ITC 300 PUT ALMOST ACHIEVED 1ST TGTFOR MORE CALLS FILL UP THE FORM GIVEN HERE>>>>
For almost every stock or index whose options trade on an exchange, puts are more costly than calls.
Clarification: When comparing options whose strike prices are equally far out
of the money (OTM), the puts carry a higher premium than the calls. They also
have a higher Delta.
·
This
is the result of volatility skew.
Let's see how this works with a typical example.
·
SPX
(the Standard & Poor’s 500 Stock Index) is currently trading near 1891.76
(but the same principle holds whenever you look at the data).
·
The
1940 call (48 points OTM) that expires in 23 days costs $19.00 (bid/ask
midpoint)
The 1840 put (50 points OTM) that expires in 23 days costs $25.00
The 1840 put (50 points OTM) that expires in 23 days costs $25.00
The
difference between $1,920 and $2,610 is quite substantial, especially when the
put is 2 points farther out of the money. Of course, this favors the bullish
investor who can buy single options at a relatively favorable price. On the
other hand, the bearish investor who wants to own single options must pay a
penalty when buying put options.
In a
normal, rational universe, this situation would never occur, and those options
listed above would trade at prices that were much nearer to each other. Sure,
interest rates affect option prices (calls cost more when rates are higher),
but with interest rates near zero, that is not a factor for today's trader.
So
why are the puts inflated? Or if you prefer, you may ask: why are calls
deflated?
The
answer is that there is volatility skew. In other words,
·
As the
strike price declines, implied
volatility increases.
·
As
the strike price increases, implied volatility declines.
Why does this Happen?
Over the years that options have been trading on an exchange (since 1973), market observers noticed one hugely important situation: Even though markets were bullish overall and the market always rebounded to new highs at some future time, when the market did decline, those declines were (on average) more sudden and more severe.
Over the years that options have been trading on an exchange (since 1973), market observers noticed one hugely important situation: Even though markets were bullish overall and the market always rebounded to new highs at some future time, when the market did decline, those declines were (on average) more sudden and more severe.
Let's
examine this phenomenon from a practical perspective: The person who prefers to
always own some OTM call options may have had some winning trades over the
years. However, that success came about only when the market moved
substantially higher over a short time. Most of the time those OTM options
expired worthless.
Overall,
owning inexpensive, far OTM call options proved to be a losing proposition. And
that is why owning far OTM options is not a good strategy for most investors. However…
Despite
the fact that owners of far OTM put options saw their options expire worthless
far more often, occasional, the market fell so quickly that the price of those
OTM options soared. And they soared for two reasons. First, the market fell,
making puts more valuable. However, equally as important (and in October 1987
proved to be far more important), option prices increased because frightened
investors were so anxious to own put options to protect the assets in their
portfolios, that they did not care (or more likely, didn't understand how to
price options) and paid egregious prices for the options. Remember that put
sellers understood the risk, and demanded huge premiums for being "foolish
enough" to sell those options. That 'need to buy puts at any price' is the
major factor that created the volatility skew. The bottom line is that buyers of far OTM put
options occasionally earned a very large profit. But the owners of far OTM call
options did not. That alone was sufficient to change the mindset of traditional
option traders, especially the market
makers who supplied most of those options. Some investors still
maintain supply of puts as protection against a disaster, while others do so
with the expectation of collecting the jackpot one day.
After Black Monday (Oct 19, 1987) investors and speculators liked
the idea of owning some inexpensive put options. Of course, in the aftermath,
there were no such thing -- due to the demand for put options. However, as
markets settled down, and the decline ended, overall option premium returned to
the "new normal." That new normal resulted in the disappearance of
cheap puts. Because of the way that option values are calculated, the most efficient method for the
market makers to increase the bid and ask prices for any option is to raise the estimated future volatility for
that option.
One
other factor plays a role:
·
The
further out of the money the put option is -- the larger the implied
volatility. In other words, traditional sellers of very cheap options stopped
selling them, and thus demand exceeds supply. That drove prices even
higher.
·
Further
OTM calls options become even less in demand, and cheap options are available
if for investors willing to but far-enough OTM options.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank u For Reading Our blog For More Details Contact 9039542248