You would need to know implied volatility for a given delta. If you can't get it, you won't be able to use the previous formula.
This is a "reasonable" measure.
To get a âpureâ linear exposure to the skew, a simple ( var swap â gamma swap ) spread would be « reasonable » enough. You then just...
You may be right Martin. Of course those various points are all well-known, that's what makes me get started. Anyway, My bad.
No Robert, It would be a 25% chance if the underlying followed a brownian motion and it had a drift that equals cost of carry. And it's wrong in...
Sorry If Iâve been rude, « big swinging dick », « bullshit », ....were not part of my words, but I will improve myself. Let me be clear...
You may be right Martin. My point was just to say that delta is not a probability at all, and I thought that could be helpful for newbies....
The same way you're going to share Fields Medal with sle.
No !
+1
You can call every friend you got : a delta is not a probability. Is it clear ?
An answer ? Maybe not.
Quote me, you be safer.
Keep editing you're missing the point. An answer maybe ?
Please could you elaborate, it's starting to be funny. Do you thing that delta is a probability (because that's OP's question, remember ) ?
As an experienced exotics book runner would you claim that the delta of a down and out call that could be much higher than 100% remains a...
Both ! As far as + and â are quite different signs, and in a pure BS : Delta is N(d1) with d1=[log(S/K)+ (r-d + 0.5.vol.vol)(T-t)] /...
Guess what, try this on a Single Stock Future on Lehman or MFGlobal ! For sure, 100% in the money !
Where on earth does it mean you can tell them something that is clearly not true using sources which are far from being reliable ?
Need to know the difference between risk neutral probabilities and the real ones. That's dual delta. There is no "correct, exact calculation for...
Separate names with a comma.