You're posting the same misinformation on multiple threads. Delta is not stationary. The put and CC are equivalent for the purposes of this discussion (ES options).
I don't agree. Wayne, who replied before you posted a good answer on another chain (paraphrased here): A put is a call and a call is a put - because adding (or subtracting) the underlying converts one to the other. I'm not sure what the correct technical terminology is to explain it (perhaps someone else will) so a wobbly example is the best I can do. If the ATM call has a delta of 55 and the ATM put has a delta of -45, a round lot of the underlying equates them. In a conversion you have: stock +put = call 100 + (-45) = 55 Since the absolute value of the option components equals 100, at -45/55 or -40/60 or whatever, they're still going to be equivalent. There won't be a huge gain from one side over the other.
I see a difference in addition to the number or instrument spreads and their size. There is also the dividend spread. If a dividend is due and I think the market overestimates its size, it seems I should sell puts or buy calls. The converse is true if I think the market underestimates the dividend, no? This is not so relevant for a european exercise or broad index.
Not true. Here is an example--Last year, January 2008, the ES plunged 60 points on MLK's birthday. That Friday, I placed 4 covered puts ATM. After the 60 point plunge, my underlying showed a profit of $12,000.00 and my puts showed a loss of $7,000.00 for a net gain of $5,000.00. Yes, the gain was less than the total premiums received, but there was no way I was waiting until expiration to try to make the extra gains. As things turned out, if I waited, I would have turned a nice gain into a loss. So, with due respect, the math held.
That is not quite correct. Skew is a factor anytime you are buying or selling synthetics vs the vanilla. In fact, to a professional options trader, they can be vastly different.
This is proof of nothing. What does waiting have to do with P-C parity? Price an ES Aug 1010 covered call against a simultaneous ES Aug 1010 naked put. Paper-trade the position and you will see the equivalence, empirically.
Of course, made absurd by the fact he's arguing w/o accounting for the gain on the naked "natural" call.
I can't dispute anything that you say regarding what happens on a professional option traderr level since it's beyond my realm of experience. I'm a lowly retail trader But let me ask this. If the options are priced fairly, aka at theoretical levels, is there a difference in the P&L of a natural versus its synthetic??