0
$\begingroup$

Reading the great book of Gatheral on Vol Surfaces (link) I can't help but notice that throughout he uses undiscounted option prices (though he obviously never assumed rates to be zero).

See e.g. page 8 where he reviews Dupire's work and derives the pseudo-probability density of the final spot price $S_T$ as $$\phi(K, T; S_0) = \frac{\partial^2 C}{\partial K^2}$$ with $C$ denoting undiscounted option prices. On the other hand, using discounted option prices, and letting $D$ be the discount factor at time $T$, one would obtain $$\phi(K, T; S_0) = \frac{1}{D}\cdot\frac{\partial^2 C}{\partial K^2}$$

Similarly, a Bloomberg reference document states Put-Call Parity (together with subsequent derivations) as $$C-P=F-K$$ with $C,P$ being the future values of European call & put options, and $F$ the forward, as opposed to the standard form (link) which reads $$C-P = D\cdot(F- K)$$


What is the use (or benefit) of doing these derivations with undiscounted prices? Does the market quote prices that way?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It is just to simplify notations $\endgroup$ – Ezy Dec 14 '18 at 10:49
  • $\begingroup$ I see. Wouldn't it be quite fiddly/annoying to retrospectively derive everything again with $D$ inserted in all the right places? $\endgroup$ – Phil-ZXX Dec 14 '18 at 10:57
  • $\begingroup$ it would not improve the exposition of ideas imo since the focus here is really about volatilty. $\endgroup$ – Ezy Dec 14 '18 at 11:36
  • $\begingroup$ It's undiscounted as it's about probability, not discounted probability $\endgroup$ – James Spencer-Lavan Dec 14 '18 at 18:40

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.