### Author Topic: Delta-Gamma-Theta Approximation  (Read 2945 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### CRS245

• *Senior Staff
• MVP
• Join Date: Jan 2009
• Posts: 30188
• Bonus inPoints: 27

• Fantasy Sport:
##### Delta-Gamma-Theta Approximation
« on: March 23, 2010, 08:50:52 PM »

## Delta-Gamma-Theta Approximation

The definition of the Taylor Series is:

$f(x)=f(x_0)+f'(x_0)(x-x_0)+\frac{1}{2}f''(x_0)(x-x_0)^2+\ldots$

Let's do some one-to-one substitutions to make the Taylor Series fit our subject, option pricing.  Let  $x=S_t$ and $E=S_t-S_0$  then if the "output" is the Option Price ($f(x)=C(s_t)$), the 1st derivative with respect to stock price will be Delta and the 2nd derivative with respect to stock price will be Gamma.  The infinite amount of terms following the 3rd term would, in most cases, be relatively small.  Therefore, in this case, those terms can be replaced by one simple error term.

Rewriting the Taylor Series equation gives us:

$C(S_t)=S_0+\Delta E + \frac{1}{2}\Gamma E^2 + \text{error term}$

Example
Using the same parameters from the 2nd example, estimate the change in call's value if the stock price increases to 210.

Recall that $S_0=200, r=0.05,\sigma=0.2$  and $\Delta=0.8554$ , so the approximate value of the call is:

$C(S_t)=C(S_0)+\Delta E + \frac{1}{2}\Gamma E^2$
$C(S_t)=27.95+0.8554(10)+0.5\Gamma(100)=36.504+50\Gamma$

The value of the call is highly dependent upon Gamma, the 2nd derivative of option price with respect to stock price.  Concavity and convexity will only forecast if the stock will level off or change even more in value, so those aspects of Calculus are important for forecasting stock prices.  What can we expect Gamma to be in this example?

There really isn't enough information given to calculate or predict the Gamma.  All that we know is that Gamma will be the same whether it is a call or a put.  Assuming Gamma to be zero makes the option follow a more linear pattern which is not a good estimation of the option itself, so an arbitrarily small value for Gamma will suffice.

Let's assume that:  $\Gamma=0.02$

$36.504+50\Gamma=37.504$

The call value is expected to increase by 9.554, which is less than 10, the change in stock price.  This follows the laws of arbitrage and the increase in the call can be expected with the increase in the stock price.

The Error Term in Hedging
The approximation used in the last example is actually Delta-Gamma approximation.  To apply Delta-Gamma-Theta approximations to option values, the parameter of time must be introduced to the equation.  Specifically, the Greek of Theta must be used.  The additional error term, albeit small, will most often reduce the approximate option value because Theta is usually negative.  Why is Theta usually negative?  Theta measures the increase in option price with respect to the decrease in time to maturity, and options increase in value as maturity time increases due to extra room for volatility.

Less maturity time => Lower variance => Decreased expected value

The error term is measured in days, and time in the Delta-Gamma-Theta approximation is measured in years, so in order to keep all time variables equal, it must be converted like so:

$C(S_t)=S_0+\Delta E+\frac{1}{2}\Gamma E^2 + \frac{t\theta}{365}$

The number of days in a year is a matter of convention.  The banker may use 360 days whereas the actuary would use 365.25 days.  The investor may use actual number of days, 365 or 366, depending whether the current year is a leap year or not.

### References

W. McDonald, R.L., Derivatives Markets (Second Edition), Addison Wesley, 2006

### Contributors

Colby
« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 06:35:16 PM by Colby »
Learn about inPoints and the Invitationals.

### Quick Profile

Did you miss your activation email?

### Chat Room

• OUDAN: That AFC is nasty!!!!
Today at 02:05:50 AM
• Brent: I had Kyle beat, till the YAC posted, and then I lost by 1 point.
Today at 02:06:08 AM
• Orange Country: would move Derrick Johnson as well
Today at 02:06:12 AM
• OUDAN: Blown away no one needs a legit S though
Today at 02:06:16 AM
• Scalious: Don't you love that, YAC coming in a day after
Today at 02:07:22 AM
• Scalious: WOW.. KC is killing it tonight
Today at 02:08:23 AM
• Scalious: AFC west gonna have half the picks for the draft.
Today at 02:09:08 AM
• Jonathan: I think they would of still won minus all those points.
Today at 02:09:17 AM
• Scalious: Gonna be a fun division to compete in after manning retires.
Today at 02:11:39 AM
• Orange Country: Got Alex Smith and Derrick Johnson up for trade
Today at 02:11:42 AM
• OUDAN: Jonathan mail
Today at 02:12:26 AM
• OUDAN: I want Houston lol
Today at 02:13:29 AM
• Orange Country: If you had more picks Sooner, I'd consider dealing him
Today at 02:14:23 AM
• Jonathan: Do I dare ask Dan if he has any picks?
Today at 02:14:41 AM
• Jonathan: lol
Today at 02:14:53 AM
• OUDAN: Nope lol
Today at 02:15:00 AM
• Orange Country: 2 huge deals done tonight, gonna deal Alex Smith at least before the deadline hits
Today at 02:15:01 AM
• Lindner: That Charles trade. Dang
Today at 02:15:09 AM
• Orange Country: he has 1 left, just looked a 6th
Today at 02:15:11 AM
• OUDAN: Oh wow lol
Today at 02:15:25 AM
• Scalious: Yeah...I'm jelly
Today at 02:16:26 AM
• Orange Country: Sooner, it's too bad you are not in EGDL or BT, I'm here to make teams better, I love to deal
Today at 02:16:32 AM
• Orange Country: you do too, perhaps we will do 1 in NFLC 1 day, I remember our day of doing 3 in NE way back in the day
Today at 02:17:02 AM
• Lindner: I am too.  I love that deal for Reid.  Not going to lie.
Today at 02:17:07 AM
• Scalious: Better keep it Sooner...
Today at 02:17:12 AM
• OUDAN: Lol
Today at 02:17:17 AM
• Brent: I should've accepted a version of that package days ago...
Today at 02:17:17 AM
• Orange Country: Brent text
Today at 02:18:18 AM
• Jonathan: It might of got vetoed?
Today at 02:18:40 AM
• Lindner: Best part about the deal is that all of those picks should be in the first half of the first.  Too bad Reid couldn't get Scal's pick, too.
Today at 02:19:40 AM
• Brent: Who knows it would've had to get voted on.
Today at 02:21:05 AM
• OUDAN: 1 more deal and I think I'm done as crazy as that sounds
Today at 02:22:02 AM
• Jonathan: Cleveland and Kansas - Blockbuster/Crazy Deal
Today at 02:22:22 AM
• Scalious: BUF and CLE probalby will..but are you saying Sooners team sucks Nick?
Today at 02:29:44 AM
• Orange Country: time to pop a cold one
Today at 02:30:02 AM
• Scalious: Oh NM.. its SD first
Today at 02:30:33 AM
• Lindner: I didn't know his pick was involved in the deal!
Today at 02:31:23 AM
• Lindner: C'mon, Pat!
Today at 02:31:37 AM
• Orange Country: Nick, are you gonna faint
Today at 02:31:51 AM
• Orange Country: you might weigh 100 lbs so who knows
Today at 02:32:03 AM
• Jonathan: haha better chance when he is not involved in trade.
Today at 02:32:09 AM
• Lindner: Wahh?
Today at 02:33:00 AM
• Jonathan: Dan, I will get back to you, got a few things to knock out, probably respond tom.
Today at 02:33:08 AM
• Jonathan: Dan is out of picks, so he cant deal any.
Today at 02:33:42 AM
• Scalious: No.. CLE has DAL 1st now. I assumed that was one of the 1st. But CLE actually kept that one
Today at 02:34:38 AM
• Scalious: So..is everyone scared to vote on that trade or something?
Today at 02:37:28 AM