Put-Call Parity: Discounting Forward and Strike Values Consistently
Summary
The document examines an apparent conflict between two presentations of European put-call parity. One writes the call-minus-put value as the discounted difference between forward price and strike; another presents it as the undiscounted difference. The questioner then tries to reconcile the formulas with a cost-of-carry argument and reaches an inconsistent expression for the forward price.
The accepted response says the futures-style relation needs discounting to match the spot-based Black–Scholes expression. A second answer reports a discussion with CME and distinguishes a theoretical parity statement from an instantaneous market-price relationship used to identify potential arbitrage. The exchange highlights that notation and pricing perspective matter when comparing formulas. It does not derive the parity relation in detail, specify contract conventions, or assess the claim about CME’s market interpretation, so readers should check the assumptions behind the formula they apply.
Key ideas
- European put-call parity relates call and put values to spot, strike, and discounting.
- A forward-minus-strike expression must be discounted when equated to the spot-based parity form.
- The exchange distinguishes theoretical pricing identities from market relationships used to discuss arbitrage.
- Formula comparisons require attention to discounting conventions and the meaning of the forward price.
Tags
Full text
# Put Call derivation using two approaches [ Some confusion of getting different results ] # Put Call derivation using two approaches [ Some confusion of getting different results ] I understand the put-call parity and am trying to derive the results based on a CME article in their education section and also the Wikipedia explanation in the Black Scholes model where Put-call parity is derived for European call and put. As per Black Scholes equation and put call parity Url : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%E2%80%93Scholes_model C(s,t) - P(s, t) = D(F-K) [ D discount factor, F is forward/future price, K is strike ]. => C-P=D.F - D.K => C-P=S - Ke^(-r(T-t)) [ Future discounted at risk free rate should be spot and Discount factor for strike is e^(-r(T-t)) C-P=S-K*e^(-r(T-t)) --------------- [ A ] As per CME Url : https://www.cmegroup.com/education/courses/introduction-to-options/put-call-parity.html The put-call parity is C - P = F - K [ Assume here that there is no convexity issue and F is either future/forward price ]. Using earlier result from put call parity We can write this as F - K = S - PV(K) [ This is also available at https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/putcallparity.asp ] => F - K = S - K*e-(r(T-t)) since discount factor based on continuous compounding. => F = S + K[1-e^-(r(T-t))] -------------- [ B ] We know that Future is Spot plus the cost of carrying. And the cost of carrying funding of strike price K is K*e^(-r(T-t)) Hence Future = Spot + Cost of carrying position => F = S + K*e^(-r(T-t)) should be the result. But as per B it is different. Why is this the case? Where is the mistake in my understanding? ## Answer by jaehyukchoi49 (score 4, accepted) https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/71138 The put-call parity from CME, `C - P = F - K`, is not correct. I think CME is making it simple. You need to discount the right-hand side. Then, you will get the same put-call parity as Wikipedia. ## Answer by Anand Kulkarni (score 1) https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/71144 I talked to a resource at CME on this. It turns out that the equation C - P = F - K is true from the perspective of instantaneous market traded prices. I.e If the prices observed in the market did not hold this equation true for a reasonable period of time, There a trader can have an arbitrage opportunity. So In theory they are wrong ( i.e from a literature perspective ). They are correct only from an instantaneous market observed equilibrium price perspective on a given contract (i.e its future and option prices ).
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.