Markets (options) efficiency

Quote from gkishot:

I am wondering why in your view it will end up flat? Short or long straddle is not necessarily flat at the expiration.

I am not sure if I undestand your question ; what do you mean by not necessarily flat ?
 
By flat I mean neither positive or negative. In other words flat means zero.

Isn't that what you mean by flat in your previous post?

<B>
hehe …nice try , atty. I think results will be flat/neither…And btw , I am both long and short…just depends WHICH ones.
</B>

By results I understand the straddle values at the expiration. By flat I understand the total values will be 0.
 
Quote from gkishot:

By flat I mean neither positive or negative. In other words flat means zero.

Isn't that what you mean by flat in your previous post?

<B>
hehe …nice try , atty. I think results will be flat/neither…And btw , I am both long and short…just depends WHICH ones.
</B>

By results I understand the straddle values at the expiration. By flat I understand the total values will be 0.

Oh , I see. I meant that sum of all intrinsic values at expiration will be equal to initial premium received (or paid) , which was 6100$. BTW , the total bid/ask spread is around 250$ (1250 stocks * 20c per straddle) , so b/e for retail “longs” is 6100$ and for “shorts” is 5850$
 
May I ask you a question. In what way your simulation is different from simply selling a straddle on s&p 500 ( at the current market price ) and buying the s&p 500 strangle ( with the call above and the put below the market price )? How far apart are this 2 simulations? Does it play any role in the final results the fact that the long strangle is not at the market price?
 
Quote from IV_Trader:

week end 2/22

Starting total premium = 6084$ (intrinsic = zero)
Current total premium = 5926$ (intrinsic = 1788)

- 3%


week end 2/29


Starting total premium = 6084$ (intrinsic = zero)
Current total premium = 5638$ (intrinsic = 2911)

-7%
 
Quote from IV_Trader:

week end 2/29


Starting total premium = 6084$ (intrinsic = zero)
Current total premium = 5638$ (intrinsic = 2911)

-7%


week end 3/7


Starting total premium = 6084$ (intrinsic = zero)
Current total premium = 5702$ (intrinsic = 4297)

-6%
 
This experiment if meant for March only is wrong headed. To reach a conclusion you need to test it for at least 24 months.

IV_trader: have you ever taken a course on statistics/probability?
 
everyone knows the sample is too small but it is interesting none the less. thanks ivtrader. we could just do julys for the past 20 years and show a nice premium gain.
 
Quote from Prevail:

everyone knows the sample is too small but it is interesting none the less. thanks ivtrader. we could just do julys for the past 20 years and show a nice premium gain.


Thanks , Preval
There are a lot of tricks to go around 20Y testing. You can create your own “expiration” within the same month by shifting start-end day by one ( 20th to 20th , 21 to 21 , 22-22 …). Then you get 30 results in one month. Also, markets efficiencies (or not) should work the same for diff time frames ( a week , 10d , two month).
Like I stated before…I was bored…


:p
 
Back
Top