Explanation about put-call option parity.

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

48 views

Explanation about put-call option parity.

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- GSAA HET 2005-15, Tranche B2 / BSABS 2005-TC2, Tranche M6 - securitized a fourth time in STAtic Res CDO 2005C
- Finding+$$$+for+BC+&+SS
- Flowchart of Your Assets
- No+SSN+Required
- 144a
- Notes on Stochastic Finance-Nicolas Privaut
- 109772874 Clerks Praxis
- 5021 Solutions 6
- Understanding Faq Rule 144a Equity Offerings
- put_Call_parity_with_div
- Essential of Trading
- NEC TSC Guide - Final Low Res
- You get it, YOU VETT IT! Depository contract 2005 Missouri Cusip Court CUSIP, MONETIZATION,SECURITIZATION
- Real Options in the LNG Shipping Industry
- The Put-Call Parity Theorem
- Forex Management
- Proposed SEC Rules Eliminating Ban on General Solicitation of 506 Reg D Offerings
- put call parity
- Resume
- Black Scholes Merton Equation

You are on page 1of 21

Recall that a replicating portfolio of a contingent claim determines the claims price. This was justied by the no arbitrage principle. Using this idea, we obtain a relationship between a European call and a European put option.

Consider the following portfolios: Portfolio 1: A European call option, and cash at time t equal to KerT Portfolio 2: A European put option, and one share of the underlying, S Here, K is the strike price for both the call and the put, and T is the time to expiration for both options.

At maturity, Portfolio 1 is worth K + max(ST K, 0) = max(ST , K), and Portfolio 2 is worth ST + max(K ST , 0) = max(K, ST ). Since the options are European, the prices today of these portfolios must be the same. If the prices were dierent, there would be an arbitrage opportunity (just like the gold example).

This relationship is put-call parity, and holds for European options. Notice that this relationship is not model dependentwe only relied on the no arbitrage principle.

We got a hint that puts and calls are related when we saw the implied volatility skew for crude oil:

0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 Implied Volatility 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 40 Put & Call Volatility Smiles: March 29, 2006 for Exercise May 29,2006 (Call is dashed/Put is solid)

45

50

55

60 Strike Prices

65

70

75

80

Recall that the only unobservable quantity in the Black-Scholes price of a European call or put was the volatility. Suppose that for a certain volatility, , we obtain prices pB and cB for a put and call (resp.) from the Black-Scholes model. Since we assume the BS model is arbitrage free, we must have cB,0 + KerT = pB,0 + S0. Further, if the market is arbitrage free, we must have a similar relationship for market prices, pM and cM : cM,0 + KerT = pM,0 + S0. This yields cB,0 cM,0 = pB,0 pM,0

6

Now suppose the implied volatility for a call is 19%. When we use this volatilty, cB,0 cM,0 = 0 Hence, from the relation above, the market price of the put must yield the same implied volatility. So we have: The implied volatility for a European call option is the same as the implied volatility for a European put option.

What about American options? Recall an American option is the same as a European option except that exercise may occur any time up to and including the expiration of the option. We cant use the same reasoning to obtain a put-call parity result here since actions may be taken at any time before maturity. We will denote an American calls and puts by C and P respectively.

Clearly, we must have Cc since an American option has all of the properties of a European option and more. Now consider the two portfolios: Portfolio A : one European call option and cash equal to KerT Portfolio B : one share Assuming the cash is invested at the risk free interest rate, Portfolio A is worth max(ST , K) at maturity. Portfolio B is worth ST . So, we must have c S0 KerT

9

Because options have no downside risk, we have c max(S0 KerT , 0) And hence C max(S0 KerT , 0) > S0 K. But this implies that the option will never be exercised early. So an American call option (on a nondividend paying stock) is the same as a European call option.

10

American puts are a dierent story. First, for European puts, by considering the portfolios Portfolio A: one European put option and one share Portfolio B: cash equal to KerT we can show that p max(KerT S0, 0)

11

Since early exercise is always possible for an American option, and since P p, we have P K S0 Determining when to exercise an American put is determined by a threshold amount Sf . We also observe that P p = c + KerT S0 Hence we have an inequality for American options (since C = c) where we once had equality.

12

For American options on nondividend paying stocks, we obtain the following result: S0 K C P S0 KerT The second inequality has already been discussed. The rst inequality is obtained by (you guessed it) considering the appropriate portfolios.

13

We next derive a put-call parity equation for an asset value model developed by Merton. For a given rm, the model is given as follows: At is the asset value process of the rm. Et is the equity process of the rm. Dt is the process describing the rms debt obligation. We assume At = Et + Dt. Further, (At)t0, (Et)t0 both follow geometric Brownian motion (recall Black-Scholes). The debt obligation of the rm has the cash prole of a zero coupon bond with maturity T and face value F .

14

At time t = 0, debt holders (think banks) pay to the rm an amount of capital equal to D0

The debt holders have some risk if the value of the rms assets at time T can be below F . That is, riskiness is involved if

in which case we must have D0 < F erT .

15

If AT < F , the rm will default on its debt, and the debt holders will only receive a fraction of F. The debt holders may want to neutralize this risk. One way to do this is to go long a put option on the asset, A, with strike price F , and time to maturity T . It is easy to show that the debt holder is now gauranteed to receive F at time T The debt holders are now completely hedged. The hedged portfolio for the debt holders consists of a loan and a put option, and has value at time t = 0 of D0 + P A , where PA is the put as described above.

16

Because the hedged portfolio is worth F at time T surely, we must have D0 + PA = F erT , or D0 = F erT PA. (2)

We may also view equity in this option theoretic light. Suppose that at time T , the shareholders decide to liquidate the rm. That is, pay o all debts and receive capital for all assets. We will consider two cases.

17

If AT < F , the value of the assets of the rm is not great enough to pay o the debt. Hence there is nothing left over for shareholders and their payo is 0.

This sounds like a call option. In fact, we see the payo for equity holders is max(AT F, 0). By no arbitrage arguments, we must have E0 = CA , (3)

where CA is a call option with underlying A, strike price F , and time to maturity T .

18

Putting this all together, we have A0 = E0 + D0 = CA + F erT PA, rearranging, A0 + PA = CA + F erT , which is just put-call parity with underlying A. Before concluding, we note two results of the model.

Because D0 = F erT PA, debt holders (think banks) are naturally short a put and therefore they prefer lower volatility.

19

There are some issues with the above model. The biggest is that the asset value process is not observable. We may approximate the rms equity (shares of stock) and its debt. Abstracting the asset value process requires a little more work, and can be tackled another day.

20

- GSAA HET 2005-15, Tranche B2 / BSABS 2005-TC2, Tranche M6 - securitized a fourth time in STAtic Res CDO 2005CUploaded byTim Bryant
- Finding+$$$+for+BC+&+SSUploaded byYusef El
- Flowchart of Your AssetsUploaded bysabiont
- No+SSN+RequiredUploaded bysabiont
- 144aUploaded byAmrin Naz
- Notes on Stochastic Finance-Nicolas PrivautUploaded byziokoala
- 109772874 Clerks PraxisUploaded byBrave_Heart_Ministry
- 5021 Solutions 6Uploaded byamericus_smile7474
- Understanding Faq Rule 144a Equity OfferingsUploaded bykcetconsulting
- put_Call_parity_with_divUploaded byepap
- Essential of TradingUploaded bysoumya ranjan panda
- NEC TSC Guide - Final Low ResUploaded bymunya879
- You get it, YOU VETT IT! Depository contract 2005 Missouri Cusip Court CUSIP, MONETIZATION,SECURITIZATIONUploaded byGemini Research
- Real Options in the LNG Shipping IndustryUploaded byIro Gidakou Georgiou
- The Put-Call Parity TheoremUploaded byIntourist
- Forex ManagementUploaded bybaleswar2
- Proposed SEC Rules Eliminating Ban on General Solicitation of 506 Reg D OfferingsUploaded byhivelaunch
- put call parityUploaded byZaheer Ahmad
- ResumeUploaded byRahul Iyer
- Black Scholes Merton EquationUploaded byDomenique Schwestermann
- Option-PUT CALL ParityUploaded byరఘువీర్ సూర్యనారాయణ
- Outlaws BibleUploaded byMassDestruction
- Poly-MAP552Uploaded byordicompuuter
- SEC Rule 144A_ Private Placement for Investment PurposesUploaded byLinda Rougeux
- MCHENRY - Title II of the JOBS Act - ES150234 - ResponseUploaded byAnonymous ukqEbKT
- A primer on US due diligence and disclosure standards applied in Rule 144A offeringsUploaded byjoanabud
- PUT-CALL PARITY-1 (2).pptxUploaded byAabbhas Garg
- RISK-RETURN ANALYSISUploaded bySagar Tanna
- eBookch12-AF00000-AmericanFreedom.pdfUploaded byBrave_Heart_Ministry
- dictaat.pdfUploaded byGisselaPozo

- SCM- Handout IUploaded byKuber Sethi
- MFIUploaded byTim Here
- Jobvite_SocialRecruiting_Survey2014Uploaded byheymuralius2141
- 2006-2977_web1Uploaded byjamesbor
- Animal Husbandry Dairying AndUploaded byPradeep Meduri
- RATIO ANALYSISUploaded byshaileshbhoi
- Competitive MarketUploaded byTonoy Peter Corraya
- Unit 40 - Assignment 1Uploaded by汉纳汉纳
- Organizational Structure in a Family BusinessUploaded bySheshraj Salvi
- Caribbean Studies IAUploaded byJevohn Martin
- Vocabulary of Banking and Finance (Level A2).pdfUploaded byflorentina zaman
- Economy of CaoayanUploaded byCarl Vincent Quitoriano
- Permendag Number 11 of 2006-Agents or Distributors of Goods or ServicesUploaded bytiara
- 184153242-ADL-12-BUSINESS-LAW-WITH-CHANGE-2013-docx.docxUploaded bySmriti Jain
- Chap-9, The Cost of Capital, 2015.pdfUploaded byMd. Monirul islam
- Front Office BudgetingUploaded byOwan Sofwan
- Cost Bencost benefit analysis and water resourcesefit Analysis and Water Resources Management(1)Uploaded byscribdacct123
- Lec w1Uploaded byfavoureit
- REPUBLIC ACT No 6552.docUploaded byGrace
- Mobilink Jazz brand auditUploaded byawaisyounas
- Wealth of Nations ADAM SMITH VOL 2Uploaded bytestimony
- Utility Bills ExercisesUploaded byGreenLake36
- Northside Chicago Standard 09Uploaded bySocial IMPACT Research Center at Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Human Rights
- Kotler MM 14e 01 IpptUploaded byAbhishek Nayaka
- Morning Star User GuideUploaded byee1993
- Amended Multiple Choice_part 2Uploaded byRay Cheung
- AA2712170314289_RC14122017 (1).pdfUploaded bykumar bhai
- Credit Default Swap InfoUploaded byCarrieonic
- Financing Social Health Insurance: Challenges and OpportunitiesUploaded byAsian Development Bank
- Economics Extended Essay Plan.docxUploaded byAnonymous DrSwwo