Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T08:21:42.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Empirical Test of a Valuation Model for American Options on Futures Contracts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Kuldeep Shastri  and
Kishore Tandon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pricing models for American call and put options on futures contracts are derived herein. These models are used to investigate the efficiency of the market for options on Standard & Poor 500 and German Mark futures. The evidence presented here indicates that market prices for these options deviate substantially from their corresponding model prices. In addition, it is shown that a hedging strategy originated at prices that indicate a deviation of market from model is successful in translating the observed mispricing into excess profits after transactions costs. However, these net profits are eliminated if the origination of the strategy is delayed by one trade, or if bid-ask spreads are accounted for.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 1986 , pp. 377 - 392
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Beckers, S. “Standard Deviations Implied in Option Prices as Predictors of Future Stock Price Variability.” Journal of Banking and Finance, 5 (09 1981), 363–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Black, F. “The Pricing of Commodity Contracts.” Journal of Financial Economics, 3 (03 1976), 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Black, F., and Scholes, M.. “The Valuation of Option Contracts and a Test of Market Efficiency.” Journal of Finance, 27 (05 1972), 399–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Black, F., and Scholes, M.. “The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities.” Journal of Political Economy, 81 (05–06 1973), 637–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Figlewski, S., and Fitzgerald, M. D.. “Options on Commodity Futures: Recent Experience in the London Market.” Option Pricing, Brenner, M., ed. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books (1983), 223–235.Google Scholar
[6]Galai, D. “Tests of Market Efficiency of the Chicago Board Options Exchange.” Journal of Business, 50 (04 1977), 167–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Geske, R. “The Valuation of Compound Options.” Journal of Financial Economics, 1 (03 1979), 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Geske, R., and Johnson, H.. “The American Put Option Valued Analytically.” Journal of Finance, 39 (12 1984), 1511–1524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Geske, R., and Roll, R.. “On Valuing American Call Options with the Black-Scholes European Formula.” Journal of Finance, 39 (06 1984), 443–455.Google Scholar
[10]Geske, R., and Roll, R.. “Isolating the Observed Biases in American Call Option Pricing: An Alternative Variance Estimator.” Working Paper 4–84, UCLA (02 1984).Google Scholar
[11]Merton, R. C. “A Rational Theory of Option Pricing.” The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 4 (Spring 1973), 141–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Phillips, S., and Smith, C. Jr, “Trading Costs for Listed Options: The Implications for Market Efficiency.” Journal of Financial Economics, 8 (07 1980), 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Rubinstein, M. “Non-Parametric Tests of Alternative Option Pricing Models Using all Reported Trades and Quotes as the 30 Most Active CBOE Option Classes from August 23, 1976 through August 31, 1978.” Journal of Finance, 40 (06), 455–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Shastri, K., and Tandon, K.. “Valuation of American Options on Foreign Currency.” Working Paper, Univ. of Pittsburgh (02 1985).Google Scholar
[15]Whaley, R. “Valuation of American Call Options on Dividend-Paying Stocks: Empirical Tests.” Journal of Financial Economics, 10 (03 1982), 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar