Put-Call Parity Shows Call and Put Deltas Differ by One
Summary
The document explains why a call and put with the same strike and maturity have deltas that differ by one. Put-call parity relates the call-minus-put position to the underlying asset minus the discounted strike. Differentiating that relationship with respect to the underlying price gives the delta result, since the discounted strike does not depend on the asset price.
It also gives two supporting explanations: a risk-neutral valuation argument for European options, and a binomial payoff comparison showing that call minus put has the same payoff as stock minus strike. The result is not specific to the binomial model. The valuation argument relies on the discounted underlying being a martingale and on European exercise; parity assumptions can differ for other exercise styles, dividends, or market frictions. The binomial example illustrates the payoff identity, while the parity derivation provides the broader explanation.
Key ideas
- Put-call parity links a call-minus-put position to the underlying asset minus the present value of the strike.
- Differentiating put-call parity with respect to the underlying price yields a one-unit difference between call and put deltas.
- The delta relationship is not unique to the binomial model.
- The risk-neutral argument stated applies to European options under its martingale and discounting assumptions.
Tags
Full text
# Put-Call Parity Application
# Put-Call Parity Application
In the binomial model, how that the Delta of a call option $\Delta^{call}$ and the Delta of a put option $\Delta^{put}$ with the same maturity and strike satisfy $$\Delta^{call}_t - \Delta^{put}_t = 1, \ \ \text{for all} \ \ t = 0,\ldots, T-1$$ Is this result model-independent? Hint: put-call parity.
Excuse the grammatical mistakes of the question, English is not my professors first language. I don't understand what he means in asking if the model is independent? Any suggestions is greatly appreciated.
## Answer by Gauss8 (score 5, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/23223
First, we have $P(t)+S(t)=C(t)+B(t,T)\cdot K$,
Then, $\frac{\partial P(t)}{\partial S(t)} + \frac{\partial S(t)}{\partial S(t)} = \Delta^{\text{put}}_{t}+1$ and $\frac{\partial C(t)}{\partial S(t)} + \frac{\partial [B(t,T)\cdot K]}{\partial S(t)} = \Delta^{\text{call}}_{t}+0$. Finaly, $\Delta^{\text{call}}_{t}-\Delta^{\text{put}}_{t}=1$.
This relationship is model-free, in sense, to derive this result we didn't use that we are in binomial model :) So the result is model-idependant.
## Answer by Gauss8 (score 0)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/24407
I use only the fact that
> $S(t)\cdot B^{-1}(t)$ is a $\mathbb{Q}-$ martingale and we are considering the European options.
Indeed,
We have that : $(x-K)_{+}-(K-x)_{+}=x-K$ $\forall x,K \in \mathbb{R}$ ($\diamond$)
But we know also that the price of a European Call/Put is given by :
$C(t) = \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}\left[\left(S_T-K\right)_{+}\cdot \frac{B(t)}{B(T)}\, \mid \, \mathcal{F}_{t}\right]$ , $P(t) = \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}\left[\left(K-S_T\right)_{+}\cdot \frac{B(t)}{B(T)}\, \mid \, \mathcal{F}_{t}\right]$
Using the ($\diamond$), we have $C(t)-P(t) = \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}\left[\left(S_T-K\right)\cdot \frac{B(t)}{B(T)}\, \mid \, \mathcal{F}_{t}\right]=B(t)\cdot \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}\left[ \frac{S_T}{B(T)}\, \mid\,\mathcal{F}_{t}\right]-\frac{B(t)}{B(T)}\cdot K$
Using the assumption, we have $B(t)\cdot \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}\left[ \frac{S_T}{B(T)}\, \mid\,\mathcal{F}_{t}\right]=B(t)\times \frac{S_{T}}{B(t)} = S_{t}$
We also know that $\frac{B(t)}{B(T)}=B(t,T)$ (I think if not, there's arbitrage)
At the end, we get the result :)
## Answer by dm63 (score 0)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/24411
In the binomial model suppose the stock can go to either U or D. Suppose the option strike is K where D < K < U. If stock goes to U, call payout is (U-K) and put payout is 0. If stock goes to D, call payout is 0 and put payout is (K-D). Now consider a portfolio of Call - Put. If stock goes to U, portfolio payout is U-K. If stock goes to D, portfolio payout is D-K. Therefore, portfolio is the same as stock - K (ie a forward on the stock). Therefore its delta is one, in the binomial model. Of course its delta is one in any model, as others have pointed out.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.