I understand the put-call parity and am trying to derive the results based on a CME article in their education section and also the Wikipedia explanation in the Black Scholes model where Put-call parity is derived for European call and put.

As per Black Scholes equation and put call parity Url : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%E2%80%93Scholes_model

C(s,t) - P(s, t) = D(F-K) [ D discount factor, F is forward/future price, K is strike ].

=> C-P=D.F - D.K

=> C-P=S - Ke^(-r(T-t)) [ Future discounted at risk free rate should be spot and Discount factor for strike is e^(-r(T-t))

C-P=S-K*e^(-r(T-t)) --------------- [ A ]

As per CME Url :


The put-call parity is C - P = F - K [ Assume here that there is no convexity issue and F is either future/forward price ].

Using earlier result from put call parity We can write this as

F - K = S - PV(K) [ This is also available at https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/putcallparity.asp ]

=> F - K = S - K*e-(r(T-t)) since discount factor based on continuous compounding.

=> F = S + K[1-e^-(r(T-t))] -------------- [ B ]

We know that Future is Spot plus the cost of carrying. And the cost of carrying funding of strike price K is K*e^(-r(T-t))

Hence Future = Spot + Cost of carrying position

=> F = S + K*e^(-r(T-t)) should be the result. But as per B it is different.

Why is this the case? Where is the mistake in my understanding?


2 Answers 2


The put-call parity from CME, C - P = F - K, is not correct. I think CME is making it simple. You need to discount the right-hand side. Then, you will get the same put-call parity as Wikipedia.

  • $\begingroup$ Agree with you I was thinking based on pure intuition how F-K isn't discounted using the Discount factor based on a certain risk-free rate r over contract time period T-t. I wonder if they are talking purely in terms of instantaneous traded prices with arbitrage as being the result if that equation doesnt hold. $\endgroup$ Jun 4 at 15:40

I talked to a resource at CME on this. It turns out that the equation

C - P = F - K

is true from the perspective of instantaneous market traded prices. I.e If the prices observed in the market did not hold this equation true for a reasonable period of time, There a trader can have an arbitrage opportunity. So In theory they are wrong ( i.e from a literature perspective ). They are correct only from an instantaneous market observed equilibrium price perspective on a given contract (i.e its future and option prices ).


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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