# Tag Info

2

Since $Y=e^{(r-\frac{\sigma^2}{2})\tau + \sigma \sqrt{\tau}Z}$, then \begin{align*} xY > K \Leftrightarrow Z > -d_2, \end{align*} where \begin{align*} d_2 = \frac{\ln \frac{x}{K} + (r-\frac{\sigma^2}{2})\tau}{\sigma\sqrt{\tau}}. \end{align*} Consequently, \begin{align*} e^{-r\tau}\mathbb{E}\big(Y \mathbb{1}_{\{xY >K\}} \big) &= ...

2

I think to gain intution you have to understand that the same agents that value the stocks will value the options. And agents compensate for volatility by demanding higher expected returns. Therefore you should ask: Why are stocks priced as they are in the first place? In your example, the stock with higher volatility has much lower expected return. This ...

2

Yes and No. In the absence of arbitragers, the price of the option will be different for each speculator based on their drift expectations (and each speculator has a risk in his position and will limit his ability to trade large sizes to avoid bankruptcy) and the option price will converge to priced off a supply-and-demand driven drift expectation. ...

2

Because you can hedge. Once you have delta hedged, the pay-off is symmetric about up and down moves so drift doesn't matter. Also the delta-hedged call and the delta hedged put have to have the same value since they have the same pay-off. (Put-call parity) Yet any argument that the call should be worth more because of drift says that the put should be ...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible