英文摘要 |
There has long been a puzzle in practice that option sellers, as appose to option buyers, have a trading edge and thus option sellers on average are the winners. Most of the argument is mainly based on an empirical study of a three-year CME data for options on futures by Summa (2003) who found that 70~80% of options expire worthless (i.e., out of the money). However, this puzzle has never been rigorously examined. Additionally, is this practice still applicable to other non-futures options? Finally, if this is true, how to interpret it? The purposes of this paper are (1) to propose a theoretical analysis for examination and (2) to provide the economical and financial interpretations. By using a rigorous statistical analysis, we prove that the probabilities of options expiring worthless or positive profits for sellers are much higher than those of positive profits for buyers under most scenarios. The reasons for that are: (1) Options, as appose to other assets (e.g., stocks), have a unique property of time value that will decay away as time elapses, and (2) options are a type of insurance products which can be viewed as a wasting asset rather than an investment asset. The sellers of insurance products on average must earn, economically and financially, sufficient profits, otherwise they cannot exist in the long run. Therefore, if the motive of buying options is not for insurance, then it must be mainly for speculation. But non-futures call options should have an additional motive of investment nature. |