delta c^*_s \Big)ds\Big).
\end{align*}
Now we substitute it back into the first equation of \eqref{eq:mfg-solving-equilibrium-system} to get
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:mfg-solving-c-step1}
    c^*_t \exp\big((\kappa-1)\int_0^tc_s^*ds\big)= \epsilon^{-\delta}(\tilde c_t)^{\theta(1-\delta)}e^{-\chi\delta(\kappa-1)t} \exp\Big(-\theta(1-\delta)(\kappa-1)\int_0^t \big(\overline{\mu\pi} -  \frac12\overline{\Sigma \pi^2} - \bar{c}_s \big)ds\Big).
\end{align}
Now we substitute according to second equilibrium identity of \eqref{eq:equilibrium-big-condition} to obtain
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:mfg-solving-c-step2}
    c^*_t \exp\big((\kappa-1)\int_0^tc_s^*ds\big)= \epsilon^{-\delta}(\tilde c_t)^{\theta(1-\delta)}e^{-\rho\delta(\kappa-1)t} \exp\big(\theta(1-\delta)(\kappa-1)\int_0^t \overline{c_s^*}ds\big),
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
    \rho = \chi + \theta\big(1-\frac1\delta\big)\bigg(\overline{\mu\pi^*} -  \frac12\overline{\Sigma (\pi^*)^2}\bigg).
\end{align*}

Now we consequently take the logarithm, expectation and exponent on both sides of \eqref{eq:mfg-solving-c-step2} to get
\begin{align*}
    \tilde{c}^*_t \exp\big((\kappa-1)\int_0^t\overline{c_s^*}ds\big)= \big(\widetilde{\epsilon^{\delta}}\big)^{-1}e^{-(\kappa-1)\overline{\rho\delta}t} \Big(\tilde c_t(\exp\big(\kappa-1)\int_0^t \overline{c_s^*}ds\big)\Big)^{\overline{\theta(1-\delta)}},
\end{align*}
where $\widetilde{\epsilon^{\delta}} = \exp\mathbb{E}[\delta\log \epsilon]$, $\overline{\rho\delta} = \mathbb{E}[\rho \delta]$ and $\overline{\theta(1-\delta)} = \mathbb{E}[ \theta(1-\delta)]$.
Using the last equilibrium identity,  $\tilde{c}_t = \tilde{c}^*_t$, we rewrite the expression
\begin{align}
    \tilde{c}^*_t \exp\big((\kappa-1)\int_0^t\overline{c_s^*}ds\big)= \widetilde{\epsilon^{\delta}}^{\frac1{\overline{\theta(1-\delta)}-1}} e^{\frac{\overline{\rho\delta}}{\overline{\theta(1-\delta)}-1}(\kappa-1)t}.
\end{align}
Plugging it back into \eqref{eq:mfg-solving-c-step2} we obtain
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:mfg-solving-c-step4}
    c^*_t \exp\big((\kappa-1)\int_0^tc_s^*ds\big) = \lambda e^{\beta (\kappa - 1) t},
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
     \lambda&=\epsilon^{-\delta}\big(e^{\mathbb{E}[\delta\log \epsilon]}\big)^{\frac{\theta(1-\delta)}{\mathbb{E}[ \theta(1-\delta)]-1}},
    \qquad
    \beta = \frac{\theta(1-\delta)}{\mathbb{E}[ \theta(1-\delta)]-1}\mathbb{E}[\rho \delta] -\rho\delta.
\end{align*}
The same arguments as in Theorem \ref{theo:nPlayerForwardNashGame-consumption} yield
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:mfg-equilibrium-c-solution}
    c^*_t =
    \begin{cases}
        \bigg(\frac{1}{\beta} + \Big(\frac1{\lambda} - \frac1{\beta}\Big)e^{-(\kappa-1)\beta t} \bigg)^{-1}, & \beta \neq 0,\\
        \big((\kappa-1)t + \frac1{\lambda}\big)^{-1}, & \beta = 0.
    \end{cases}
\end{align}
As in Theorem \ref{theo:nPlayerForwardNashGame-consumption}, one finds that for certain combinations of parameters, namely $\kappa < 1,~ \beta < \lambda$ and $\kappa < 1,~\beta = 0$, the optimal consumption $c$ in not continuous and even can be negative (however the first case is admissible, due to the exponential convergence of the integral); see Table \ref{table:consumptionSignAsMapofParameters} below for summary.

Finally, from the first line of \eqref{eq:mfg-solving-equilibrium-system}, we get that
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:f-g-final-form-mfg}
    f(t) = \Big(\big(c_t\big)^{\frac1{\delta}}\big(\tilde{c}_t\big)^{\theta(\frac1{\delta}-1)}\epsilon\Big)^{\frac1{\kappa-1}} \quad \text{and thus} \quad g(t) = \Big(\big( c_t\big)^{\frac1{\delta}}\big(\tilde{c}_t\big)^{\theta(\frac1{\delta}-1)}\epsilon\Big)^{\frac\kappa{\kappa-1}}.
\end{align}
Now we are left to conclude with the closed forms of $\overline{\mu\pi^*}$ and $\overline{\Sigma(\pi^*)^2}$.
First, we have
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ConsistencyExpressions-alphasigma-alphamu}
\overline{\mu \pi^*}
=  \frac{\varphi^\sigma}{1 - \psi^\sigma} \psi^\mu + \varphi^\mu =\textrm{Const},
\end{align}
using $\psi^\mu,\varphi^\mu$.
Finally we find the expression for $\overline{\Sigma\pi^2}$. Multiplying separately \eqref{eq:mfg-equilibrium-pi} by $\sigma$ and $\nu$, squaring, taking expectation and summing the results, we have
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:ConsistencyExpressions-Sigmapi}
    \overline{\Sigma\pi^2} = \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \frac1{\nu^2+\sigma^2}\Big( \theta (1-\delta)\sigma \frac{\varphi^\sigma}{1-\psi^\sigma}  +  \mu \delta \Big)^2 \bigg].
\end{align}
Now we find the explicit form of the expression $\rho$ by injecting these identities in \eqref{eq:rho-mfg}.

For the non-solvability statement, if the last equation in \eqref{eq:ConsistencyExpressions-alphasigma-alphamu} has $\psi^\sigma=1$ and $\varphi^\sigma\neq 0$ then the equation has no solution and hence no constant MF-equilibrium exists.  The case  $\psi^\sigma=1$ and $\varphi^\sigma= 0$ is impossible. Since $\mu>0$ and $\delta>0$ by assumption, it implies that $\sigma=0$ and hence that $\psi^\sigma=0 $ contradicting the condition $\psi^\sigma=1$.

\emph{Step 3. The MFG forward performance process dynamics.} Injecting the consistency PDE \eqref{eq:MF-SPDE-consumption} in the expression for  $d U(Z^{\pi,c}_t ,t)$ given in \eqref{eq:generalSDEafterItoWentzell-MFG-consumption} yields,
\begin{align*}
 d Q(Z^{\pi,c}_t ,t)
&=
U_x(Z^{\pi,c}_t ,t)  \Big(\nu\pi_tdW_{t}
+ \big(\sigma \pi_t- \theta\frac{\varphi^\sigma}{1- \psi^\sigma} \big)dB_t\Big)Z^{\pi,c}_t
\\
&
\qquad \qquad +
\frac12 U_{xx}(Z^{\pi,c}_t ,t) \frac{1}{(\nu^2+\sigma^2)}  \bigg| \pi_t (\nu^2+\sigma^2)
-\Big( \theta (1-\delta)\sigma  \frac{\varphi^\sigma}{1- \psi^\sigma} + \mu \delta \Big)\bigg|^2(Z^{\pi,c}_t)^2dt
\\
&
\qquad \qquad + V(\hat c_t Z^{\pi,c}_t, t) - U_x(Z^{\pi,c}_t,t)c_tZ^{\pi,c}_t - \widetilde V(U_x(Z^{\pi,c}_t,t),t).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

We comment further on the admissibility of $c^*$ in Section \ref{sec:examplesInterpretations}. It happens that $c^*$ can be admissible but not form a strong equilibria while $\pi^*$ will always do so.

Now we are to get a simplification corollary for a single stock case.
\begin{corollary}[Single stock]
\label{cor:mf-single-stock}
Let $\mu,\sigma,\nu$ be deterministic with $\nu  = 0$ and $\mu,\sigma > 0$. Then $\lambda,\beta$ are expressed as
\begin{align}
    \label{beta-lambda-mfg-single-stock}
    \lambda&=\epsilon^{-\delta}\big(e^{\mathbb{E}[\delta\log \epsilon]}\big)^{\frac{\theta(1-\delta)}{\mathbb{E}[\theta(1-\delta)]-1}},
    \quad
    \beta = \frac{\mu^2}{2\sigma^2}(1-\delta)\big(1 -\frac{\theta}{\theta_{\textrm{crit}}}\big)\Big(\delta + \frac{\theta}{\theta_{\textrm{crit}}}(1-\delta)\Big),
\end{align}
where $\theta_{\textrm{crit}} = \frac{1-\mathbb{E}[\theta(1-\delta)]}{\mathbb{E}[\delta]}$.

Then, if $\mathbb{E}[\theta(1-\delta)]\neq 1$ then a \emph{MF-equilibrium} exists, with the optimal strategy $(\pi^{*},c^{*})$ given by
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:mfg-single-stock-optimal-investment}
    \pi^{*} &= \frac{\mu}{\sigma^2} \Big(\delta + \frac{\theta}{\theta_{\textrm{crit}}}(1-\delta) \Big),\\
    \label{eq:mfg-single-stock-optimal-consumption}
    c^*_t &=
    \begin{cases}
        \bigg(\frac{1}{\beta} + \Big(\frac1{\lambda} - \frac1{\beta}\Big)e^{-(\kappa-1)\beta t} \bigg)^{-1}, & \beta \neq 0,\\
        \big((\kappa-1)t + \frac1{\lambda}\big)^{-1}, & \beta = 0.
    \end{cases}
\end{align}
Furthermore, the MF-equilibrium is strong, if either $\kappa > 1$, or $\kappa <1,~ \lambda <  \beta$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{remark}[On convergence of the Nash equilibria of $n$-player game]
    We can see that the MF-equilibrium agrees with the limit of the $n$-player game equilibrium strategies, as $n \to \infty,~\mathbb{P}$-a.s.. The respective parameters and functions of them converge to the averages of type distributions by the strong law of large numbers.
\end{remark}

\section{A discussion of the results}
\label{sec:examplesInterpretations}

In this section we focus in interpreting the results obtained by way of the single stock case of the mean field game given by Corollary \ref{cor:mf-single-stock} (compare with Corollary \ref{cor:single-stock-n-player}) and the parameters involved. On the one hand, it provides with a valuable insight of the model, capturing the relations and their interpretation, whilst one the other, avoids the complex intricate dependencies of the general case. This case also allows for an easier comparison  with the results from \cite{lackersoret2020many} where standard utility maps were used.
For the sake of simplicity by writing $\pi,c$ we refer to $(\pi^*,c^*)$ - mean field single stock equilibria given by \eqref{eq:mfg-single-stock-optimal-investment} and \eqref{eq:mfg-single-stock-optimal-consumption}, if not specified separately.

We will not concentrate on the complete analysis of optimal investment strategy $\pi$ and omit some details on the optimal consumption strategy $c$ referring to the excellent discussions in the preceding works \cite{lackersoret2020many,LackerZariphopoulou2017,platonov2020forward}. With this in mind we restrict our attention to the \emph{consumption intensity} $\kappa$ and its interplay with other parameters in scope of the optimal consumption $c$. The case $\kappa=0$ is just that of \cite[Section 4]{lackersoret2020many}and we point the reader to the discussion there. The behaviours found here when $\kappa\neq 0$ are not a symmetrised version of those of \cite{lackersoret2020many}, as easily seen in Table \ref{table:consumptionSignAsMapofParameters}.

\subsection*{Classical parameters}

\textit{Recovering classical results.} For the choice of $\theta = 0$ (no performance concerns and no competition) we recover the classical result by \cite{merton1969lifetime} and \cite{samuelson1969lifetime} in \eqref{eq:mfg-single-stock-optimal-investment}-\eqref{eq:mfg-single-stock-optimal-consumption}: agents invest a constant fraction of wealth in the stock and the consumption strategy is time-dependent but both investment and consumption strategies are independent -- this holds for the classic utility results in \cite{LackerZariphopoulou2017}. Both here and in \cite{platonov2020forward}, the results differ to the mentioned ones as the classical results encapsulate a dependence on the time horizon. When $\kappa=0$ we recover the results in \cite{lackersoret2020many}.

\smallskip
\textit{The market parameters $\beta, \lambda$.} As in \cite{lackersoret2020many} and Corollary \ref{cor:mf-single-stock} here, we can rewrite $\beta$ for
    \begin{align*}
        \beta = \frac{\mu^2}{2\sigma^2}(1-\delta_{\text{eff}})\delta_{\text{eff}},
        \quad\textrm{where}\quad
        \delta_{\text{eff}}= (1-\frac{\theta}{\theta_{\text{crit}}})\delta + \frac{\theta}{\theta_{\text{crit}}}
       \quad\textrm{for}\quad
       \theta_{\textrm{crit}} = \frac{1-\mathbb{E}[\theta(1-\delta)]}{\mathbb{E}[\delta]}.
    \end{align*}

    We can see that this is the same form of $\beta$ that appears in the standard Merton portfolio optimisation problem with no competition where $\beta =\frac{\mu^2}{2\sigma^2}(1-\delta)\delta$.
    On the other hand, we can rewrite $\beta$ as
    \begin{align*}
        \beta=\frac12\pi\mu (\delta-1)\Big(\frac{\theta}{\theta_{\textrm{crit}}}-1\Big),
    \end{align*}
    which shows that $\beta$ is in fact the expected return times extra risk and an extra competition proportion that the agent is effectively willing to take on top of the log risk-tolerant investor and $\theta_{\text{crit}}$-competitive investor.
    We interpret $\beta$ as the \emph{expected effective portfolio return}.
    When it comes to $\lambda$, see \eqref{beta-lambda-mfg-single-stock}, the main relation to notice is its inverse dependence on the \textit{agent's relative perception of wealth relative to consumption} $\epsilon$, scaled with the risk tolerance $\delta$ and weighted by the perception of the population. We thus characterise $\lambda$ as \emph{effective relative perception of wealth with respect to consumption}.

\subsection*{The consumption intensity $\kappa$}

Before we fully dive into analysis of $\kappa$, we differentiate between two settings/interpretations. An agent in the absence of competition ($\theta=0$) or purely looking for ``best response'' to the actions undertaken by the other agents (see Remark \ref{rem:open-question-after-nash-n-player}) can determine its own idiosyncratic $\kappa$ while for the Nash forward equilibrium it is required that all players interact through a common $\kappa$. In either case we interpret $\kappa$ as a \emph{market consumption intensity} observing that when the agent is free to choose $\kappa$ for himself ($\theta=0$ case or just best response) the agent in fact looks for the most suitable market investment-consumption environment via the choice of $\kappa$.

\subsubsection*{The concept of Elasticity of intertemporal substitution (EIS)}

We start by calculating one of the central parameters in models of dynamic choice of consumption in macroeconomics and finance \cite{thimme2017intertemporal}, the \emph{elasticity of intertemporal substitution} (EIS) which measures the agent's willingness to substitute future consumption for present consumption in response to changes in investment opportunities and is given by \cite{hall1988-eis,Azar2018-nexus-eis}
\begin{align*}
    \text{EIS} :
    &
    = -\dfrac{ d\big(\partial_t{c}_t/c_t\big)}{d\big(\partial_t V_y(c_tx,t)/V_y(c_tx,t)\big)},

\end{align*}
for some\footnote{The formula presented has stated the agent's rate of consumption equal to $c_tx$, where $c_t$ is a rate of consumption for unit of wealth and $x > 0$ some fixed amount of wealth. On the one hand, fixing the amount of wealth helps us to purely investigate the relative effect of consumption, on the other, it allows to assess its time differential to calculate $\textrm{EIS}$, in contrast with $c_t X_t$ having an It\^o-differential form and thus not computable.} $x > 0$.

EIS measures the response of consumption growth to the deviation of \emph{real interest rate}, captured by the denominator of the above expression. By considering the dynamics of cost and worth of consumption in time, we equivalently relate it to the borrowing and investing in present and future, thus referring to the real interest rate. If $\text{EIS} < 0$, the income of the agent is inversely affected with respect to the consumption. As the real interest rate goes up, the agent is to invest more, as he expects to get more utility from savings/investment, hence decreasing his consumption. If the return on savings/investment decreases, the agent feels that he can raise his consumption level at the expense of wealth, this case is known as \emph{income effect}. On the contrary, $\text{EIS} > 0$, the picture is reverse. Now the increase in real interest rate encourages the agent to spend more, as he is getting richer. On the contrary, if the savings are becoming less profitable, the agent would prefer to decrease his consumption level, to avoid the impoverishment. This in turn is known as \emph{substitution effect}. Finally, $\text{EIS} = 0$ corresponds to a case of constant consumption rate where the agent is indifferent about the real-time growth and would like to spend the constant fraction of income all over the time.

In contrast with the classic utility optimisation approach, e.g., of \cite{lackersoret2020many}  where one has $\textrm{EIS}^{\textrm{classic}}=\delta$, the FPP approach allows an intrinsic time-dependence of $V$, and thus
\begin{align}
\label{eq:EIS-for-our-setting}

\textrm{EIS}^{(\theta\neq 0)}_t
= \frac{\textrm{EIS}^{(\theta=0)}}{1+\kappa\theta(1-\delta)\frac1{\gamma_t}},
\quad \textrm{where}\quad
\textrm{EIS}^{(\theta=0)}=(1-\kappa)\delta=(1-\kappa)\textrm{EIS}^{\textrm{classic}},
\end{align}
where $\gamma_t := \dfrac{d\big(\partial_t{c}(t)/c(t)\big)}{d\big(\partial_t\tilde{c}(t)/\tilde{c}(t)\big)}$ denotes the \emph{elasticity of conformity} which is time dependent. Here \emph{elasticity of conformity} captures how the change in agent's consumption is affected by the deviation in the consumption of the typical agent (as compared against the geometric average $\tilde c = \exp\mathbb{E}[\log c_t]$.

The FPP here allows one to disentangle risk tolerance $\delta$ and intertemporal elasticity of substitution (EIS); the standard standard utility theory does not allow for this. This same feature has been reported in \cite[Slide 22]{bismuthgueant2019} through the use of recursive utilities (in an more restricted Merton market framework than ours but within  MFGs) and which is close to our result \eqref{eq:EIS-for-our-setting}.  When $\kappa = 0$, the case of standard CRRA utility framework and analysed in \cite{lackersoret2020many}, immediately yields $\text{EIS} = \delta=\textrm{EIS}^{\textrm{classic}}$.

\subsubsection*{The consumption intensity $\kappa$ under no performance concerns: $\theta=0$ (no competition)}

\emph{Choosing different EIS and Risk Tolerance.}
In the absence of competition, i.e., when $\theta=0$, then \eqref{eq:EIS-for-our-setting} yields a non-standard form of $\textrm{EIS}^{(\theta=0)} = (1-\kappa) \delta$, whereas standard utility theory with CRRA type utilities yields $\textrm{EIS}^{\textrm{classic}}=\delta$. In the no competition case, $\theta=0$, as we no longer require $\kappa$ to be uniform and deterministic across the whole population, thus the agent can choose in which consumption environment he is willing to invest, hence, as opposed to \cite{lackersoret2020many}, the agent can determine his own risk tolerance $\delta$ and $\textrm{EIS}^{(\theta=0)}$. To our knowledge the only setting that allows this is the recursive utility optimisation under Epstein-Zin preferences (\cite{epstein1989substitution,epstein1991substitution}), and forthcoming developments allowing for MFG competition, see \cite{bismuthgueant2019,gueant2021}.

For $\kappa < 1$ then $\textrm{EIS}^{(\theta=0)}>0$ and hence the agent is subjected to \emph{income} effect, otherwise, when $\kappa >1$ then $\textrm{EIS}^{(\theta=0)}<0$ and the agent allows for a  \emph{substitution} effect. Finally, $\kappa=1$ reflects a constant consumption rate as $\textrm{EIS}^{(\theta=0)}=0$. This last scenario is particularly important, as the empirical research finds $\textrm{EIS}$ in general to be around $0$ for the average household (see \cite{hall1988-eis}, \cite{CampbellMankiw1991},  \cite{cundy2018essays}), reflecting an intuitive low risk tolerance for the small investor.

\subsubsection*{The consumption intensity $\kappa$ under performance concerns: $\theta\neq 0$}

The agents are now synchronised on their consumption preference as they compete ($\kappa$ is the same for all agents, see Remark \ref{rem:open-question-after-nash-n-player}). From \eqref{eq:EIS-for-our-setting} the agent sees her consumption dynamics being re-scaled by competition ($\theta\neq 0$) and the market environment ($\kappa \neq 0)$. The agents can access their $\text{EIS}$,  \eqref{eq:EIS-for-our-setting}, by adjusting the risk-competition preferences (the elasticity of conformity $(\gamma_t)_t$ depends on $\beta$ and $\lambda$ as chosen by the agents).

\textit{The parameter $\kappa$ as the "market consumption intensity".}
Appears in Assumption \ref{ass:form-of-g-n-player-example} and \ref{ass:form-of-U-V-mean-field-g-with-f} to influence the utility weight's association via $g(t)=f(t)^\kappa$. It reflects the weight in time the environment assigns to the consumption process compared to the accumulation of wealth.  Recalling for simplicity the no-competition EIS, $\textrm{EIS}^{(\theta=0)}=(1-\kappa)\delta$, we can see that $\kappa$ appears as a linear factor scaling the allocation of consumption in time, justifying its name.

When $\kappa > 1$, the agent's utility is more sensitive to the deviation of the consumption than to wealth over time (as $g(t)=f(t)^\kappa$). At the same time the agents are entitled to the effect of \emph{substitution}. The market environment a larger $\kappa$ (say $\kappa\geqslant 2$) encourages the agent to accelerate its consumption policy, i.e., pushing the agent to reinforce consumption in order to stabilise the level of consumption sooner (as $c$ is asymptotic). The similar happens when $\kappa < 1$, but the trend is reverse. Here the market preferences are in line with wealth sensitivity: the evolution of the wealth value is steeper than the one of consumption, and the agent coordinates his decisions under the \emph{income} effect. For $\kappa \leqslant 0$ the agent is subjected to sharp changes in consumption dynamics, whilst $0 < \kappa < 1$ encourages the steadier behaviour. Finally, $\kappa=1$ prescribes the identical environment propensity for the wealth and consumption evolution the agent is to follow.

In view of $c$, \eqref{eq:mfg-single-stock-optimal-consumption}, $\kappa> 2$ or $\kappa<0$ exacerbates the vanishing role of the exponential term leading the agents to stabilise towards the asymptotes ($\beta$ or zero) sooner than in the case $\kappa\in (0,2)$. See Figure \ref{fig:plots-of-c-for-various-parameters}, where  for different combinations of $\lambda,\beta$ where the effect of $\kappa$ can be clearly seen; when $\kappa\in (0,2)$ the steady-state of consumption (the asymptote) is reached much later. There is a noteworthy macro-economics cause-effect phenomena here when having in mind the necessity of central-planner mechanisms to stimulate consumption across the economy/market.

\textit{The finer interplay of $\kappa$ with $\beta$ \& $\lambda$ on the consumption policy $c$.}
    \begin{figure}[htb!]
        \centering
        \includegraphics[width=16cm]{plots1.pdf}
        \caption{Plots of optimal $c$ of \eqref{eq:mfg-single-stock-optimal-consumption} for various combinations of parameters with a highlight on the monotonic behaviour of $\kappa \mapsto (c_t)_{t\geqslant 0}$ by way in which the asymptote is reached.
        \label{fig:plots-of-c-for-various-parameters}
        }
    \end{figure}
    We refer to \cite[Section 4]{lackersoret2020many} that comprises the analysis for $\kappa = 0$ which, upon inspection, extends to our case when $\kappa < 1$, thus we focus on the case where $\kappa > 1$, i.e., the market encourages the \emph{substitution} effect.
    In terms of market behaviour, there are 4 cases to be distinguished: $\beta>\lambda$, $0\leq \beta <\lambda$, $\beta<0 <\lambda$ and $\beta=\lambda$ and we summarise them in Table \ref{table:consumptionSignAsMapofParameters} (by monotonic behaviour and associated asymptotes, and admissibility). If $\beta=\lambda$ then $\kappa$ plays no role in $c$, but it does affect the utility map. We emphasise that the expected rate of return of the wealth ${\partial_t} \mathbb{E}[\log X_t|\mathcal{F}_0]$ follows the opposite direction of the monotonicity of $c$.

    First, $c_t$ is increasing in time, when $\beta >\lambda$. Indeed, when the relative perception of wealth is big, i.e., if $\epsilon \nearrow \infty$ then $\lambda \searrow 0^+$, the agent's consumption does not vanish and monotonically increases to $\beta$; this is stark contrast with the case $\beta > \lambda$ under $\kappa < 1$, where $c_t \searrow 0^+$ monotonically as $t \to \infty$ (compare Figure \ref{fig:plots-of-c-for-various-parameters} b and d).
    From the beginning, the agent has a focus on wealth, thus intends to consume less on the short-term (Figure \ref{fig:plots-of-c-for-various-parameters} b). However, on the long-run the agent follows the market preference towards consumption, and raises his proportion of consumption up to some asymptotically stable level $(=\beta)$. As the agent's wealth is increasing, despite his preference towards wealth, he cannot resist the environment's push to spend more. This particular situation mimics a ``keeping up with the Joneses'' \cite{Gali1994} behaviour in a population of ultra-rich agents, where the effective utility from getting richer comes from increasing level of consumption and is accelerated by competition and the intensive consumption environment.

    The trend is similar when $\beta<\lambda$ for which the consumption is monotonically decreasing. Indeed, when $\epsilon \searrow 0^+,~\lambda \nearrow +\infty$, the agent prefers consumption over wealth (while the market is pushing agents to consume $\kappa>1$), so he starts to consume at a higher rate from the onset. However, we distinguish two cases here. The agent with an expected effective portfolio return $\beta \geqslant 0$, who seeks to stabilise his consumption and thus decrease it asymptotically up to the safe rate $\beta$ (Figure \ref{fig:plots-of-c-for-various-parameters} a).
    When the agent chooses $\beta < 0$, he monotonically reduces his rate of consumption to $0$, even if he had started from a higher level. That is the case when the agent is very risk-tolerant ($\delta>1$) or very competitive ($\theta>\theta_{\textrm{crit}}$) or both, so agent will accumulate his wealth even if he is obtaining more utility-value from consumption over time (Figure \ref{fig:plots-of-c-for-various-parameters} c).

    Finally, when $\kappa = 1$ or $\beta = \lambda,~c_t$ is constant and equal to $\lambda$: the agent is indifferent towards the utility from consumption, as EIS $ =0$, the agent chooses to follow the relative perception of consumption, captured by $\lambda$ through $\epsilon$ and his risk and competition preferences.

    Nonetheless, the agent's utility is affected by $\kappa$. All cases are neatly summarise in Table \ref{table:consumptionSignAsMapofParameters}.

\begin{table}[htb!]
    \centering

    \begin{tabular*}{0.827\textwidth}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
    \toprule
    \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Parameters}
    &
    \multicolumn{3}{c}{Consumption $c$ of \eqref{eq:mfg-single-stock-optimal-consumption}}
    \\
    \midrule
        $\kappa$  & $\beta$ & $\lambda -\beta$ & \:\: admissibility \:\: & \:\: strong equilib. \:\: & $c_t$ as $t\to \infty$
         \\
        \midrule
            \multirow{5}{*}{$>1$} & \multirow{3}{*}{$>0$} & $>0$ & \multirow{5}{*}{\cmark} & \multirow{5}{*}{\cmark} & $\searrow \beta$ \\
            \cline{3-3} \cline{6-6}
            & & $<0$ & & & $\nearrow \beta$ \\
            \cline{3-3} \cline{6-6}
            & & $=0$ & & & constant throughout\\
            \cline{2-3} \cline{6-6}
            &$=0$ & $>0$ & & & $\searrow 0$\\
            \cline{2-3} \cline{6-6}
            &$<0$ & $>0$ & & & $\searrow 0$\\
        \midrule
            \multirow{5}{*}{$<1$} &
            \multirow{3}{*}{$>0$} & $>0$ &\multirow{3}{*}{\cmark} & \xmark & finite-time blow-up\\
            \cline{3-3} \cline{5-6}
            & & $<0$ & & \cmark & $\searrow 0$ \\
            \cline{3-3} \cline{5-6}
            & & $=0$ & & \xmark & constant throughout \\
            \cline{2-6}
            &$=0$ & $>0$ & \xmark & \xmark & finite-time blow-up \\
            \cline{2-6}
            &$<0$ & $>0$ & \cmark & \cmark & finite-time blow-up \\
        \midrule
        $=1$ & any & any & \cmark & \cmark & constant throughout\\
        \bottomrule
    \end{tabular*}
        \hfill
    \caption{Summary of results for the behaviour of $(c_t)_{t\geqslant 0}$ of \eqref{eq:mfg-single-stock-optimal-consumption} as a map of its parameters. Here $\searrow, \nearrow$ denote the decreasing/increasing monotonicity respectively and convergence from above/below respectively (as $t\to \infty$). The optimal consumption may be admissible but not satisfy the strong equilibrium condition (Definition \ref{def:MFG-Forward-problem-consumption}).
    }
    \label{table:consumptionSignAsMapofParameters}
\end{table}

\subsubsection*{The environment's influence on the agents}

One may wonder about the environment's impact on the agent in the particular case of EIS being close to zero.
When the environment hardly distinguishes the long-run preference for consumption from the one for wealth ($\kappa \to 1$), the agent who wants to faster reach a constant level of consumption needs to adapt by changing his risk and competition parameters in order to increase the absolute value of $\beta$.
For example, assume further a highly risk-tolerant market with $\mathbb{E}[\delta] \to \infty$ and mutually independent types $\theta$ and $\delta$, hence from \eqref{beta-lambda-mfg-single-stock} we have $\theta_{\textrm{crit}} = \mathbb{E}[\theta]$. Then, the agent changes in the following ways: the agent avoids the competition but accepts more risk ($\theta \to 0,~\delta > 1$); or competes at the average market level and accepts even more risk ($\theta \to \mathbb{E}[\theta],~\delta \gg 1$); or accepts being highly competitive, but risk-averse ($\theta > \mathbb{E}[\theta],~ \delta < 1$).

Lastly, we note that $\beta$, as a quadratic function of $\delta_{\text{eff}}$, is bounded from above by $\frac{\mu^2}{8\sigma^2}$  but is not bounded from below. That means that under a mild \emph{substitution} regime ($\kappa \to 1^+$), the rational agent cannot outperform the upper-bound effective rate of portfolio return $\beta$. Nevertheless, by adjusting the risk-competition parameters $(\delta,\theta)$, the agent can decrease his consumption to zero as fast as he wants to.

At this point the market highly influences the choices of the player. If the agent wants to maintain a desired level of consumption, he can do so by re-setting his risk-competition preferences (and in accordance to remain optimal ``as a martingale'').

\section{Open questions}

From the construction we provided, here and in the much simpler case \cite{platonov2020forward}, it is still open how to tackle the full MFG generalisation to market models featuring random coefficients. Here the mean field aggregation approach created in \cite{LackerZariphopoulou2017} is not possible anymore and a new tool is needed. We refer to Remark \ref{rem:open-question-after-nash-n-player} regarding the open issue of allowing agent to choose different $\kappa$ parameters; if a solution is found for the finite-player game then the fusing the multi-class approach of \cite{Nguyen2020mfgmulticlass} to the types approach of \cite{LackerZariphopoulou2017,lackersoret2020many} in regards of $\kappa$ could prove a tractable approach for the MFG case.

Generalising the dynamics of the forward performance utility map \eqref{eq:SDEforForwardUtilityField-consumption} or \eqref{eq:StructureQgeneral} outside Assumption \ref{ass:regularity-u-consumption-mfg} to a fully It\^o-dynamics and stochastic strategies is also open. A crucial tool for such would be a general It\^o-Wentzell-Lions chain rule as developed in \cite{Platonov2019ito} and would likely build along \cite{KarouiMrad2013} or \cite{MusielaZariphopoulou2010}; or alternatively, an approach similar to \cite{chong2018optimal} can be taken where the volatility of the FPP is exogenously postulated as the agent's preferences (Forward-Backward SDEs is the tool of choice there). It is also open exploring game competition in the setting of  \cite{chong2018optimal} either for the finite-player game or the MFG as in  \cite{geng2017passive,AnthropelosGengZariphopoulou2020,platonov2020forward}. As pointed in \cite[Section 5]{platonov2020forward}, many other questions can be posed in this context of mean field FPP, ranging from possible non-solvability \cite{FreiDosReis2011}, to risk-sharing pricing \cite{BielagkLionnetDosReis2017}, indifference-pricing \cite{leung2012forward,Anthropelos2014,chong2019pricing},
ergodic problems \cite{GechunZariphopoulou2016ergodic} and associated numerics \cite{GobetMrad2018}. The cases and analysis of \cite{AnthropelosGengZariphopoulou2020} can be extrapolated to the MFG case as well.

A particular case of interest playing to the strengths of the forward performance process framework, and which we do not explore here, is the \textit{dynamic model selection} problem. FPPs allow for a dynamic update of market parameters to accommodate a switch in the market environment or the agent's perception of risk which the standard utility theory does not allow. In fact, \cite[Section 4.4]{platonov2020forward} carries over to the construction we have provided here -- such would allow the agent to update the Market Consumption Intensity parameter $\kappa$. An alternative view to this problem exploiting FPPs and time dependent risk parameters can be found in \cite{strub2018evolution}.

Lastly, a comparative study between the capabilities of forward utility maps versus Epstein-Zin preferences within the Krep-Porteus recursive utilities is to the best of our knowledge an open question. As shown, the forward performance criteria features the crucial property of the recursive utility and hence this work stands to span new economics studies on EIS \cite{aase2016recursive,cundy2018essays,thimme2017intertemporal} .

\normalsize
\small