Put-Call Parity and Forward Delivery Prices
Summary
The document explains why a long call combined with a short put on the same underlying, strike, and maturity has the same payoff as a forward contract with that delivery price. The payoff is the underlying’s terminal value minus the strike, so the option combination has zero initial value when the strike equals the fair forward price. Put-call parity gives the same conclusion: the call and put prices are equal when the strike matches the forward price, under the stated assumptions about rates and discounting.
The discussion is conceptual and points readers to put-call parity as the formal relation behind the result. It does not explore complications such as dividends, carrying costs, or differing contract terms, which affect the forward price or require adjustments to the parity relation. Its conclusion applies when the options share the specified terms and the forward is priced consistently with the underlying and risk-free rate.
Key ideas
- A long call and short put with the same strike and maturity have the payoff of a forward contract with that delivery price.
- A forward contract has zero initial value when its delivery price equals the fair forward price.
- Put-call parity implies equal call and put prices when the strike equals the forward price, under the stated assumptions.
Tags
Full text
# Finding circumstances for price of call = price of put
# Finding circumstances for price of call = price of put
Here is a problem in Hull's book and the given solution:
- My approach was to compute the profit $\pi = \pi_{SP} + \pi_{LC}$ (short put, long call).
One can show that $\pi = \pi_{SP} + \pi_{LC} = S_T - K + p_{SP} - p_{LC}$, where $p_{SP}, p_{LC}$ are the prices of the options.
So if we want $p_{SP} = p_{LC}$, then we must have $\pi = S_T - K$
Is that right?
- I'm not quite sure I understand the last two sentences of the answer in the solutions manual. What is the difference between forward price and delivery price? What I think the answer means:
Because the payoff from LC and SP (long call and short put) is $S_T - K$, because the payoff from a fwd contract is $S_T - F$ and because a fwd contract is LC and SP combined, $p_{SP} = p_{LC}$ when $K = F$?
Am I understanding right? How exactly does the conclusion follow if so? If not, what exactly does the solutions manual mean to say?
## Answer by Louis. B (score 1, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/21557
You are mostly right, I don't really get what you don't understand. The answer in the book is quite clear, but let me put it that way :
Selling a put and buying a call on the same underlying $S$ with same maturity and same stike $K$ is always equivalent to a long position in a forward contract on $S$ with delivery price $K$. The easiest way to see that is to draw the payoff of such a strategy in a simple graph, you should get a 45° line crossing the $x$-axis at $K$. Then we know that a forward contract with delivery price $F$ (the forward rate) costs nothing. Then if you want your strategy to cost nothing, you should set $K=F$.
It seems that it's the beginning of the book, but you may want to look at the Put-Call parity. Without details, it is a relation that links the price of a call with the price of a put on the same underlying, same maturity and same strike. The Put-Call parity can be expressed as follows (with $r$ the risk-free rate) : \begin{equation} C-P=S-Ke^{-rt} \end{equation}
With $F = Se^{rt}$ you can see that : \begin{equation} C-P=e^{-rt}(F-K) \end{equation}
So we have $F=K$ $\iff$ $C=P$. The demonstration should be in the Hull's book.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.