When Delta Hedging Short-Dated Options Can Increase Losses
Article Quant Q&A · Author: Will Best
Summary
The discussion examines whether delta hedging an option position always reduces risk. A short-dated, out-of-the-money put illustrates a losing path: the underlying falls but stays above the strike, so the option expires worthless while the short underlying hedge loses value. The premium and hedge loss can therefore combine into a worse realized outcome than holding the option alone.
The answers distinguish that outcome from risk reduction in general. Delta hedging reduces exposure to small underlying moves at a given time, but does not guarantee a better final profit; gamma, price path, jumps, rehedging costs, and liquidity can matter. One response cites research on dynamic hedging under jumps, while another describes illiquid markets where trading the hedge moves prices against the hedger. The examples do not establish a universal comparison: risk depends on the position, hedge policy, market dynamics, and which adverse outcomes are being measured.
Key ideas
- A short-dated option can expire out of the money while its delta hedge loses money as the underlying moves toward, but not through, the strike.
- Delta hedging changes the portfolio’s exposure and possible outcomes but does not assure a better realized payoff.
- Long gamma may benefit from fluctuating price paths, while a largely one-way move can make repeated hedge trades costly.
- Jumps, illiquidity, and market impact can make dynamic hedging especially difficult.
- Whether hedging reduces risk depends on the risk measure, hedge timing, and market context.
Tags
Full text
# When does delta hedging result in more risk? # When does delta hedging result in more risk? A question from an interview book: > When can hedging an options position make you take on more risk? The answer provided is the following: > Hedging can increase your risk if you are forced to both buy short-dated options and hedge them. And it gives an example that you short the stock to hedge, and the stock price rises up to strike so the option expires worthless, then you lose on both the options and the short stock position. Therefore you are worse off than if you had not hedged. What I don't quite understand is that, in that example, if the stock price goes down, I would gain on my short stock position, why didn't it being taken into account? Also, I hope to have an analytical formula to see the "risk" more clearly. Could anyone help me with this one? ## Answer by Strange (score 15) https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/4600 E.g. on Monday you get forced to buy some Friday expiry OTM puts, say 95% strike S&P weeklies. Of course, you go and buy some delta against them to "hedge" yourself. Next thing you know, the the market tanks. Unfortunately, by Friday it's only down 3.5%, so it's does not fall far enough to reach the strike. So, on Friday expiration, you are out your premium and down money on your delta. Overall, it's a pretty typical "painful moment" for a market maker. Usually, in this case you are better off selling some ATMish gamma and leaving the tinys to decay in peace. Should the market really take a dive, you got some lottery tickets. ## Answer by Matt Wolf (score 8) https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/4603 You are absolutely right, I would say that how the interview question was posed and the example given is very misleading, if not outright incorrect. Here is why: Hedging does not increase your risk in this particular example: You take on delta exposure by buying the short dated option outright. Thus buying/selling underlying (put/call) in any case will reduce your delta exposure, hence risk of changes in the underlying, given you hedge the right amount and at the right timing (this i venture is impossible to generalize as it applies differently to each case). Now, you are long gamma but being long gamma does not guarantee at all that you end up better off not hedging initially. If your boss instructs you to be at all times almost perfectly delta hedged (most French bosses are anal about this, probably because they are horrible delta traders) then you hedge, period. It reduces your delta exposure, hence risk in moves in the underlying. It is complete nonsense to start arguing in retrospect that no hedge may have resulted in a better payoff because the underlying followed a price path not anticipated earlier. I concur with Strange that there are often better ways to hedge than always going through the underlying but I disagree with him that it poses a "painful moment" to market markers. Market makers who are dependent on the market moving in specific ways are probably very bad volatility traders. Your job as market maker is to earn money from the bid/offer spread and to reduce your risk exposure to lower moment greeks, given it is feasible and cost-efficient. The other times you, as market maker, attempt to benefit from what you perceive as mispricings in the option valuation. Thus, hedging the long options position with the underlying reduces your risk, period. There are obviously exceptions to this, for example, when the underlying is so extremely illiquid that it would be prohibitive to hedge/re-hedge frequently. But it has to really be analyzed in context. But if the interview book looked for a straight forward answer which applies to most cases then hedging reduces your risk, simple as that. ## Answer by Don Brady (score 1) https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/10211 My back testing has shown that in the case of really big market moves, dynamic delta hedging of short positions can increase risk in comparison to no hedging, and in fact cause large losses. For confirmation, see Cont, Tankov and Voltchkova, Hedging with options in models with jumps which concludes just that. ## Answer by Ashkar (score 0) https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/32319 BS assumptions of accruing pl from delta hedging (long gamma) applies nicely within the theoretical model - you need spot to behave like a random process. Take the example provided by @Strange. If the spot keeps dropping monotonically you would keep buying spot at lower levels and eventually unwind the hedge at a loss. If the market behaved as a random process (going up and down possibly with some drift) your long gamma means that you would buy more delta on up moves and sell more delta on down moves, making you PL (gamma PL). Even sell side (risk-managed) vol desks run a large delta on short dated options. ## Answer by Alan John Maniamkot (score 0) https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/35506 The risk of losing the premium and on the short position is a possible scenario. Suppose you didn't short the underlying then you have a different worst case scenario. Shorting the underlying only changed these scenarios and the probability of these scenarios happening. There is always some risk associated with every portfolio and as a trader you can choose which scenario or which exposures you are willing to take. ## Answer by Andrew Beaven (score 0) https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/37136 I wrote some call options, putting the initial delta hedge in place was not a problem. But then the market started moving and the liquidity in the underlying almost disappeared. When the market went up I kept hitting the offer, which caused it and the bid to rise, so of course my portfolio delta was telling me I had to buy more underlying. The same happened when the market went down, every time I sold, the bid dropped away, requiring me to sell even more. Unpleasant experience, good lesson learnt. ## Answer by JoeyZhao (score 0) https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/40269 I think the question is not well defined. Or more specifically, it's not from a perspective of controlling RISK. What it's really asking is 'when delta hedging would end up with more losses than not hedging'. And as they have discussed above, there are plenty scenarios that delta hedging costs you more. But my point is that you should not regret buying a health insurance when you end up not sick. You also should not regret buying a health insurance when you end up sick but the insurance doesn't cover your case. For example, in Strange's example, there are plenty possibilities that hedging will benefit you (if the price went up). Sure, delta hedging is not bulletproof, so aren't insurances. But they are not adding uncertainties (risks).
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.