showed evidence of systematic mispricing, symmetric pricing models would not bepossible.
The Black-Scholes  option pricing model provided a basis for a better understanding of the pricing of options and contingent claims securities. When applied tostock options, the model is able to explain much about how option prices are set, but therehave been numerous studies that have found discrepancies between actual and predictedprices. Many researchers have attempted to explain these anomalies by changing certaincharacteristics of the model, like the interest rate specification process, and other researchers have focused on market factors like dividend payments to the underlying stock(for example, Black , Black and Scholes , Geske and Roll , Gultekin,Rogalski, and Tinic , MacBeth and Merville , and Rubinstein ). It shouldbe noted that all of these researchers restricted their data to call options. Even the reviewof various option pricing models conducted by Bakshi, Cao, and Chen  used only calloption data. All of this research does have a common, though seldom expressed, characteristic.In all these models the pricing of the call option and the pricing of the put option are seento be identical, though in opposite directions. The profit and loss diagrams for calls andputs are mirror images at maturity, so it is apparently assumed that while the option isactive the same pricing mechanism is at work. This assumption is further supported by theacceptance of the put/call parity theory. Even though tests of the put/call parity theoryshow anomalies (Brenner and Galai , Frankfurter and Leung , Klemkosky and