To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (82182 ) 11/25/1998 6:04:00 AM From: Geoff Nunn Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 176387
re: Black-Sholes model Chuz, I don't often find your posts wrong but on these issues of profitability of short term v. long term options, and most particularly on your interpretation of the B/S model I think you are way off target. I suggest we step back from the complicated mathematics of the B/S formula and begin with the fact that Black Scholes, first and foremost, is a statistical model. The methodology uses basic statistical concepts such as probability distribution, expected value, variance and fair game. The concept of "fair game" is crucial to understanding B/S options valuations, and to the debate we are having. I think you know what a fair game is as the term is used in statistics, but let me digress momentarily and explain it for the benefit of anyone who doesn't. A fair game is one in which the expected profit to every player is zero. The word "expected" is not meant literally and simply means long run theoretical average. Suppose, for example, a roulette wheel in a casino has 37 equally likely outcomes, e.g., 0, 1, 2, ...36. If the casino pays the player $37 for a winning bet, and charges the player $1 to play, it is a "fair game". It is "fair" because the player figures to break even in a large number of plays. He will win on some bets (about 2.7%) and lose on others (about 97.3%), but losses and gains will tend to be offsetting, and his expected return is zero. If, instead, the house only pays $36 for a winning bet, then it has a 2.7% advantage, which is the percent the player can expect to lose on an average bet if he plays repeatedly. Now, back to B/S. The B/S model answers the following question. What valuation should be placed on an option in order to make it a fair game for each side? Let's assume Dell May 65 calls currently have a value of $11 according to B/S. This tells us that if you were to purchase this option many times under the same circumstances that exist now, each time paying $11, then you would tend to break even(ignoring transactions costs) in the long run. The same break-even property would also apply to the writer. It is the price of $11 that makes the option not only a zero sum game but also a fair game. The $11, it should be noted, is a prediction of the average value of the option at expiry -- albeit a biased one. Actually, it is a prediction of the present value of the expected value of the option at expiry. Therefore, if the interest rate is .06 the model implies the expected future value of the May option at expiry is $11x(1+.03). Chuz, you wrote:The following numbers come from the CBOE. The theoretical price of a $50 call at the money, with 30% implied volatility and a 4% interest rate (no dividends): 90 days ($3.25), 60 days ($2.625), 30 days ($1.8125) and 15 days ($1.25). Now, assuming that a covered call is written, and that the position is liquidated at the strike price on the day of expirey, we have the following annualized rates of return: 30.84%, 38.21%, 55.75%, and 83.61% respectively I simply don't understand where you are coming up with such rates of return. According to my understanding of B/S, the expected rate of return is simply the rate of interest! This return applies both to the writer and the purchaser of the option (abstracting from transactions costs). It applies to any call option, whatever its time to maturity. The buyer of the call pays the writer an amount equal to the present value of the expected future value of the option at expiry. The writer receives the risk free market rate of interest on this money. In this scenario, each party has made a side bet on the magnitude and direction of movement in the underlying stock, and in the long run both sides can expect to break even (assuming the valuation formula is correct!). Geoff