Mispricing of Index Options with Respect to Stochastic Dominance Bounds? A Reply

2021

Closed access Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.1561/104.00000090
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Constantinides and Perrakis (2002, 2007) derive a lower bound on the price of an option such that an investor increases her utility by buying the option at the ask price if the ask price is lower than the lower bound; and by writing the option at the bid price if the bid price is higher than upper bound. Contrary to the evidence in Constantinides et al. (2009, 2011) who demonstrate several violations of mainly the upper bound on call prices and document a tradable anomaly by exploiting this mispricing, Wallmeier (2020) claims that practically all options on the S&P 500, Eurostoxx 50, and DAX indices lie within the bounds. The main reason for the discrepancy is that Wallmeier erroneously inflates the volatility input to the bounds by about 2% by using the at-the-money implied volatility which is approximately the risk-neutral volatility instead of the physical volatility, as required by the model.