Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wxk4p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T23:50:17.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk-Neutral Skewness: Evidence from Stock Options

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Patrick Dennis  and
Stewart Mayhew
Patrick Dennis
Affiliation:
pjd9v@virginia.edu, McIntire School of Commerce, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903
Stewart Mayhew
Affiliation:
mayhew@terry.uga.edu, Department of Banking and Finance, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We investigate the relative importance of various factors in explaining the volatility skew observed in the prices of stock options traded on the Chicago Board Options Exchange. The skewness of the risk-neutral density implied by individual stock option prices tends to be more negative for stocks that have larger betas, suggesting that market risk is important in pricing individual stock options. Also, implied skewness tends to be more negative in periods of high market volatility, and when the risk-neutral density for index options is more negatively skewed. Other firm-specific factors, including firm size and trading volume a so help explain cross-sectional variation in skewness. However, we find no robust relationship between skewness and the firm's leverage. Nor do we find evidence that skewness is related to the put/call ratio, which may be viewed as a proxy for trading pressure or market sentiment. Overall, firm-specific factors seem to be more important than systematic factors in explaining the variation in the skew for individual firms.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 471 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bakshi, G.; Kapadia, N.; and Madan, D.. “Stock Return Characteristics, Skew Laws, and the Differential Pricing of Individual Equity Options.” Review of Financial Studies (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Bakshi, G., and Madan, D.. “Spanning and Derivative Security Valuation.” Journal of Financial Economics, 55 (2000), 205–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, F., and Scholes, M.. “The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities.” Journal of Political Economy, 81 (1973), 637–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breeden, D., and Litzenberger, R.. “Prices of State-Contingent Claims Implicit in Option Prices.” Journal of Business, 51 (1978), 621–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fama, E., and French, K.. “The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns.” Journal of Finance, 47 (1992), 427–465.Google Scholar
Fama, E., and MacBeth, J.. “Risk, Return and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests.” Journal of Political Economy, 81 (1973), 607–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figlewski, S. “Options Arbitrage in Imperfect Markets.” Journal of Finance, 44 (1989), 1289–1311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figlewski, S., and Wang, X.. “Is the ‘Leverage Effect’ a Leverage Effect?” Working Paper, New York Univ. and City Univ. of Hong Kong (2000).Google Scholar
Franke, G.; Stapleton, R.; and Subrahmanyam, M.. “When are Options Overpriced: The Black-Scholes Model and Alternative Characterizations of the Pricing Kernel.” European Finance Review, 3 (1999), 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geske, R. “The Valuation of Compound Options.” Journal of Financial Economics, 7 (1979), 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackwerth, J. “Option Implied Risk-Neutral Distributions and Implied Binomial Trees: A Literature Review.” Journal of Derivatives, 7 (1999), 66–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacBeth, J., and Merville, L.. “An Empirical Examination of the Black-Scholes Call Option Pricing Model.” Journal of Finance, 34 (1979), 1173–1186.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, M. “Nonparametric Tests of Alternative Option Pricing Models Using All Reported Trades and Quotes on the 30 Most Active CBOE Option Classes from August 23, 1976, through August 31, 1978.” Journal of Finance, 40 (1985), 455–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubinstein, M. “Implied Binomial Trees.” Journal of Finance, 49 (1994), 771–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimko, D. “Bounds of Probability.” Risk, 6 (1993), 33–37.Google Scholar
Toft, K., and Prucyk, B.. “Options on Leveraged Equity: Theory and Empirical Tests.” Journal of Finance, 52 (1997), 1151–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar