TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The Black-Scholes formula, explained (2019)

93 点作者 jorgenveisdal大约 4 年前

6 条评论

lordnacho大约 4 年前
Former options trader here. This all checks out correctly, but there&#x27;s maybe some intuition that enlightens it. BTW option traders are often called volatility traders, because when you look at the formula there&#x27;s this one free variable (all the rest are somehow given by the market). So when you&#x27;re trading options, you&#x27;re trading vol and the actual price is just a sort of formality.<p>Thoughts:<p>- Since you have a right but not an obligation to buy&#x2F;sell, that creates asymmetry. Since it&#x27;s asymmetric, a wider range of outcomes, ie higher vol (imagine your gaussian curve on top of the hockey stick), makes the option worth more.<p>- Similarly having more time to expiry makes the option worth more, the range of outcomes is more spread out.<p>- There&#x27;s a whole bunch of Greeks that the books will go through, but the intuition is the same for all of them. You can work out what&#x27;s good or bad for you from thinking about how the distribution of outcomes is affected by a change in whatever.<p>- To trade the vol and not a mix of the vol and the direction, you flatten your delta by trading the underlying. If you do this at some point on the option price vs underlying price curve, you can get the graph to be flat, ie neutral to small price moves. But you can&#x27;t make it flat everywhere with a hedge, because of course the graph is bendy.<p>- Near the strike where the bend is in the hockey stick is where it curves the most. On one extreme the option is worthless, on the other it&#x27;s the same as having the underlying.<p>- As time passes it&#x27;s got to get more curvey at the strike, less curvey on the sides.<p>- Curveyness on the price graph is called gamma. This is the gamma that ended up biting with the GME squeeze, by the sound of it. The problem is if you are short options, the graph looks like an upside down parabola, so if the underlying moves up a lot you will be short and getting shorter. If it moves down a lot, you&#x27;ll be getting longer and longer. This is bad.<p>- It doesn&#x27;t actually matter whether you are buying the right to buy or the right to sell. If you&#x27;re buying, you have a positive gamma. But how? Well since owning a put and shorting a call of the same strike (or vice versa) should give you no curvature (looks like a straight line) they must have the same curvature. In the business people just call options with higher strikes than the current underlying price &quot;calls&quot; and options with lower strikes &quot;puts&quot; regardless of what they actually are. In-the-moneys just have some more premium attached to them, but act the same (in terms of everything other than delta) as their partner out-of-the-money option at that strike.<p>- Why do people get short gamma, knowing that movement is bad for them? Of course the option costs something to the guy who buys them. As long as the movement isn&#x27;t too much it might be worthwhile to be short. In fact, most of the time the movement isn&#x27;t enough to justify the price.
评论 #26774474 未加载
评论 #26774330 未加载
评论 #26774039 未加载
worik大约 4 年前
&quot;Since its introduction in 1973 and refinement in the 1970s and 80s, the model has become the de-facto standard for estimating the price of stock options&quot;<p>...and has caused a lot of catastrophic losses. The formula depends on a normal distribution and financial returns are random but not independent. They are not normal.<p>The formula works, mostly, but when it does not it is worse than useless. Financial gains and losses are in the tails, and the tails are no where near normal
评论 #26773465 未加载
评论 #26773586 未加载
评论 #26773539 未加载
评论 #26773499 未加载
评论 #26773782 未加载
评论 #26773477 未加载
lovedswain大约 4 年前
The article is dated and somewhat misleading,<p>&gt; Since its introduction in 1973 and refinement in the 1970s and 80s, the model has become the de-facto standard for estimating the price of stock options<p>The only contemporary use for BS by professionals is as a convention for quoting volatility. As a pricing model it does not account for key effects such as the permanent &quot;volatility smile&quot; appearing in the aftermath of the 1987 crash (significantly increased price of downside options), and well understood behaviours like jumps and volatility clustering.
评论 #26774345 未加载
freebee56大约 4 年前
I used to work on options MM desk. Even though BS is not correct in magnitude (e.g. our quants used some black magic to get deltas at the tails, which even then we&#x27;re quite off from what CME was giving) it is directionally correct. Just having an intellectual grasp of what caused a shift in the price can be very useful. The problem IMHO is that way too much energy has been spent improving it by old school quants vs exploring other approaches ( e.g. a limes regression works quite well for daily fx option movements)
vmception大约 4 年前
The Black-Scholes model does not account for the liquidity of the underlying assets (usually shares) and therefore the probable slippage
mikkom大约 4 年前
Oh how I hate these Medium posts that are not readable without doing something (registering&#x2F;installing app&#x2F;paying.. whatever)<p>I feel like Medium is the new expertsexchange. I remember how much I hated the site always when I ended there and I seem to have very similar feelings towards Medium.
评论 #26773905 未加载
评论 #26774198 未加载
评论 #26773668 未加载