Vertical Spreads for Aggressive Growth

Discussion in 'Journals' started by Cache Landing, Jan 27, 2006.

  1. jychiu

    jychiu

    Thank you for the response.

    Yes, do provide some writeup on the summary when you find time to do that. Thank you again in advance.

     
    #1121     Sep 22, 2006
  2. Looks like someone studied physics a little bit. Indeed, the method for determining gamma as a function of delta, is the same as determining acceleration as a function of velocity.

    I would just bring up one consideration that I think is often overlooked in trading. Your speed (or in vector terms velocity) acceleration analogy helps to point out the oversight.

    When a dumb kid is racing his car and he is currently at 120mph, you might hear him say that he wants to go 20mph faster. You'll likely not hear him say that he wants to go 20% faster. He is viewing an increase in velocity in absolute terms rather than in relative terms.

    So it is with many traders. They focus on the absolute value of credit recieved or gain achieved, rather than the value relative to the risk taken. If I told you I got a $2.50 credit on a vertical it might sound good until you find out that the spread was 50-points wide.

    Many times when I ask someone which will make money faster, ITM calls or OTM calls, the quick response is that ITM calls will make money faster due to the higher deltas. Anyone who trades options knows that with a positive print OTM calls actually make money faster, ceteris paribus.

    I bring up the consideration here in light of vertical spreads. In relative terms an OTM credit vertical becomes less appealing with a favourable move and more appealing with an adverse move. Just something to consider when deciding how to open/close a position.
     
    #1122     Sep 22, 2006
  3. scienter

    scienter

    Can someone tell me why their is more premium attached to ITM Oct SPY calls right now than puts?

    For example, with the SPY at approx. 131.5 this afternoon, the 135 puts were selling at 3.6 (a .10 premium) and the 128 calls were at 4.6 (a 1.10 premium to the market). That's a difference of a buck!!

    I checked the IV for each instrument as well...the calls were approx 14 and the puts at 12. Does this small difference in IV account for such a large pricing discrepancy between the two? Or is their something else going on here, that as a relatively new options trader I'm missing?

    Thanks
     
    #1123     Sep 22, 2006
  4. Do not know the answer but the difference between 12 and 14 is not small. That is a 16% skew!



     
    #1124     Sep 22, 2006
  5. This is the whole basis for the Ansbacher Index. Discussed on OC's thread a while back.

    http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1011828&highlight=ansbacher+index#post1011828

    Essentially it shows a bias in market direction. Some people attempt to use this to predict market direction. The Ansbacher Index is actually a contrarian indicator.
     
    #1125     Sep 22, 2006
  6. scienter

    scienter

    Coach,

    What would account for the difference in IV between the calls and the puts? Doesn't volatility take into account both the call and the put side in its calculation?

    I'm going to be pissed if that call I bought as the market closed today loses the dollar premium over the weekend.
     
    #1126     Sep 22, 2006
  7. tplast

    tplast


    IV is unique for each contract. And IV and price are not independent. You can enter IV into the model and get price or you can enter price and get IV. That's why it's called implied volatility - it is implied by the price.

    IV goes up/down because of demand/supply.
     
    #1127     Sep 22, 2006
  8. According to a basic options pricing calculator, given the volatility that you stated, the correct pricing should have been

    128 calls = 4.6
    135 puts = 3.75

    [edit] So essentially your calls were correctly priced and I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. :p
     
    #1128     Sep 22, 2006
  9. tplast

    tplast

    But that only means that the calculator is correct :)
     
    #1129     Sep 22, 2006
  10. Hey, we have to make assumptions somewhere.:D

    [edit] What I meant was that market is unlikely to take $1.00 of his credit away from him over the weekend. They would have to have a big change of heart.
     
    #1130     Sep 22, 2006