Choosing Volatility and Hedge Frequency for Option Trades
Summary
The document considers an interview question in which a stock is described as having different daily and annual volatility estimates, alongside mean reversion. It asks which volatility should be used to price a European option, and what changes when buying an option at the lower estimate or using a static hedge. The answer interprets the discrepancy between daily and annual volatility as evidence of strong negative autocorrelation in daily returns.
If an option can be bought at the lower volatility, the response suggests frequent hedging to exploit expected reversals in daily moves. With a static hedge, the relevant comparison is the volatility embedded in the hedge’s price: a cheaper hedge could lock in a spread against a higher-priced option. The answer also cautions that dynamic delta hedging may smooth marked daily profit and loss while leaving greater uncertainty in the final payoff. These conclusions depend on the assumed return behavior and hedge pricing; the exchange does not provide a full model or independently verify the stated volatility figures.
Key ideas
- A large gap between daily and annual volatility can indicate strong negative autocorrelation in daily returns.
- Hedge frequency affects exposure to the path of returns when an option is held.
- For a static hedge, compare the volatility reflected in the hedge price with the option’s sale price.
- Dynamic hedging can smooth interim marked profit and loss while increasing uncertainty in the terminal outcome.
Tags
Full text
# Using Daily or Annual Volatility to Price an Option # Using Daily or Annual Volatility to Price an Option From Joshi's Quant Interview book: The statistics department from our bank tells you that the stock price has followed a mean reversion process for the past 10 years, with annual volatility of 10% and daily volatility 20%. You want to sell a Euro option and hedge it. Which volatility do you use? Now, I see from the answers, since we want to hedge it, we should use the higher daily volatility since hedging will require (at least) daily rebalancing so we are exposed to daily volatility and thus use the 20% to price the option. This makes sense to me. Now, Joshi has 2 follow-up questions that I am less sure about. (1) What would happen if we BOUGHT an option off the bank using the 10% volatility? -- To me it seems, this would be 'good' for us as it would be cheaper and perhaps the bank may be hurting themselves by 'underselling' the option and not being able to hedge it appropriately. Is my understanding correct? Is there something else to add? (2) What if we could statically hedge the option today, does that change which volatility we would use? -- I'm not sure. I assume if we could statically hedge, we could use either since we don't need to rebalance daily and so are not exposed to daily volatility. Is this correct? ## Answer by Newquant (score 2, accepted) https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/74915 Always great if you can buy the option on a cheaper vol. The choice you're faced with after purchase is the frequency at which you hedge. The disparity between daily and annual vol indicates (as the question states) a level of mean reversion or negative autocorrelation. The spread you've got implies a daily autocorrelation of -0.998! Buying the structure from the bank at 0.1, you'd want to be hedging frequently, locking in large daily moves under the expectation that tomorrow's move will have the opposite sign (thus reducing the variance between t_0 -> t_n). If you were able to statically hedge the structure then what matters is the volatility at which your static hedge is priced. If your static hedge is 10% and you're selling at 20%, then great - you're able to lock in the spread (law of one price) between the two. -- If your static hedge is more expensive than 20% vol, then I think you'd want to be dynamically hedging the delta disparity to minimise the theta decay between your long and short by monetising the model delta. -- ^ Not the case: Hedging residual delta from a model vs market price won't help here to minimise decay. Actually what it will do is smooth out the equity curve on a daily level from a marked perspective (each day has less volatile p/l), but introduce more uncertainty into the final payoff. If you didn't hedge then your final payoff is certain (the spread), but the path is more volatile. This is analogous to hedging an option at realised volatility or implied volatility. If hedging at IV then you smooth out the equity curve, but the final payoff is uncertain. When hedging at future realised vol, the final payoff is certain, but the path is more volatile. As per Wilmott: https://web.math.ku.dk/~rolf/Wilmott_WhichFreeLunch
Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.