I think so.
Just to make sure we're on the same page: the option's price determines the IV, and not the other way. This is why it is called implied volatility.
Just to make sure we're on the same page: the option's price determines the IV, and not the other way. This is why it is called implied volatility.
Quote from Cache Landing:
Well put.
In regards to the fair value equation...
Given that an arb situation arises when one side of the equation gets out of whack, it could be assumed that arbitrageurs would immediately pull the price of the option back into balance.
This happening would prevent an option from gaining/losing too much value if the underlying doesn't move, if all else remains the same and the only thing affecting the change in price is an overwhelming number of buy orders. If that is the case, does the price of the option really take into account all of the available information? I guess it would if it derives its price from the underlying and the underlying made an adjustment to the available information (e.g. the expectation of bad news).
But, if the underlying has not yet reacted to the expectation, it is essentially impossible for the price of puts to go up without the price of calls rising with them. Both might rise because of an increase in IV, but neither can rise/fall independently. Is that the consensus?
It's interesting.... When I hear discussions on this site about IV, they are usually something like, "such and such call isn't worth as much because IV dropped". I don't know that I have ever heard someone (until now) acknowledge the fact that the IV is changing as a result of the option's price changing and not the other way around. I guess it is somewhat inconsequential, but a good point nonetheless.