  We study T. Cover's rebalancing option (Ordentlich and Cover 1998) under
discrete hindsight optimization in continuous time. The payoff in question is
equal to the final wealth that would have accrued to a $\$1$ deposit into the
best of some finite set of (perhaps levered) rebalancing rules determined in
hindsight. A rebalancing rule (or fixed-fraction betting scheme) amounts to
fixing an asset allocation (i.e. $200\%$ stocks and $-100\%$ bonds) and then
continuously executing rebalancing trades to counteract allocation drift.
Restricting the hindsight optimization to a small number of rebalancing rules
(i.e. 2) has some advantages over the pioneering approach taken by Cover $\&$
Company in their brilliant theory of universal portfolios (1986, 1991, 1996,
1998), where one's on-line trading performance is benchmarked relative to the
final wealth of the best unlevered rebalancing rule of any kind in hindsight.
Our approach lets practitioners express an a priori view that one of the
favored asset allocations ("bets") $b\in\{b_1,...,b_n\}$ will turn out to have
performed spectacularly well in hindsight. In limiting our robustness to some
discrete set of asset allocations (rather than all possible asset allocations)
we reduce the price of the rebalancing option and guarantee to achieve a
correspondingly higher percentage of the hindsight-optimized wealth at the end
of the planning period. A practitioner who lives to delta-hedge this variant of
Cover's rebalancing option through several decades is guaranteed to see the day
that his realized compound-annual capital growth rate is very close to that of
the best $b_i$ in hindsight. Hence the point of the rock-bottom option price.
