Delta Hedging, Portfolio Sensitivity, and Gamma
Summary
The document examines a question about hedging a short European call with the underlying stock. It focuses on the apparent conflict between treating the stock position size as fixed when differentiating portfolio value and setting that position equal to the option’s delta. The questioner notes that differentiating a portfolio whose hedge ratio itself varies with the stock price introduces a second-derivative term, and asks how delta neutrality and gamma hedging fit together.
The response writes a Black–Scholes hedge portfolio containing stock and a risk-free asset, then differentiates its value with respect to the underlying price. It claims a relationship between the portfolio’s sensitivity and the option’s delta, but provides no full derivation of gamma hedging and acknowledges that mathematical rigor is missing. In particular, the response is not a complete resolution of the distinction between a fixed hedge over an instant and a dynamically rebalanced hedge. Treat it as an illustration of the question, not as a reliable standalone derivation of delta neutrality or gamma hedging.
Key ideas
- The question distinguishes a fixed stock holding from a hedge ratio that depends on the underlying price.
- Differentiating a price-dependent hedge position can introduce terms involving the option’s second derivative.
- The response expresses a Black–Scholes hedge portfolio using the underlying and a risk-free asset.
- The document does not give a rigorous derivation of gamma hedging or fully resolve the differentiation issue.
Tags
Full text
# Delta neutrality (derivation)
# Delta neutrality (derivation)
I'm confused about the math for the delta-neutral portfolio.
Assume we have a short position in a European call option with price $p(t,S_t)$ and want to hedge it with the stock with price $S_t$. The portfolio value is $X(t,S_t)=-p(t,S_t)+\Delta\times S_t$. To make the portfolio delta neutral we require the portfolio to be insensitive to changes in $S_t$, thus, we have $\frac{\partial X}{\partial S}=-\frac{\partial p}{\partial S}+\Delta=0$ (assuming $\Delta$ does not depend on $S$). But somehow from here all textbooks give $\Delta=\frac{\partial p}{\partial S}$ which, in general, violates the assumption that $\Delta$ does not depend on $S$.
To see this more clearly, the portfolio $Y(t,S_t)=-p(t,S_t)+\underbrace{\frac{\partial p}{\partial S}}_{=\Delta}\times S_t$ is not delta neutral because $\frac{\partial Y}{\partial S}=-\frac{\partial p}{\partial S}+\frac{\partial^2 p}{\partial S^2}S+\frac{\partial p}{\partial S}\neq 0$ (unless it is gamma neutral). What is the mistake? What do I miss in the derivation?
Update: I was able to show that if one applies Ito's lemma to portfolio $Y$, then $dY_t = -\left(\frac{\partial p}{\partial t}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 p}{\partial S^2}\sigma^2 S_t^2 \right)dt$ which is independent of $dS_t$. But now my question is: where does the idea of gamma-hedging come from? Again, rigorous way of getting the fact that gamma is needed.
## Answer by rubikscube09 (score 1)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/58719
This discussion has also confused me slightly, so I will add something that is possibly clarifying, although most likely will not be. It is also a reminder that I need to stop programming and brush up on options pricing theory.
The Black Scholes hedge portfolio is given by: $$ \Pi_t = \frac{\partial V}{\partial S}(t,S_t)S_t + \left[1 - \frac{\partial V}{\partial S}(t,S_t)\right]B_t $$ where $B_t$ is the risk-free asset. Differentiating with respect to $S$ as usual, we have that the portfolio delta is: $$ \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial^2 S}(t,S_t) + \frac{\partial V}{\partial S_t}(t,S_t) - \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial^2S} (t,S_t) = \frac{\partial V}{\partial S}(t,S_t) $$ meaning that this combined (opposite signs) with one unit of $V$ is a locally risk-free portfolio.
There are most likely some rigor that is being missed here in terms of taking derivatives of nowhere differentiable functions like $S_t$ - any posters can and should feel free to fill in the blanks.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.