Return to Question

Quoting Hull's book:

When gamma is positive, theta tends to be negative. The portfolio declines in value if there is no change in S, but increases in value if there is a large positive or negative change in S. When gamma is negative, theta tends to be positive and the reverse is true: the portfolio increases in value if there is no change in S but decreases in value if there is a large positive or negative change in S. As the absolute value of gamma increases, the sensitivity of the value of the portfolio to S increases.

So there is a clear opposite sign correlation but I don't understand why if gamma is negative then theta tends to be positive and the portfolio increases in value if there is no change in S?

Quoting Hull's book:

When gamma is positive, theta tends to be negative. The portfolio declines in value if there is no change in S, but increases in value if there is a large positive or negative change in S. When gamma is negative, theta tends to be positive and the reverse is true: the portfolio increases in value if there is no change in S but decreases in value if there is a large positive or negative change in S. As the absolute value of gamma increases, the sensitivity of the value of the portfolio to S increases.

So there is a clear opposite sign correlation but I don't understand why if gamma is negative then theta tends to be positive and the portfolio increases in value if there is no change in S?

Quoting Hull's book:

When gamma is positive, theta tends to be negative. The portfolio declines in value if there is no change in S, but increases in value if there is a large positive or negative change in S. When gamma is negative, theta tends to be positive and the reverse is true: the portfolio increases in value if there is no change in S but decreases in value if there is a large positive or negative change in S. As the absolute value of gamma increases, the sensitivity of the value of the portfolio to S increases.

So there is a clear opposite sign correlation but I don't understand why. Why gamma is negative then theta tends to be positive and the portfolio increases in value if there is no change in S?

Quoting Hull's book:

When gamma is positive, theta tends to be negative. The portfolio declines in value if there is no change in S, but increases in value if there is a large positive or negative change in S. When gamma is negative, theta tends to be positive and the reverse is true: the portfolio increases in value if there is no change in S but decreases in value if there is a large positive or negative change in S. As the absolute value of gamma increases, the sensitivity of the value of the portfolio to S increases.

So there is a clear opposite sign correlation but I don't understand why if gamma is negative then theta tends to be positive and the portfolio increases in value if there is no change in S?

Quoting Hull's book:

When gamma is positive, theta tends to be negative. The portfolio declines in value if there is no change in S, but increases in value if there is a large positive or negative change in S. When gamma is negative, theta tends to be positive and the reverse is true: the portfolio increases in value if there is no change in S but decreases in value if there is a large positive or negative change in S. As the absolute value of gamma increases, the sensitivity of the value of the portfolio to S increases.

So there is a clear opposite sign correlation but I don't understand why.

Quoting Hull's book:

When gamma is positive, theta tends to be negative. The portfolio declines in value if there is no change in S, but increases in value if there is a large positive or negative change in S. When gamma is negative, theta tends to be positive and the reverse is true: the portfolio increases in value if there is no change in S but decreases in value if there is a large positive or negative change in S. As the absolute value of gamma increases, the sensitivity of the value of the portfolio to S increases.

So there is a clear opposite sign correlation but I don't understand why. Why gamma is negative then theta tends to be positive and the portfolio increases in value if there is no change in S?