Why We Have Always Used the Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing Formula

11 Pages Posted: 11 Mar 2009 Last revised: 6 Apr 2009

See all articles by Charles J. Corrado

Charles J. Corrado

Deakin University - School of Accounting, Economics & Finance

Date Written: April 4, 2009

Abstract

Derman and Taleb (The Issusions of Dynamic Hedging, 2005) uncover a seeming anomaly in option pricing theory which suggests that static hedging based on put-call parity provides sufficient theoretical support to justify risk-neutral option pricing. From this they suggest that dynamic hedging as a theoretical basis for the celebrated option pricing model of Black and Scholes (1973) and Merton (1973), while correct, is redundant [see also Haug and Taleb (Why We Have Never Used the Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing Formula, 2009)]. This paper examines the anomaly and finds that put-call parity does not provide a basis for risk-neutral option pricing.

Keywords: option pricing, put-call parity, dynamic hedging, static hedging, Black-Scholes-Merton

JEL Classification: G12, G13

Suggested Citation

Corrado, Charles J., Why We Have Always Used the Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing Formula (April 4, 2009). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1357125 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1357125

Charles J. Corrado (Contact Author)

Deakin University - School of Accounting, Economics & Finance ( email )

221 Burwood Highway
Burwood, Victoria 3215
Australia
61492446214 (Phone)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
1,289
Abstract Views
4,575
Rank
29,207
PlumX Metrics