Skip to content
All library documents

Separating Gamma P&L from Vega P&L in Options

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Trajan

Summary

The document explains the different sources of gamma and vega profit and loss for an option. A local P&L expansion separates delta exposure to underlying price changes, gamma exposure to squared price moves, and vega exposure to changes in implied volatility. Since squared underlying returns over a time interval estimate realized variance, gamma P&L is connected to realized volatility. Vega P&L, by contrast, reflects a change in implied volatility.

For a delta-neutral position, the answer combines gamma gains from underlying movement with theta decay. Under Black–Scholes assumptions, small interest rates, and a short time step, theta offsets the variance implied by the option price; cumulative P&L is approximated by vega multiplied by the difference between realized and implied volatility. A second response summarizes the distinction as realized-versus-implied volatility exposure for gamma and implied volatility movement for vega. It also observes that shorter-dated options tend to have more gamma exposure and longer-dated options more vega exposure. These are model-based explanations and approximations, not a universal comparison of dollar P&L magnitudes.

Key ideas

  • An option P&L expansion separates delta, gamma, and vega contributions.
  • Gamma P&L depends on squared underlying price moves, which relate to realized variance.
  • Vega P&L captures changes in implied volatility.
  • For a delta-neutral position under simplifying assumptions, gamma and theta combine into exposure to realized versus implied volatility.
  • Short-dated options tend to have greater gamma exposure, while longer-dated options tend to have greater vega exposure.

Tags

Full text
# Gamma Pnl vs Vega Pnl


# Gamma Pnl vs Vega Pnl












Why does Gamma Pnl have exposure to realised volatility, but Vega Pnl only has exposure to implied volatility? I am confused as to why gamma pnl is affected (more) by IV and why vega pnl isnt affected (more) by RV?

Essentially how do you show what gamma pnl will be mathematically and how do you show what vega pnl will be? I believe that gamma pnl is spot x (vega x IV - RV)

Also does gamma pnl usually dominate (in $ terms) the vega pnl of an options, as most literature is on gamma pnl?

## Answer by Gordon (score 27, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/39874

For an option with price $C$, the P$\&$L, with respect to changes of the underlying asset price $S$ and volatility $\sigma$, is given by \begin{align*} P\&L = \delta \Delta S + \frac{1}{2}\gamma (\Delta S)^2 + \nu \Delta \sigma, \end{align*} where $\delta$, $\gamma$, and $\nu$ are respectively the delta, gamma, and vega hedge ratios. Then it is clear the vega P$\&$L has exposure to the change of the implied volatility $\sigma$. Note that, for the gamma P$\&$L, \begin{align*} \frac{1}{2}\gamma (\Delta S)^2 = \frac{1}{2}\gamma S^2 \frac{1}{\Delta t}\left(\frac{\Delta S}{S}\right)^2\Delta t, \end{align*} where $\frac{1}{\Delta t}\left(\frac{\Delta S}{S}\right)^2$ is the realized variance, and $\sqrt{\frac{1}{\Delta t}\left(\frac{\Delta S}{S}\right)^2}$ is the realized volatility. To see why $\sqrt{\frac{1}{\Delta t}\left(\frac{\Delta S}{S}\right)^2}$ is the realized volatility, we assume that, heuristically, \begin{align*} dS_t = S_t\left(r dt + \sigma_{Re} dW_t \right), \end{align*} where $\sigma_{Re}$ is the realized volatility and $\{W_t, \, t \ge 0\}$ is a standard Brownian motion. Then \begin{align*} \sqrt{\frac{1}{\Delta t}\left(\frac{\Delta S}{S}\right)^2} \approx \sigma_{Re}. \end{align*}

Consider the delta neutral portfolio $\Pi=C-\frac{\partial C}{\partial S}S$. Assuming that the interest rate and volatility are not change during the small time period $\Delta t$. The P$\&$L of the portfolio is given by \begin{align*} P\&L_{\Delta t}^{\Pi} &= \frac{1}{2}\gamma (\Delta S)^2 + \theta \Delta t, \end{align*} where $\theta$ is the theta hedge ratio. For small interest rate, which we assume to be zero, $\theta \approx -\frac{1}{2}\gamma S^2 \sigma^2$ and $\gamma = \frac{\nu}{S^2\sigma T}$; see, for example, Black–Scholes model. Then \begin{align*} P\&L_{\Delta t}^{\Pi} &\approx \frac{1}{2}\gamma S^2 \frac{1}{\Delta t}\left(\frac{\Delta S}{S}\right)^2\Delta t - \frac{1}{2}\gamma S^2 \sigma^2 \Delta t\\ &\approx \frac{1}{2}\gamma S^2 \sigma_{Re}^2 \Delta t - \frac{1}{2}\gamma S^2 \sigma^2 \Delta t\\ &= \frac{1}{2}\gamma S^2 (\sigma_{Re} + \sigma)(\sigma_{Re} - \sigma) \Delta t\\ &\approx \gamma S^2 \sigma (\sigma_{Re} - \sigma) \Delta t \hspace{1in} (\text{assuming that } \sigma_{Re}\approx \sigma)\\ &=\frac{\nu}{T}(\sigma_{Re} - \sigma) \Delta t. \end{align*} The cumulative P$\&$L, over the interval $[0, T]$, is then $\nu (\sigma_{Re} - \sigma)$.

## Answer by dm63 (score 8)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/39623

Not sure this is a valid question! Gamma p/l is by definition the p/l due to realized volatility being different from implied. Vega p/l is by definition the p/l due to moves in implied volatility.

The second part of the question you have answered yourself. Short dated options have more gamma exposure, long dated options have more vega exposure.

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.