This may seem like a very dumb question, but if the underlying stock price is greater, then why should a call option be worth more.

My reasoning is that, if the option price is not affected by the drift of the return from our stock, then this implies we are not bothered whether the stock price increases or decreases on average in the future, due to the hedging strategy we have set up in the derivation of the Black Scholes equation.

Now people will say that a higher stock price means we have more chance of being on the desirable side of the strike price, implying a higher option value, but from the above, we are assuming we do not care on whether the option has more chance of lying above or below the strike price. So surely then a higher underlying stock value shouldn't affect the call option value.


closed as off-topic by LocalVolatility, amdopt, Lliane, skoestlmeier, byouness Jan 30 at 10:13

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Basic financial questions are off-topic as they are assumed to be common knowledge for those studying or working in the field of quantitative finance." – LocalVolatility, amdopt, Lliane, skoestlmeier, byouness
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ Delta hedging neutralizes the drift but it does not (and cannot) neutralize the initial stock price. $\endgroup$ – Antoine Conze Jan 31 at 15:11

Instead of talking about an option you should apply your reasoning to the simpler example of the forward contract to see the flaw in your argument.

Suppose the spot is a martingale process and suppose the spot has value today $S_0$ and the forward which expires at $T>0$ has value $F_0^T$.

Suppose tomorrow the spot goes higher to $S_1>S_0$. Should the value of the forward $F_1^T$ be the same ?

Of course not for the simple reason that the forward is a conditional expectation of $S_T$ so

$F_1^T =E[S_T|S_1]=S_1 >S_0 = E[S_T|S_0]=F_0^T$

  • $\begingroup$ could you please point out the flaw explicitly because I am unfamiliar using martingale properties. $\endgroup$ – DLB Jan 29 at 21:53
  • $\begingroup$ In layman terms you can assume for now that « martingale » means « no drift » $\endgroup$ – Ezy Jan 29 at 21:54
  • $\begingroup$ okay, I understand your example, but I can't see how it highlights a flaw in my argument. $\endgroup$ – DLB Jan 29 at 22:25
  • $\begingroup$ @DLB so do you understand how a higher spot implies a higher forward value ? $\endgroup$ – Ezy Jan 29 at 22:26
  • $\begingroup$ Logically I think that we have our price closer to the strike price, increasing our chance of the spot eventually being higher than the strike price. $\endgroup$ – DLB Jan 29 at 22:32

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.