IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v12y2019i4p157-d271066.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Correcting the Bias in the Practitioner Black-Scholes Method

Author

Listed:
  • Yun Yin

    (School of Business, Macau University of Science and Technology, Avenida Wai Long, Taipa, Macau)

  • Peter G. Moffatt

    (School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, Norfolk NR4 7TJ, UK)

Abstract

We address a number of technical problems with the popular Practitioner Black-Scholes (PBS) method for valuing options. The method amounts to a two-stage procedure in which fitted values of implied volatilities (IV) from a linear regression are plugged into the Black-Scholes formula to obtain predicted option prices. Firstly we ensure that the prediction from stage one is positive by using log-linear regression. Secondly, we correct the bias that results from the transformation applied to the fitted values (i.e., the Black-Scholes formula) being a highly non-linear function of implied volatility. We apply the smearing technique in order to correct this bias. An alternative means of implementing the PBS approach is to use the market option price as the dependent variable and estimate the parameters of the IV equation by the method of non-linear least squares (NLLS). A problem we identify with this method is one of model incoherency: the IV equation that is estimated does not correspond to the set of option prices used to estimate it. We use the Monte Carlo method to verify that (1) standard PBS gives biased option values, both in-sample and out-of-sample; (2) using standard (log-linear) PBS with smearing almost completely eliminates the bias; (3) NLLS gives biased option values, but the bias is less severe than with standard PBS. We are led to conclude that, of the range of possible approaches to implementing PBS, log-linear PBS with smearing is preferred on the basis that it is the only approach that results in valuations with negligible bias.

Suggested Citation

  • Yun Yin & Peter G. Moffatt, 2019. "Correcting the Bias in the Practitioner Black-Scholes Method," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-12, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:12:y:2019:i:4:p:157-:d:271066
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/12/4/157/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/12/4/157/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bakshi, Gurdip & Cao, Charles & Chen, Zhiwu, 1997. "Empirical Performance of Alternative Option Pricing Models," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(5), pages 2003-2049, December.
    2. Hausman, Jerry, 2015. "Specification tests in econometrics," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 38(2), pages 112-134.
    3. Christoffersen, Peter & Jacobs, Kris, 2004. "The importance of the loss function in option valuation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 291-318, May.
    4. Panayiotis Andreou & Chris Charalambous & Spiros Martzoukos, 2014. "Assessing the performance of symmetric and asymmetric implied volatility functions," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 373-397, April.
    5. Bernard Dumas & Jeff Fleming & Robert E. Whaley, 1998. "Implied Volatility Functions: Empirical Tests," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 53(6), pages 2059-2106, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Liu, Xiaoquan & Cao, Yi & Ma, Chenghu & Shen, Liya, 2019. "Wavelet-based option pricing: An empirical study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(3), pages 1132-1142.
    2. José Valentim Machado Vicente & Jaqueline Terra Moura Marins, 2019. "A Volatility Smile-Based Uncertainty Index," Working Papers Series 502, Central Bank of Brazil, Research Department.
    3. Christoffersen, Peter & Jacobs, Kris & Chang, Bo Young, 2013. "Forecasting with Option-Implied Information," Handbook of Economic Forecasting, in: G. Elliott & C. Granger & A. Timmermann (ed.), Handbook of Economic Forecasting, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 581-656, Elsevier.
    4. Lim, Terence & Lo, Andrew W. & Merton, Robert C. & Scholes, Myron S., 2006. "The Derivatives Sourcebook," Foundations and Trends(R) in Finance, now publishers, vol. 1(5–6), pages 365-572, April.
    5. Dennis Bams & Thorsten Lehnert & Christian C. P. Wolff, 2009. "Loss Functions in Option Valuation: A Framework for Selection," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(5), pages 853-862, May.
    6. Mencía, Javier & Sentana, Enrique, 2013. "Valuation of VIX derivatives," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 367-391.
    7. José Valentim Machado Vicente & Jaqueline Terra Moura Marins, 2021. "A volatility smile-based uncertainty index," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 231-246, June.
    8. Thibaut Moyaert & Mikael Petitjean, 2011. "The performance of popular stochastic volatility option pricing models during the subprime crisis," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(14), pages 1059-1068.
    9. Bernales, Alejandro & Guidolin, Massimo, 2014. "Can we forecast the implied volatility surface dynamics of equity options? Predictability and economic value tests," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 326-342.
    10. Wing Hong Chan & Ranjini Jha & Madhu Kalimipalli, 2009. "The Economic Value Of Using Realized Volatility In Forecasting Future Implied Volatility," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 32(3), pages 231-259, September.
    11. Sang Byung Seo & Jessica A. Wachter, 2013. "Option Prices in a Model with Stochastic Disaster Risk," NBER Working Papers 19611, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Shackleton, Mark B. & Taylor, Stephen J. & Yu, Peng, 2010. "A multi-horizon comparison of density forecasts for the S&P 500 using index returns and option prices," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 2678-2693, November.
    13. Le, Van & Zurbruegg, Ralf, 2014. "Forecasting option smile dynamics," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 32-45.
    14. Xin‐Jiang He & Sha Lin, 2023. "Analytically pricing European options under a hybrid stochastic volatility and interest rate model with a general correlation structure," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(7), pages 951-967, July.
    15. Andreou, Panayiotis C. & Charalambous, Chris & Martzoukos, Spiros H., 2010. "Generalized parameter functions for option pricing," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 633-646, March.
    16. Pascal François & Lars Stentoft, 2021. "Smile‐implied hedging with volatility risk," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(8), pages 1220-1240, August.
    17. Kaeck, Andreas & Seeger, Norman J., 2020. "VIX derivatives, hedging and vol-of-vol risk," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(2), pages 767-782.
    18. Peter Christoffersen & Kris Jacobs, 2004. "Which GARCH Model for Option Valuation?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(9), pages 1204-1221, September.
    19. Carol Alexander & Andreas Kaeck, 2012. "Does model fit matter for hedging? Evidence from FTSE 100 options," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(7), pages 609-638, July.
    20. Konstantinos Skindilias & Chia Lo, 2015. "Local volatility calibration during turbulent periods," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 425-444, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:12:y:2019:i:4:p:157-:d:271066. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.