CHAPTER 19

The Greek Letters

Practice Questions

19.1
A short position in 1,000 options has a delta of 700 and can be made delta neutral with the
purchase of 700 shares.

19.2
In this case, S0  K , r  01 ,   025 , and T  05 . Also,
ln(S0  K )  (01  0252  2)05
d1   03712
025 05
The delta of the option is N ( d1 ) or 0.64.

19.3
To hedge an option position, it is necessary to create the opposite option position
synthetically. For example, to hedge a long position in a put, it is necessary to create a short
position in a put synthetically. It follows that the procedure for creating an option position
synthetically is the reverse of the procedure for hedging the option position.

19.4
The strategy costs the trader 010 each time the stock is bought or sold. The total expected
cost of the strategy, in present value terms, must be $4. This means that the expected number
of times the stock will be bought or sold is approximately 40. The expected number of times
it will be bought is approximately 20 and the expected number of times it will be sold is also
approximately 20. The buy and sell transactions can take place at any time during the life of
the option. The above numbers are therefore only approximately correct because of the
effects of discounting. Also, the estimate is of the number of times the stock is bought or sold
in the risk-neutral world, not the real world.

19.5
The holding of the stock at any given time must be N(d1). Hence, the stock is bought just after
the price has risen and sold just after the price has fallen. (This is the buy high sell low
strategy referred to in the text.) In the first scenario, the stock is continually bought. In the
second scenario, the stock is bought, sold, bought again, sold again, etc. The final holding is
the same in both scenarios. The buy, sell, buy, sell... situation clearly leads to higher costs
than the buy, buy, buy... situation. This problem emphasizes one disadvantage of creating
options synthetically. Whereas the cost of an option that is purchased is known up front and
depends on the forecasted volatility, the cost of an option that is created synthetically is not
known up front and depends on the volatility actually encountered.

19.6
The delta of a European futures call option is usually defined as the rate of change of the
option price with respect to the futures price (not the spot price). It is
e rT N (d1 )
In this case, F0  8 , K  8 , r  012 ,   018 , T  06667
ln(8  8)  (0182  2)  06667
d1   00735
018 06667
N (d1 )  05293 and the delta of the option is
e01206667  05293  04886
The delta of a short position in 1,000 futures options is therefore 4886 .

19.7
In order to answer this problem, it is important to distinguish between the rate of change of
the option with respect to the futures price and the rate of change of its price with respect to
the spot price.
The former will be referred to as the futures delta; the latter will be referred to as the spot
delta. The futures delta of a nine-month futures contract to buy one ounce of silver is by
definition 1.0. Hence, from the answer to Problem 19.6, a long position in nine-month futures
on 488.6 ounces is necessary to hedge the option position.
The spot delta of a nine-month futures contract is e012075  1094 assuming no storage costs.
(This is because silver can be treated in the same way as a non-dividend-paying stock when
there are no storage costs. F0  S0erT so that the spot delta is the futures delta times erT )
Hence, the spot delta of the option position is 4886 1094  5346 . Thus, a long position
in 534.6 ounces of silver is necessary to hedge the option position.
The spot delta of a one-year silver futures contract to buy one ounce of silver is
e012  11275 . Hence, a long position in e012  5346  4741 ounces of one-year silver
futures is necessary to hedge the option position.

19.8
A long position in either a put or a call option has a positive gamma. From Figure 19.8, when
gamma is positive, the hedger gains from a large change in the stock price and loses from a
small change in the stock price. Hence the hedger will fare better in case (b).

19.9
A short position in either a put or a call option has a negative gamma. From Figure 19.8,
when gamma is negative, the hedger gains from a small change in the stock price and loses
from a large change in the stock price. Hence, the hedger will fare better in case (a).

19.10
In this case, S0  080 , K  081 , r  008 , rf  005 ,   015 , T  05833
ln(080  081)   008  005  0152  2   05833
d1   01016
015 05833
d 2  d1  015 05833  00130

N(d1)=0.5405; N(d2)=0.4948
 rf T
The delta of one call option is e N (d1 )  e00505833  05405  05250 .
1 d 2 1 000516
N (d1 )    03969
2
e 1
e
2 2
so that the gamma of one call option is
 r T
N (d1 )e f 03969  09713
  4206
S0 T 080  015  05833
The vega of one call option is
r T
S0 T N (d1 )e f  080 05833  03969  09713  02355
The theta of one call option is
r T
S0 N (d1 ) e f r T
  rf S0 N (d1 )e f  rKe  rT N (d 2 )
2 T
08  03969  015  09713

2 05833
005  08  05405  09713  008  081 09544  04948
 00399
The rho of one call option is
KTe rT N (d 2 )
 081 05833  09544  04948
 02231

Delta can be interpreted as meaning that, when the spot price increases by a small amount
(measured in cents), the value of an option to buy one yen increases by 0.525 times that
amount. Gamma can be interpreted as meaning that, when the spot price increases by a small
amount (measured in cents), the delta increases by 4.206 times that amount. Vega can be
interpreted as meaning that, when the volatility (measured in decimal form) increases by a
small amount, the option’s value increases by 0.2355 times that amount. When volatility
increases by 1% (= 0.01), the option price increases by 0.002355. Theta can be interpreted as
meaning that, when a small amount of time (measured in years) passes, the option’s value
decreases by 0.0399 times that amount. In particular, when one calendar day passes, it
decreases by 00399  365  0000109 . Finally, rho can be interpreted as meaning that, when
the interest rate (measured in decimal form) increases by a small amount, the option’s value
increases by 0.2231 times that amount. When the interest rate increases by 1% (= 0.01), the
options value increases by 0.002231.

19.11
Assume that S 0 , K , r ,  , T , q are the parameters for the option held and S 0 , K  , r ,  ,
T  , q are the parameters for another option. Suppose that d1 has its usual meaning and is
calculated on the basis of the first set of parameters while d1 is the value of d1 calculated on
the basis of the second set of parameters. Suppose further that w of the second option are
held for each of the first option held. The gamma of the portfolio is:
 N (d )e qT N (d1 )e qT 


 1
w 
 S0 T S0 T  
where  is the number of the first option held.
Since we require gamma to be zero,

N (d1 )e q (T T ) T 
w
N (d1 ) T
The vega of the portfolio is
  
)
  S0 T N (d1 )e q (T )  wS0 T  N (d1 )e q (T 



Since we require vega to be zero,


T N (d1 )e  q (T T )
w 
T N (d1 )
Equating the two expressions for w
T  T
Hence, the maturity of the option held must equal the maturity of the option used for hedging.

19.12
The fund is worth $300,000 times the value of the index. When the value of the portfolio falls
by 5% (to $342 million), the value of the index also falls by 5% to 1140. The fund manager
therefore requires European put options on 300,000 times the index with exercise price 1140.

a) S0  1200 , K  1140 , r  006 ,   030 , T  050 and q  003 . Hence,

ln(1200  1140)   006  003  032  2   05
d1   04186
03 05
d 2  d1  03 05  02064

N (d1 )  06622 N (d2 )  05818

N (d1 )  03378 N (d2 )  04182

The value of one put option is
1140e rT N (d 2 )  1200e  qT N (d1 )
 1140e 00605  04182  1200e00305  03378
 6340

The total cost of the insurance is therefore,

300 000  6340  $19 020 000

b) From put–call parity

S0e qT  p  c  Ke rT

or,
p  c  S0e qT  Ke rT

This shows that a put option can be created by selling (or shorting) e  qT of the index,
buying a call option and investing the remainder at the risk-free rate of interest. Applying
this to the situation under consideration, the fund manager should:
1. Sell 360e00305  $35464 million of stock.
2. Buy call options on 300,000 times the index with exercise price 1140 and
maturity in six months.
3. Invest the remaining cash at the risk-free interest rate of 6% per annum.
This strategy gives the same result as buying put options directly.
c) The delta of one put option is
e  qT [ N (d1 )  1]
 e 00305 (06622  1)
03327

This indicates that 33.27% of the portfolio (i.e., $119.77 million) should be initially sold
and invested in risk-free securities.
d) The delta of a nine-month index futures contract is
e( r q )T  e003075  1023

The spot short position required is

119 770 000
 99 808
1200

times the index. Hence, a short position in

99 808
 390
1023  250

futures contracts is required.

19.13
When the value of the portfolio goes down 5% in six months, the total return from the
portfolio, including dividends, in the six months is
5  2  3%
that is, 6% per annum. This is 12% per annum less than the risk-free interest rate. Since the
portfolio has a beta of 1.5, we would expect the market to provide a return of 8% per annum
less than the risk-free interest rate; that is, we would expect the market to provide a return of
2% per annum. Since dividends on the market index are 3% per annum, we would expect
the market index to have dropped at the rate of 5% per annum or 2.5% per six months; that is,
we would expect the market to have dropped to 1170. A total of 450 000  (15  300 000)
put options on the index with exercise price 1170 and exercise date in six months are
therefore required.

a) S0  1200 , K  1170 , r  006 ,   03 , T  05 and q  003 . Hence,

ln(1200  1170)   006  003  009  2   05
d1   02961
03 05
d 2  d1  03 05  00840

N (d1 )  06164 N (d2 )  05335

N (d1 )  03836 N (d2 )  04665

The value of one put option is
Ke  rT N (d 2 )  S0e  qT N (d1 )
 1170e 00605  04665  1200e00305  03836
 7628
 The total cost of the insurance is therefore,
450 000  7628  $34 326 000
Note that this is significantly greater than the cost of the insurance in Problem 19.12.

b) As in Problem 19.12, the fund manager can 1) sell $354.64 million of stock, 2) buy call
options on 450,000 times the index with exercise price 1170 and exercise date in six
months, and 3) invest the remaining cash at the risk-free interest rate.

c) The portfolio is 50% more volatile than the index. When the insurance is considered as an
option on the portfolio, the parameters are as follows: S 0  360 , K  342 , r  006 ,
  045 , T  05 and q  004
ln(360  342)   006  004  0452  2   05
d1   03517
045 05

N (d1 )  06374
The delta of the option is
e  qT [ N (d1 )  1]
 e 00405 (06374  1)
 0355
This indicates that 35.5% of the portfolio (i.e., $127.8 million) should be sold and
invested in riskless securities.

d) We now return to the situation considered in (a) where put options on the index are
required. The delta of each put option is
e  qT ( N (d1 )  1)
 e 00305 (06164  1)
 03779
The delta of the total position required in put options is 450 000  03779  170 000 .
The delta of a nine month index futures is (see Problem 19.12) 1.023. Hence, a short
position in
170 000
 665
1023  250
index futures contracts.

19.14
a) For a call option on a non-dividend-paying stock,
  N (d1 )
N (d1 )

S0 T
S N (d1 )
 0  rKe  rT N (d 2 )
2 T
Hence, the left-hand side of equation (19.4) is:
 S0 N (d1 ) 1 N (d1 )
  rKe rT N (d 2 )  rS0 N (d1 )   S0
2 T 2 T
 rT
 r[ S0 N (d1 )  Ke N (d 2 )]
 r

b) For a put option on a non-dividend-paying stock,

  N (d1 )  1   N ( d1 )
N (d1 )

S0 T
S N (d1 )
 0  rKe rT N ( d 2 )
2 T
Hence, the left-hand side of equation (19.4) is:
S N (d1 ) 1 N (d1 )
 0  rKe rT N (d 2 )  rS0 N (d1 )   S0
2 T 2 T
 rT
 r[ Ke N (d 2 )  S0 N (d1 )]
 r

c) For a portfolio of options,  ,  ,  and  are the sums of their values for the
individual options in the portfolio. It follows that equation (19.4) is true for any
portfolio of European put and call options.

19.15
A currency is analogous to a stock paying a continuous dividend yield at rate r f . The
differential equation for a portfolio of derivatives dependent on a currency is (see equation
17.6)
  1 2 2  2
 ( r  rf ) S   S  r
t S 2 S 2
Hence,
1
  ( r  rf ) S    2 S 2   r 
2
Similarly, for a portfolio of derivatives dependent on a futures price, F (see equation 18.6)
1
   2 F 2  r
2

19.16
We can regard the position of all portfolio insurers taken together as a single put option. The
three known parameters of the option, before the 23% decline, are S 0  70 , K  665 , T  1 .
Other parameters can be estimated as r  006 ,   025 and q  003 . Then:
ln(70  665)  (006  003  0252  2)
d1   04502
025

N (d1 )  06737
The delta of the option is
 e  qT [ N (d1 )  1]
 e 003 (06737  1)
 03167
This shows that 31.67% or $22.17 billion of assets should have been sold before the decline.
These numbers can also be produced from DerivaGem by selecting Underlying Type and
Index and Option Type as Black–Scholes European.
After the decline, S0  539 , K  665 , T  1 , r  006 ,   025 and q  003 .
ln(539  665)  (006  003  0252  2)
d1   05953
025
N (d1 )  02758
The delta of the option has dropped to
e00305 (02758  1)
 07028
This shows that cumulatively 70.28% of the assets originally held should be sold. An
additional 38.61% of the original portfolio should be sold. The sales measured at pre-crash
prices are about $27.0 billion. At post-crash prices, they are about $20.8 billion.

19.17
With our usual notation, the value of a forward contract on the asset is S0e qT  Ke rT . When
there is a small change, S , in S 0 the value of the forward contract changes by e qT S . The
delta of the forward contract is therefore e  qT . The futures price is S0e( r q )T . When there is a
small change, S , in S 0 the futures price changes by Se( r q )T . Given the daily settlement
procedures in futures contracts, this is also the immediate change in the wealth of the holder
of the futures contract. The delta of the futures contract is therefore e( r  q )T . We conclude that
the deltas of a futures and forward contract are not the same. The delta of the futures is
greater than the delta of the corresponding forward by a factor of erT . (Business Snapshot 5.2
is related to this question.)

19.18
The delta indicates that when the value of the exchange rate increases by $0.01, the value of
the bank’s position increases by 001 30 000  $300 . The gamma indicates that when the
exchange rate increases by $0.01, the delta of the portfolio decreases by 001 80 000  800 .
For delta neutrality, 30,000 CAD should be shorted. When the exchange rate moves up to
0.93, we expect the delta of the portfolio to decrease by (093  090)  80 000  2 400 so that
it becomes 27,600. To maintain delta neutrality, it is therefore necessary for the bank to
unwind its short position 2,400 CAD so that a net 27,600 have been shorted. As shown in the
text (see Figure 19.8), when a portfolio is delta neutral and has a negative gamma, a loss is
experienced when there is a large movement in the underlying asset price. We can conclude
that the bank is likely to have lost money.

19.19
(a) For a non-dividend paying stock, put–call parity gives at a general time t :
p  S  c  Ke  r (T t )

Differentiating with respect to S :

 p c
1 
S S
or
p c
 1
S S
This shows that the delta of a European put equals the delta of the corresponding
European call less 1.0.

(b) Differentiating with respect to S again

 2 p  2c

S 2 S 2
Hence, the gamma of a European put equals the gamma of a European call.

(c) Differentiating the put–call parity relationship with respect to 

p c

 
showing that the vega of a European put equals the vega of a European call.

(d) Differentiating the put–call parity relationship with respect to t

p c
 rKe  r (T t ) 
t t
This is in agreement with the thetas of European calls and puts given in Section 19.5
since N (d2 )  1  N (d2 ) .

19.20
The delta of the portfolio is
1 000  050  500  080  2 000  (040)  500  070  450
The gamma of the portfolio is
1 000  22  500  06  2 000 13  500 18  6 000
The vega of the portfolio is
1 000 18  500  02  2 000  07  500 14  4 000

(a) A long position in 4,000 traded options will give a gamma-neutral portfolio since the long
position has a gamma of 4 000 15  6 000 . The delta of the whole portfolio (including
traded options) is then:
4 000  06  450  1 950
Hence, in addition to the 4,000 traded options, a short position of 1,950 in sterling is
necessary so that the portfolio is both gamma and delta neutral.
(b) A long position in 5,000 traded options will give a vega-neutral portfolio since the long
position has a vega of 5 000  08  4 000 . The delta of the whole portfolio (including
traded options) is then
5 000  06  450  2 550
Hence, in addition to the 5,000 traded options, a short position of 2,550 in sterling is
necessary so that the portfolio is both vega and delta neutral.

19.21
Let w1 be the position in the first traded option and w2 be the position in the second traded
option. We require:
6 000  15w1  05w2

4 000  08w1  06w2

The solution to these equations can easily be seen to be w1  3 200 , w2  2 400 . The whole
portfolio then has a delta of
450  3 200  06  2 400  01  1 710

Therefore, the portfolio can be made delta, gamma and vega neutral by taking a long position
in 3,200 of the first traded option, a long position in 2,400 of the second traded option, and a
short position of 1,710 in sterling.

19.22
The product provides a six-month return equal to
max (0 04 R)
where R is the return on the index. Suppose that S 0 is the current value of the index and ST
is the value in six months.
When an amount A is invested, the return received at the end of six months is:
S  S0
A max (0 04 T )
S0
0 4 A
 max (0 ST  S0 )
S0
This is 04 A  S 0 of at-the-money European call options on the index. With the usual
notation, they have value:
04 A
[ S0e qT N (d1 )  S0e  rT N (d 2 )]
S0
 04 A[e qT N (d1 )  e rT N (d 2 )]
In this case, r  008 ,   025 , T  050 and q  003

d1 
 008  003  025 2
 2  050
 02298
025 050
d 2  d1  025 050  00530

N (d1 )  05909 N (d2 )  05212

The value of the European call options being offered is
04 A(e00305  05909  e00805  05212)
 00325 A
This is the present value of the payoff from the product. If an investor buys the product, the
investor avoids having to pay 00325A at time zero for the underlying option. The cash flows
to the investor are therefore,
Time 0:−A+0.0325A=−0.9675A
After six months:  A
The return with continuous compounding is 2ln(1  09675)  0066 or 6.6% per annum. The
product is therefore slightly less attractive than a risk-free investment.
19.23
(a)
F  d12  2
FN (d1 )  e
2

K  ( d12  2) d1 T  2T  2

KN (d 2 )  KN (d1   T )  e
2
Because d1 T  ln( F  K )   2T  2 , the second equation reduces to
K  ( d12  2) ln ( F  K ) F  d12  2
KN (d 2 )  e  e
2 2
The result follows.

(b)
c d d
 e  rT N (d1 )  e  rT FN (d1 ) 1  e  rT KN (d 2 ) 2
F F F
Because
d1 d 2

F F
it follows from the result in (a) that
c
 e  rT N (d1 )
F

(c)
c d d
 e  rT FN (d1 ) 1  e  rT KN (d 2 ) 2
  
Because d1  d2   T
d1 d 2
  T
 
From the result in (a), it follows that
c
 e  rT FN (d1 ) T


(d)
Rho is given by
c
 Te  rT [ FN (d1 )  KN (d 2 )]]
r
or cT .

Because q  r in the case of a futures option there are two components to rho. One arises
from differentiation with respect to r , the other from differentiation with respect to q .

19.24
For the option considered in Section 19.1, S 0  49 , K  50 , r  005 ,   020 , and
T  20  52 . DerivaGem shows that   0011795  365  4305 ,   05216 ,
  0065544 ,   24005 . The left hand side of equation (19.4)
 1
4305  005  49  05216   02 2  49 2  0065544  0120
2
The right hand side is
005  24005  0120
This shows that the result in equation (19.4) is satisfied.