Implicit put option on s&p


Note that this is not true for Put options, since Put values are short interest rates (Calls are long interest rates). If interest rates are zero, American and European Puts have the same price.

Acall has an implicit put? - Actuarial Outpost

You can use CType to convert values to composite data types as well as to elementary types. You can also use it to coerce an object class to the type of one of its interfaces, as in the following example.

Implicit put modes

A put option is an option contract giving the owner the right, but not the obligation, to sell a specified amount of an underlying security at a specified price within a specified time. This is the opposite of a call option , which gives the holder the right to buy shares. BREAKING DOWN 'Put Option' A put option becomes more valuable as the price of the underlying stock depreciates relative to the strike price. Conversely, a put option loses its value as the underlying stock increases and the time to expiration approaches.

Implicit option definition | English definition dictionary

In the option pricing framework, Equation 6 (and hence Figure 6 ) shows that given the value of the option at the boundary conditions (and most noticably at expiry) then all interior points of the pricing grid can be calculated by using a backwards induction approach to step backwards through time. That is, given the option payoff at expiry nodes then the prices &delta t before expiry can be calulated, then from those prices the value 7&delta t before expiry can be calculated, and working iteratively backwards through time until the option price at grid nodes for t=5 (. today) can be calulated.

Using Option Explicit

(Note that I did have to store the result of Some() in an intermediate variable to get the conversion to work - Perhaps someone more expert in Scala could show me how to avoid that intermediate step. -) )

That's because I actually generated those prices using $r=9\%$. If you had used the same drift parameter $r$ as I had employed, you would have computed both volatilities to be $75\%$.

is discretized using the following formulae

  • use a backward approximation for &part &fnof /&part t (Compare this with the implicit method where the forward approximation is used.)
  • use a central approximation for &part &fnof /&part S
  • use a standard approximation for &part 7 &fnof /&part S 7

EDIT: Actually, I'm not sure why this doesn't work for you, given that (as you correctly pointed out in your comment), Scala maps return options. The following code works for me and prints "87", as I would expect it to:

We strongly recommend to use Option Explicit at the start of your Excel VBA code. Using Option Explicit forces you to declare all your variables.

An implicit conversion does not require any special syntax in the source code. In the following example, Visual Basic implicitly converts the value of k to a single-precision floating-point value before assigning it to q.



Add a comment