Best of the Week
Most Popular
1. The Trump Stock Market Trap May Be Triggered - Barry_M_Ferguson
2.Why are Central Banks Buying Gold and Dumping Dollars? - Richard_Mills
3.US China War - Thucydides Trap and gold - Richard_Mills
4.Gold Price Trend Forcast to End September 2019 - Nadeem_Walayat
5.Money Saving Kids Gardening Growing Giant Sunflowers Summer Fun - Anika_Walayat
6.US Dollar Breakdown Begins, Gold Price to Bolt Higher - Jim_Willie_CB
7.INTEL (INTC) Stock Investing to Profit From AI Machine Learning Boom - Nadeem_Walayat
8.Will Google AI Kill Us? Man vs Machine Intelligence - N_Walayat
9.US Prepares for Currency War with China - Richard_Mills
10.Gold Price Epochal Breakout Will Not Be Negated by a Correction - Clive Maund
Last 7 days
Massive Stock Market Price Reversion May Be Days or Weeks Away - 22nd Sep 19
How Russia Seized Control of the Uranium Market - 22nd Sep 19
Dow Stock Market Trend Forecast Update - 21st Sep 19
Is Stock Market Price Revaluation Event About To Happen? - 21st Sep 19
Gold Leads, Will the Rest Follow? - 21st Sep 19
Are Cowboys Really Dreaming of... Electric Trucks? - 21st Sep 19
Gold among Negative-Yielding Bonds - 20th Sep 19
Panicky Fed Flooding Overnight Markets with Cash - 20th Sep 19
Uber Stock Price Will Crash on November 6 - 20th Sep 19
Semiconductor Stocks Sector Market & Economic Leader - 20th Sep 19
Learning Artificial Intelligence - What is a Neural Network? - 20th Sep 19
Precious Metals Setting Up Another Momentum Base/Bottom - 20th Sep 19
Small Marketing Budget? No Problem! - 20th Sep 19
The Many Forex Trading Opportunities the Fed Day Has Dealt Us - 19th Sep 19
Fed Cuts Interest Rates and Gold Drops. Again - 19th Sep 19
Silver Still Cheap Relative to Gold, Trend Forecast Update Video - 19th Sep 19
Baby Boomers Are the Worst Investors in the World - 19th Sep 19
Your $1,229 FREE Tticket to Elliott Market Analysis & Trading Set-ups - 19th Sep 19
Is The Stock Market Other Shoe About To Drop With Fed News? - 19th Sep 19
Bitcoin Price 2019 Trend Current State - 18th Sep 19
No More Realtors… These Start-ups Will Buy Your House in Less than 20 Days - 18th Sep 19
Gold Bugs And Manipulation Theorists Unite – Another “Manipulation” Indictment - 18th Sep 19
Central Bankers' Desperate Grab for Power - 18th Sep 19
Oil Shock! Will War Drums, Inflation Fears Ignite Gold and Silver Markets? - 18th Sep 19
Importance Of Internal Rate Of Return For A Business - 18th Sep 19
Gold Bull Market Ultimate Upside Target - 17th Sep 19
Gold Spikes on the Saudi Oil Attacks: Can It Last? - 17th Sep 19
Stock Market VIX To Begin A New Uptrend and What it Means - 17th Sep 19
Philippines, China and US: Joint Exploration Vs Rearmament and Nuclear Weapons - 17th Sep 19
What Are The Real Upside Targets For Crude Oil Price Post Drone Attack? - 17th Sep 19
Curse of Technology Weapons - 17th Sep 19
Media Hypes Recession Whilst Trump Proposes a Tax on Savings - 17th Sep 19
Understanding Ways To Stretch Your Investments Further - 17th Sep 19
Trading Natural Gas As The Season Changes - 16th Sep 19
Cameco Crash, Uranium Sector Won’t Catch a break - 16th Sep 19
These Indicators Point to an Early 2020 Economic Downturn - 16th Sep 19
Gold When Global Insanity Prevails - 16th Sep 19
Stock Market Looking Toppy - 16th Sep 19
Is the Stocks Bull Market Nearing an End? - 16th Sep 19
US Stock Market Indexes Continue to Rally Within A Defined Range - 16th Sep 19
What If Gold Is NOT In A New Bull Market? - 16th Sep 19
A History Lesson For Pundits Who Don’t Believe Stocks Are Overvalued - 16th Sep 19
The Disconnect Between Millennials and Real Estate - 16th Sep 19
Tech Giants Will Crash in the Next Stock Market Downturn - 15th Sep 19
Will Draghi’s Swan Song Revive the Eurozone? And Gold? - 15th Sep 19
The Race to Depreciate Fiat Currencies Is Accelerating - 15th Sep 19
Can Crypto casino beat Hybrid casino - 15th Sep 19
British Pound GBP vs Brexit Chaos Timeline - 14th Sep 19
Recession 2020 Forecast : The New Risks & New Profits Of A Grand Experiment - 14th Sep 19
War Gaming the US-China Trade War - 14th Sep 19
Buying a Budgie, Parakeet for the First Time from a Pet Shop - Jollyes UK - 14th Sep 19
Crude Oil Price Setting Up For A Downside Price Rotation - 13th Sep 19
A “Looming” Recession Is a Gold Golden Opportunity - 13th Sep 19
Is 2019 Similar to 2007? What Does It Mean For Gold? - 13th Sep 19
How Did the Philippines Establish Itself as a World Leader in Call Centre Outsourcing? - 13th Sep 19
UK General Election Forecast 2019 - Betting Market Odds - 13th Sep 19
Energy Sector Reaches Key Low Point – Start Looking For The Next Move - 13th Sep 19
Weakening Shale Productivity "VERY Bullish" For Oil Prices - 13th Sep 19
Stock Market Dow to 38,000 by 2022 - 13th Sep 19 - readtheticker
Gold under NIRP? | Negative Interest Rates vs Bullion - 12th Sep 19
Land Rover Discovery Sport Brake Pads and Discs's Replace, Dealer Check and Cost - 12th Sep 19
Stock Market Crash Black Swan Event Set Up Sept 12th? - 12th Sep 19
Increased Pension Liabilities During the Coming Stock Market Crash - 12th Sep 19
Gold at Support: the Upcoming Move - 12th Sep 19
Precious Metals, US Dollar, Stocks – How It All Relates – Part II - 12th Sep 19

Market Oracle FREE Newsletter

Nadeem Walayat Financial Markets Analysiis and Trend Forecasts

Hidden Assumptions in Option Pricing

InvestorEducation / Options & Warrants Feb 28, 2011 - 09:30 AM GMT

By: Robert_Murphy

InvestorEducation

Best Financial Markets Analysis ArticleSteve Landsburg is an economics professor at the University of Rochester, and author of some great books on free-market thinking. However, in a recent blog post he gave a misleading explanation of option pricing. It's worth going over the episode because it beautifully illustrates the tendency of economists to overlook the assumptions they sneak into their arguments, particularly when it comes to discussions of the financial markets.


Landsburg, Jeter, and Option Pricing

A call option on a stock is a derivative contract that gives the owner the right, but not the obligation, to buy the stock at a certain price (the "strike price"). Some call options can only be exercised on a particular date in the future, whereas others can be exercised anytime up to and including the date. Call options are an important part of a modern market economy and serve a definite social function, as I explain here.

There is a whole literature in the field of mathematical finance on various methods of pricing options. The most famous is the Black-Scholes formula. In his recent post, Landsburg gave the intuition behind these common formulas.

Because he's a clear writer — and because my overall point is that Landsburg doesn't show us how the rabbit got into his option-pricing-formula hat — it's worthwhile to quote him extensively. Keep in mind that for brevity's sake, I'm editing out all of his caveats. The problem (as we'll see) with Landsburg's argument isn't that it's unrealistic; the main problem is that he unintentionally misleads the reader:

Imagine a stock that sells for $10 today. A year from now it will be worth either $20 or $5. … What would you pay for an option that allows you to buy the stock next year at today's $10 price?

You might think you'd need a whole lot more information to answer that question. You might expect, for example, that the answer depends on the probability that the stock price will go up to $20 rather than down to $5. You might expect the answer to depend on how much traders are willing to pay for a given dollop of risk avoidance.

But the amazing fact is that none of that matters. The only extra bit of information you need is the interest rate.

Let's assume, for example, that the interest rate happens to be 25%. …

Now let's price the option. The key is to focus on my imaginary cousin Jeter, who never buys stock options. Jeter happened to wake up with $12 in his pocket today. Then he went out, borrowed $8, and used his $20 to buy 2 shares of stock.

A year from now, one of two things will happen. Either Jeter will get lucky, sell his 2 shares for $40, use $10 to repay his debt ($8 plus $2 interest), and pocket $30. Or he'll get unlucky, sell his 2 shares for $10, use that $10 to repay his debt, and pocket $0. …

I, on the other hand, bought 3 stock options today. A year from now, one of two things will happen. Either I will get lucky and use my 3 options to buy 3 shares of $20 stock at a price of $10 each, pocketing a $30 profit. Or I will get unlucky and the stock price will [plummet], in which case I will throw my option away and pocket $0.

In other words, Jeter and I are guaranteed exactly the same outcome next year. Either the stock price goes up, and we each pocket $30, or it goes down and we each pocket $0. In that strong sense, Jeter's strategy and mine are perfectly interchangeable.

Jeter's strategy costs him $12 out of pocket. Therefore my strategy must also cost $12 out of pocket — otherwise, nobody would ever pursue the pricier strategy. Since buying 3 stock options costs $12, the price of a single option must be $4. Problem solved.

As I said above, Landsburg's thought experiment is a simplified version of the general approach to option pricing used in mathematical finance. Newcomers to this field are often stunned to learn that the price of a call option apparently has nothing to do with the likelihood (or "probability" if we are using a formal model) that the underlying asset will attain a very high price by the time the option expires. (Instead, the price of the call option — according to the standard formulas — varies according to the volatility of the underlying stock price.) This is so counterintuitive that option theory is the quantum mechanics of finance.

Before continuing with my critique of Landsburg's demonstration, I should be clear: I am not rejecting the conventional approach to option pricing as useless. It is an important baseline result, and every batch of MBAs (let alone people with PhDs in finance) should understand the formulas and the logic behind their derivation.

What I am saying is that Landsburg is simply wrong when he claims the "amazing fact" that the probabilities of the stock price's future values, and the risk tolerance of the investors, don't matter. They do matter, just as our intuition suggests.[1] The reason Landsburg apparently gets the "correct" price for the stock option using just the interest rate is that he relies on other assumptions about the efficiency of the stock market.

Tweaking the Numbers

The easiest way for me to illustrate the problem with Landsburg's magic trick is to change just one of the original numbers. What would Landsburg think about the following argument?

Imagine a stock that sells for $10 today. A year from now it will be worth either $5 or $9. What would you pay for an option that allows you to buy the stock next year at today's $10 price?

You might think that the "correct" price of the option is $0. Even though you don't know the probability of the stock being $5 or $9 next year, you are certain that it will be less than $10. Under no circumstances, therefore, will the option have any value to you. What good is it to own the right to buy a stock for $10, when at best it will be worth $9 at the time of exercise?

But the amazing fact is that this reasoning is wrong, as I can prove to you once you tell me the interest rate.

Let's assume, for example, that the interest rate happens to be 25%. …

I hope the reader will agree that it would be fruitless to go down this path. Using our "intuition" about pricing options works just fine in an extreme case where the strike price is higher than we think the stock can possibly go.

Now in fairness to Landsburg, I actually can't replicate the remainder of his argument using my tweaked number. The reason is that cousin Jeter will lose different amounts of money depending on the stock price, but you (the option buyer) will lose the same amount in either case, namely what you paid for the option. So there's no way to make your strategy equivalent to Jeter's, and so Landsburg could understandably argue that my scenario doesn't really affect the validity of his demonstration.

After this warm-up, let's really go to the heart of the problem with Landsburg's discussion.

Landsburg Assumes "Correct Price" Is the Same as "Arbitrage-Free Price"

Let's return to Landsburg's original numbers. Recall that there is a stock that will be worth either $5 or $20 in one year, and that the interest rate is 25 percent. Landsburg asked, "What would you pay" for a call option on that stock?

Just for the sake of argument, suppose we do have the extra information about probabilities and risk tolerance. Specifically, assume that the probability of the stock being $5 is 100 percent, and the probability of it being $20 is 0 percent. (If you think that's cheating, set the probability of the stock being $5 to 99.999 percent, and the probability of it being $20 at 0.0001 percent, and further assume the investor is risk-neutral.) Clearly, I shouldn't pay anything for that option.

However, unlike our previous tweaking, in this case Landsburg's argument still "works." He never said anything about the respective probabilities of the two outcomes — remember, that was the "amazing fact," that his answer didn't depend on it. So there's no reason it breaks down when the probabilities are 100 percent and 0 percent (or just shy of 100 percent and just above 0 percent, if you prefer).

Specifically, what's going on is that the stock is clearly overvalued right now in the market, when it's selling for $10 even though it is guaranteed to be $5 next year. Cousin Jeter (using the strategy Landsburg outlined) is guaranteed to lose his $12. Therefore, because your buying 3 call options is an equivalent strategy, it must be the case that the options cost $4 each. If they only cost, say, $3, then it would be cheaper to use that route — you'd only be throwing away $9 for sure, instead of throwing away $12 for sure.

Since Landsburg is assuming that arbitrage has eliminated such discrepancies, the only way the current stock price can be held up at the (overvalued) price of $10, is if call options (with a strike price of $10) are held up at the overvalued price of $4. But by no means can we conclude that "you would pay" $4 for an option that you are certain will expire worthless.

We now see how much power was tucked into Landsburg's innocent statements: "Jeter's strategy costs him $12 out of pocket. Therefore my strategy must also cost $12 out of pocket — otherwise, nobody would ever pursue the pricier strategy."

What Landsburg has really shown is that if the stock price is "correct," given investors' beliefs about the probabilities of the future stock price and investor appetite for risk, then we don't need to know those probabilities, or risk appetite, to calculate how much "you would be willing to pay" for a call option.

Conclusion

Landsburg's discussion of option pricing is fine, interpreted correctly. But whether he realizes it or not, his "lesson" is very misleading. All he has done is show that certain prices must bear a particular relationship to each other, lest arbitrageurs exploit a pure-profit opportunity.

The problem arises when people read too deeply into the significance of these results. For example, one could use an analogous argument to show that "all we need" to price stocks is to look up the interest rate and the price of a call option. We might erroneously conclude that no investor ever needs to worry about what the stock will actually do in the future.

Yet that is absurd; of course investors and speculators in the real world need to form expectations about the future levels of stock prices. It is the seductive elegance of the entire "Efficient Markets" approach that led Landsburg to suggest otherwise.

For those readers who are still unconvinced, let me try the following approach. Landsburg's argument for the pricing of call options is equivalent to this one: "Suppose there is a stock currently selling for $10. You know that next year, it will either be $5 or $20. How much should you pay right now for the stock? You might think the probabilities of the outcomes matter, but they don't. If your cousin Jeter wants to buy the stock, he has to pay $10 for it. That would give him the same outcome as if you bought the stock, and so you should pay $10 too. Problem solved."

If Landsburg had offered the above analysis, the fallacy involved would have been crystal clear. But because of the complicated steps in the linkage to a call option, the fallacy was buried. The whole episode is another illustration of the dangers in reasoning from equilibrium.

Robert Murphy, an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute and a faculty member of the Mises University, runs the blog Free Advice and is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, the Study Guide to Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, the Human Action Study Guide, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal. Send him mail. See Robert P. Murphy's article archives. Comment on the blog.

© 2011 Copyright Ludwig von Mises - All Rights Reserved Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.


© 2005-2019 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.


Post Comment

Only logged in users are allowed to post comments. Register/ Log in

6 Critical Money Making Rules