Skip to content
All library documents

Hedging Digital Options with Call Spreads

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Joe Bloggs

Summary

The document explains how a digital option paying when a stock finishes above a threshold can be approximated with a call spread. A narrow spread around the threshold, scaled by the inverse of its strike width, approaches the digital payoff in theory. The replies also distinguish the theoretical construction from practical hedging: available strikes are discrete, and a very narrow spread can require large notionals that may exceed market liquidity.

Strike placement changes the hedge. Centering the spread around the digital threshold can leave a payoff shortfall for expiries just above the threshold, while placing one strike at the threshold creates an overhedge that covers the digital payoff across outcomes but costs more. The discussion also clarifies that a quoted digital price depends on payout notional: a per-unit price must be scaled to the contract's payout. The example offers conceptual guidance, but no full parameter set or market data for pricing or evaluating execution.

Key ideas

  • A call spread with a sufficiently narrow strike gap can approximate a digital payoff when scaled by the gap width.
  • Very narrow spreads can require large positions and may be impractical when strikes or liquidity are limited.
  • Centering strikes around the digital threshold can leave a payout shortfall in some expiry outcomes.
  • An overhedge that places one strike at the threshold can cover the digital payoff but costs more.
  • A digital option's quoted per-unit price must be multiplied by its payout notional.

Tags

Full text
# Using a call-spread to hedge a digital option


# Using a call-spread to hedge a digital option












I have a digital option that pays out \$1M at time $T$ if the price of the underlying stock is higher than \$1300 (with current price ~\$1000) and, obviously, zero otherwise. I am in the Black-Scholes setting and there are no dividends up to date $T$.

I have used the following to calculate the price of the digital option at $t=0$:

$C(0)=e^{-rT}N(d_2)$

where

$d_2 = \frac{\ln\big(\frac{S(0)}{Ke^{-rT}}\big) - \frac{\sigma^2}{2}}{\sigma\sqrt{T}}$

I am not given any of the parameters (apart from $K$ and $T$) and have been asked to make an educated guess as to what the call price should be. I have checked this using an online calculator and the price I get (~\$0.18) seems to be correct given the parameters I have fed into this model.

I have a couple of questions on this as it is not explained anywhere in my lecture notes and I cannot seem to find what I need online.

Q1: Why is the price of the call option not dependent on the pay-out? If this option was paying \$1 or \$0 then a price of \$0.18 seems reasonable, but not for \$1M. I would place that bet every week as it is cheaper and surely better odds than the lottery. I'm obviously missing some understanding here.

Q2: How would the trader who sold this digital option hedge against the potential losses? I have read online that this is possible using a call-spread but I'm not sure I understand how this would work. I understand that you need to go short on the call with the higher strike price and long on the other but I don't see how to apply this to this situation?

## Answer by will (score 4)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/40022

There are a few extra things to consider here where you'll get a different answer if you ask a quant or a trader.

If we have a european digital that pays \$1 if the underlying is above 120 ($S_0 = 100$) at expiry, then yes i can hedge it with a call spread. This can be approximated with a call spread (with a notional of $\frac{1}{\mathrm{d}K}$, this was missed out in previous comments/answers) as mentioned above where in the limit of $\mathrm{d}K \rightarrow 0$ the payoff approaches that of a digital. This is all wel land good from a theoretical standpoint, but the reality is you can't trade options at every strike, and if you reduce $\mathrm{d}K$ too much the notional becomes significantly large that there simply won't be enough liquidity to enable your hedge.

There is also the question of how you centre the strikes. If you do $K_\pm = K\pm\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{d}K$ then the value of the hedge and the digi is the same, but if the underlying expires in a small region $K<S_E<K+\epsilon$ where $\epsilon < \frac{\mathrm{d}K}{2}$ then you have to payout more than your hedge nets you. If on the otherhand you set the strikes as $K_{-} = K-\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{d}K$ and $K$, then regardless of where the underlying expires you make money. This is called an overhedge, it will cost more than the hedge centered on the barrier strike, since its payoff is at least higher everywhere.

The cost of a product not what it is worth, it is what someone is willing to sell it to you for. These are not the same thing. And if it costs me X to hedge something, i'm not going to sell it to you for less than X. Likewise, if i'm buying the digi i'll put the strikes on the other side. If the underlying is really illiquid, i won't be able to buy the strikes i need for the hedge, so it will cost more.

It's all well and good understanding the theoretical side, but the application is important too.

## Answer by mbison (score 0)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/38457

Isn't the 0.18 a percentage price? i.e. percentage of notional? if your notional is usd1 then you pay usd0.18. If the notional is usd100 you pay usd18?

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.