As far as I can tell, DeltaNeutral does not take estimated forward dividends into account in its greek calcs. Nothing else can explain why, e.g., SPX implied forwards are so far off.
As far as I know SPX does not track dividends.
As far as I can tell, DeltaNeutral does not take estimated forward dividends into account in its greek calcs. Nothing else can explain why, e.g., SPX implied forwards are so far off.
No, I have not (though I have heard that their infrastructure has improved significantly). Maybe I will check it out tomorrow. I do have access to BBG options database and their vols/greeks are fairly accurate.Have you looked at the Bloomberg BVOL package? I was on help help yesterday and they showed me some nifty things.
S&P index is a market-cap weighted based of stock and those stocks do pay dividends. The S&P futures basis (i.e. the difference between the spot index and the futures price) exists partly because of the expected dividends. Even though the futures and/or options do not pay dividends, index arbitrageurs make sure that the dividend expectations are in-line.As far as I know SPX does not track dividends.
No, I have not (though I have heard that their infrastructure has improved significantly). Maybe I will check it out tomorrow. I do have access to BBG options database and their vols/greeks are fairly accurate.
The S&P futures basis (i.e. the difference between the spot index and the futures price) exists partly because of the expected dividends. Even though the futures does not pay dividends, index arbitrageurs make sure that the dividend expectations are in-line.
Right. I will definitely check it out when I get a chance.For example, they can plot implied vs realized correlation. The numbers seemed low (.2 realized corr) but my mental calibration might be off.
I do NOT have access to BVOL, and am curious of the precise references for implied and realized you mention! Are they using series IV or ATM IV, or something else? .2 - .28 seems to be close if using Series IV, but is tighter correlation if using ATM IV (for interval samples > a few months). Kinda curious what they are measuring.BVOL might be the same thing. For example, they can plot implied vs realized correlation. The numbers seemed low (.2 realized corr) but my mental calibration might be off.
When you mean "series", do you mean closest-to-atm fixed strike? I.e. approximately index implied over mean single implied or do you mean something else?I do NOT have access to BVOL, and am curious of the precise references for implied and realized you mention! Are they using series IV or ATM IV, or something else? .2 - .28 seems to be close if using Series IV, but is tighter correlation if using ATM IV (for interval samples > a few months). Kinda curious what they are measuring.
When you mean "series", do you mean closest-to-atm fixed strike? I.e. approximately index implied over mean single implied or do you mean something else?
It's actually a tricky question, as both implied and realized correlations are multiply defined. For example, if you are using ex-post analysis, you have a choice of realized Pearson correlation (which would have little to do with your dispersion PnL), weighted vol/vol relationship (i.e. replication-inspired correlation) or actual dispersion PnL (which will naturally be weighted by gamma).
Oh, I see. We are discussing the correlation between different stocks in the S&P basket as it's implied by the ratio of implied volatilities. In short, you can take the implied volatility of S&P, divide it by the weighted average implied vol of the component stocks which would give you the market's expectation of correlation (*). Then you can compare it with the actual correlation realized in the market. Sounds easy enough, but the devil is in the details.After your reference to "tricky" ... I lost traction as you are referring to things that may be above my pay-grade! I did some simple studies to merely observe Actual Realized Volatility of SPX and compared with the above referenced "Series IV" to find the rough correlation of between 20-28% over multiple year and multiple month timeframes. No rocket science, but "seat of the pants" observations. Noting the value of the ATM IV being a much closer fit, and a cleaner representation of where the money is pointing (for Volatility) caused me to change my Forward looking Volatility of the underlying metric to simply the ATM IV using the series with the appropriate timeframe.