Derivation and Comparative Statics of the Black-Scholes Call and Put Option Pricing Formulas

James R. Garven First Version: October 2004 Second Version: February 2006 Current Version: March 2009 ABSTRACT
This paper provides an alternative derivation of the Black-Scholes call and put option pricing formulas using an integration rather than differential equations approach. The economic and mathematical structure of these formulas is discussed, and comparative statics are derived.

The purposes of this paper are: (1) to provide a concise overview of the economic and mathematical assumptions needed to derive the Black-Scholes (1973) call and put option pricing formulas; (2) to provide an alternative derivation and comparative statics analysis of these formulas. This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we discuss the economic and mathematical structure of the Black-Scholes model. In the third section, we provide an alternative derivation of the Black-Scholes option pricing formulas based upon an integration rather than differential equations approach. The advantage of the integration approach lies in its simplicity, as only basic integral calculus is required. The integration approach also makes the link between the economics and mathematics of the call and put option formulas more transparent for most readers. This paper concludes with comparative statics analyses of these formulas. ECONOMIC AND MATHEMATICAL STRUCTURE OF THE BLACK-SCHOLES MODEL The most important economic insight contained in Black and Scholes seminal paper is the notion that an investor can create a riskless portfolio by dynamically hedging a long (short) position in the underlying asset with a short (long) position in a European call option. In order to prevent arbitrage, the expected return on such a portfolio must be the riskless rate of interest. Cox and Ross (1976) note that since the creation of such a hedge portfolio places no restrictions on investor preferences beyond nonsatiation, the valuation relationship between an option and its underlying asset is risk neutral in the sense that it does not depend upon investor risk preferences. Therefore, for a given price of the underlying asset,
James R. Garven is the Frank S. Groner Memorial Chair in Finance and Professor of Finance and Insurance at Baylor University's Hankamer School of Business. This article has benefited from the helpful comments of Soku Byoun, Richard Derrig, Gabriel Drimus, Bill Reichenstein, and J. T. Rose. Of course, the usual disclaimer applies.

a call option written against that asset will trade for the same price in a risk neutral economy as it would in a risk averse or risk loving economy. Consequently, options can be priced as if they are traded in risk neutral economies. Black and Scholes assume that stock prices change continuously according to the Geometric Brownian Motion equation; i.e.,
dS = Sdt + Sdz .

(1)

Equation (1) is a stochastic differential equation because it contains the Wiener process dz = dt , where is a standard normal random variable. dS corresponds to the stock price change per dt time unit, S is the current stock price, is the expected return, and represents volatility. The Geometric Brownian Motion equation is commonly referred to as an exponential stochastic differential equation because its solution is an exponential 2 function; specifically, St = Se ( / 2 )t + z t , where St represents the stock price t periods from now. Since z t is normally distributed, it follows that St is lognormally distributed.
2 St ' s mean is St = Se t , and its variance is St = S 2e 2 t ( e t 1).
2

Itos Lemma provides a rule for finding the differential of a function of one or more variables in which at least one of the variables follows a stochastic differential equation. At any given point in time, the value of the call option (C) depends upon the value of the underlying asset; i.e., C = C(S, t).1 Since the value of the call option is a function of the stock price which evolves over time according to equation (1), Itos Lemma justifies the use of a Taylor-series-like expansion for the differential dC:
dC = C C 1 2C 2 dt + dS + dS . t S 2 S 2

(2)

Since dS 2 = S 2 2dt , substituting for dS 2 in equation (2) yields equation (3):

C C 1 2 2 2C dt + dS + S dt . dC = t S 2 S 2

(3)

Suppose we wish to construct a hedge portfolio consisting of one long call option position worth C(S, t) and a short position in some quantity t of the underlying asset worth S per share. We express the hedge ratio t as a function of t because the portfolio will be dynamically hedged; i.e., as the price of the underlying asset changes through time, so will t. Then the value of this hedge portfolio is V = C(S, t) - tS, which implies
The call option value also depends upon the exercise price of the option (X), the interest rate (r), and the volatility of 2 the underlying asset ( S ). However, since these parameters are all assumed to be fixed in value, the differential equation for C
1

 C 1 2 2 2C dV = dC - tdS = + S S 2 t 2

C t dS . dt + S

(4)

Note that there are stochastic as well as deterministic terms on the right hand side of equation (4). The deterministic terms are represented by the first product, whereas the stochastic terms are represented by the second product. However, by setting t equal to C , the second product equals zero and we have: S
C 1 2 2 2C + S dV = S 2 t 2 dt . (5)

Since this is a perfectly hedged portfolio, it has no risk. In order to prevent arbitrage, the hedge portfolio must earn the riskless rate of interest r; i.e., dV =rVdt. We will assume that t = (6)

C C , so V = C(S, t) S . Substituting this into the right hand S S side of equation (6) and equating the result with the right hand side of equation (5), we obtain:

C 1 2 2 2C C + S r C S dt = dt . S S 2 t 2

(7)

Dividing both sides of equation (7) by dt and rearranging results in the Black-Scholes partial differential equation:
C 1 2 2 2C C + S + rS rC = 0. 2 t 2 S S

(8)

Equation (8) shows that dynamic hedging causes the valuation relationship between a call option and its underlying asset to be risk neutral. In other words, a relative pricing relationship exists such that investor risk preferences are immaterial because the investor is perfectly hedged. Equation (8) implies that the price of the call option depends upon five parameters; specifically, the current stock price S, the exercise price X, the riskless interest rate r, the time to expiration t, and the volatility of the underlying asset . Assuming there are t periods until option expiration occurs, the value of a call option today (C) must satisfy equation (8), subject to the boundary condition on the options payoff at expiration; i.e., Ct = Max[St X, 0], where X represents the options exercise price and St represents the stock

price at expiration. Black and Scholes transform their version of equation (8) into the heat transfer equation of physics,2 which allows them to (quite literally) employ a textbook solution procedure taken from Churchills (1963) classic introduction to Fourier series and their applications to boundary value problems in partial differential equations of engineering and physics. This solution procedure results in the following equation for the value of a European call option:
C = SN ( d 1 ) Xe rt N ( d 2 ),

(9)

where
d1 = ln( S / X ) + ( r + .5 2 )t ; t d 2 = d1 t ;

2 = variance of underlying assets rate of return; and N(z) = standard normal distribution function evaluated at z.
If it is not possible to form a riskless hedge portfolio, then other more restrictive assumptions are needed in order to obtain a risk neutral valuation relationship between an option and its underlying asset. Rubinstein (1976) has shown that the Black-Scholes option pricing formulas also obtain under the following set of assumptions: 1) The conditions for aggregation are met so that securities are priced as if all investors have the same characteristics as a representative investor; 2) The utility function of the representative investor exhibits constant relative risk aversion (CRRA); 3) The return on the underlying asset and the return on aggregate wealth are bivariate lognormally distributed; 4) The return on the underlying asset follows a stationary random walk through time; and 5) The riskless rate of interest is constant through time. Collectively, assumptions 1, 2, and 3 constitute sufficient conditions for valuing the option as if both it and the underlying asset are traded in a risk neutral economy. Assumptions 4 and 5 constitute necessary conditions for the Black-Scholes option pricing formulas, since they guarantee that the riskless rate of interest, the rate of return on the underlying asset, and the

2 Wilmott (2001, p. 156) notes that heat transfer equations date back to the beginning of the 19th century, and have been used to model a diverse set of physical and social phenomena, such as the flow of heat from one part of an object to another, electrical activity in the membranes of living organisms, the dispersion of populations, the formation of zebra stripes, and the dispersion of air and water pollution, among other things.

variance of the underlying asset will be proportional to time.3

DERIVATION OF THE BLACK-SCHOLES OPTION PRICING FORMULAS

Rubinstein (1987) notes that the Black-Scholes call option pricing formula can be derived by integration if one assumes that the probability distribution for the underlying asset is lognormal. Fortunately, as noted earlier, this assumption is implied by the Geometric Brownian Motion equation given by equation (1). Therefore, our next task is to derive the Black-Scholes call option pricing formula by integration. Once we obtain the Black-Scholes call option pricing formula, the put option pricing formula follows directly from the put-call parity theorem. The value today (C) of a European call option that pays Ct = Max[St X, 0] at date t is given by the following equation:
C = V (C t ) = V ( Max [ St X , 0]) ,

(10)

where V represents the valuation operator. Having established in equation (8) that a risk neutral valuation relationship exists between the call option and its underlying asset, it follows that we can price the option as if investors are risk neutral. Therefore, the valuation operator V determines the current price of a call option by discounting the risk neutral expected value of the options payoff at expiration ( E (C t ) ) at the riskless rate of interest, as indicated in equation (11):
C = e rt E (C t ) = e rt ( St X )h( St )dSt , X

(11)

where h( St ) represents the risk neutral lognormal density function of St .

We begin our analysis by computing the expected value of C t : E(C t ) = E[ Max ( St X , 0)] = ( St X )h( St )dSt ,
X

(12)

where h( St ) represents St 's lognormal density function.4 To evaluate this integral, we

3 Brennan (1979) shows that if the return on the underlying asset and the return on aggregate wealth are bivariate lognormally (normally) distributed, then the representative investor must have CRRA (CARA) preferences. Stapleton and Subrahmanyam (1984) extend Rubinsteins and Brennans results to a world where payoffs on options depend on the outcomes of two or more stochastic variables. 4 The difference between the h( S ) and h( S ) density functions is easily explained. Since S is a lognormally distributed t t t

random variable, E( St ) = St h( St )dSt = Se ( + .5 )t . Since all assets in a risk neutral economy are expected to return the
2

riskless rate of interest, this implies that in a risk neutral economy, E( St ) = Se rt , which in turn implies that ( + .5 2 )t =

rewrite it as the difference between two integrals:

E(C t ) = St h( St )dSt X h( St )dSt = EX ( St ) Xe rt [1 H ( X )] ,
X X

(13)

where
EX ( St ) = the partial expected value of St , truncated from below at X;5 H ( X ) = the probability that St X .

By rewriting the terminal stock price St as the product of the current stock price S and the tperiod lognormally distributed price ratio St / S , St = S ( St / S ) , equation (13) can be rewritten as
E(C t ) = S where
g ( St / S ) = lognormal density function of St /S;6 EX / S ( St / S ) = the partial expected value of St/S, truncated from below at X/S; and G( X / S ) = the probability that St /S X/S.
X /S

( St / S ) g ( St / S )dSt / S X

X /S

g ( St / S )dSt / S

= SEX / S ( St / S ) X [1 G( X / S )],

(14)

underlying asset per unit of time. Since St / S is lognormally distributed, ln ( St / S ) = kt is

2 normally distributed with density f(kt), mean k t and variance k t .7 Furthermore, g(St /S)

Next, we evaluate the right-hand side of equation (14) by considering its two integrals separately. First, consider the integral that corresponds to the partial expected value of the terminal stock price, SEX / S ( St / S ) . Let St / S = e kt , where k is the rate of return on the

= (S/St ) f(kt).8 Also, since St / S = e kt , dSt / S = e kt tdk. Consequently, ( St / S ) g ( St / S )dSt / S = e kt f ( kt )tdk. Thus,

rt. The h( St ) density function is risk neutral in the sense that its location parameter t is replaced by ( r .5 2 )t .
5

The partial expected value of X for values of X ranging from y to z is E zy ( X ) = Xf ( X )dX . If we replace the y and z
y

limits of integration with - and , then we have a complete expected value, or first moment. See Winkler, Roodman and Britney (1972) for more details concerning the computation of partial moments for a wide variety of probability distributions, including the normal distribution. 6 Note that g(S /S) = h(S )/S. t t 7 For the sake of simplifying notation, the k subscripts are dropped in the subsequent analysis. 8 The relationship between f(kt) and g ( S / S ) is apparent from differentiating the cumulative distribution function F(kt) t with respect to St / S : dF ( kt )/ d ( St / S ) = ( dF ( kt )/ d ( kt ))( dkt / d ( St / S )) = f ( kt )( S / St ).

SEX / S ( St / S ) = S

ln( X / S )

e kt f ( kt )tdk = S

1 2
2

ln( X / S )

e kt e {.5[( kt t )

/ 2 t ]}

tdk.

(15)

Next, we simplify equation (15)s integrand by adding the terms in the two exponents, 2 multiplying and dividing the resulting expression by e .5 t , and rearranging:
e kt e {.5[( kt t )
2

/ 2t ]}

= e {.5t [( k = e {.5t [( k

2 k + 2 2 2k )/ 2 ]} 2 k + 2 2 2k + 4 4 )/ 2 ]}
2 2

= e {.5t [(( k
2

) 4 2 2 )/ 2 ]}
2

(16)
.

= e ( + .5 )t e {.5[( kt ( +
2

)t )2 / 2t ]}

In equation (16), the term e ( +.5 )t = E( St /S), the mean of the t-period lognormally distributed price ratio St /S. Therefore, we can rewrite equation (15) with this term appearing outside the integral:
SEX / S ( St / S ) = SE( St / S ) = E( St ) 1 2 2t 1 2 2t

ln( X / S )

e {.5[( kt ( +
2

)t )2 / 2t ]}

tdk

ln( X / S )

e {.5[( kt ( +

)t )2 / 2t ]}

tdk.

(17)

Next, we let y = [ kt ( + 2 )t ]/ t , which implies that kt = ( + 2 )t + t y and tdk = t dy . With this change in variables, [ln(X/S) - ( + 2 )t ]/ t = 1 becomes the lower limit of integration. Thus equation (17) may be rewritten as:
SEX / S ( St / S ) = E( St ) [ e .5 y / 2 ]dy
2

= E( St ) n( y )dy = E( St ) n( y )dy
1

(18)

= E( St )N ( 1 ),

where n(y) is the standard normal density function evaluated at y and N ( 1 ) is the standard normal distribution function evaluated at y = 1 . In order to complete our computation of the expected value of C t , we must evaluate distributed, ln ( St / S ) = kt is normally distributed with density f(kt), mean t and variance the integral X
X /S

g ( St / S )dSt / S . As noted earlier, since St / S = e kt is lognormally

 2t . Furthermore, this change in variable implies that f ( kt )tdk must be substituted in place
of g ( St / S )dSt / S . Therefore,
X

X /S

g ( St / S )dSt / S = X =X

ln( X / S )

f ( kt )tdk

1 2 2t

ln( X / S )

{.5[( kt t )2 / 2t ]}

tdk.

(19)

Next, we let z = [ kt t ]/ t , which implies that kt = t + tz and tdk = t dz . With this change in variables, the lower limit of integration becomes [ln( X / S ) t ]/ t = -( 1 - t ) = 2 . Substituting these results into the right-hand side of equation (19) yields equation (20):
X
X /S

g ( St / S )dSt / S = X [ e .5z / 2 ]dz

2

= X n( z )dz

(20)

= XN ( 2 ),

where n(z) is the standard normal density function evaluated at z and N ( 2 ) is the standard normal distribution function evaluated at z = 2 . Substituting the right-hand sides of equations (18) and (20) into the right-hand side of equation (14), we obtain
E(C t ) = E( St )N ( 1 ) XN ( 1 t ).

(21)

Since equation (11) defines the price of a call option as the discounted, risk neutral expected value of the options payoff at expiration; i.e., C = e rt E (C t ) , our next task is to compute the risk neutral expected value of the stock price on the expiration date ( E( S ) ) and the risk neutral value for 1 (which we will refer to as d 1 ). In footnote (3), we noted that ( + .5 2 )t = rt in a risk neutral economy. Since E( St ) = Se ( +.5 )t , this implies that E( St ) = Se rt . In the expression for 1 , the term ( + 2 )t appears. In a risk neutral economy, ( + 2 )t = ( r + .5 2 )t ; therefore, d 1 = [ln(S/X) + ( r + .5 2 )t ]/ t . Substituting the right-hand side of equation (21) into the right-hand side of equation (11) and simplifying yields the Black-Scholes call option pricing formula:
C = e rt E (C t ) = e rt Se rt N ( d 1 ) XN ( d 1 t ) rt = SN ( d 1 ) Xe N ( d 2 ).
2

(22)

Now that we have the Black-Scholes pricing formula for a European call option, the put option pricing formula follows directly from the put-call parity theorem. Suppose two portfolios exist, one consisting of a European call option and a riskless discount bond, and the other consisting of a European put option and a share of stock against which both options are written. The call and put both have exercise price X and t periods to expiration, and the riskless bond pays off X dollars at date t. Then these portfolios date t payoffs are identical, since the payoff on the first portfolio is Max ( St X , 0) + X = Max ( St , X ) and the payoff on the second portfolio is Max ( X St , 0) + St = Max ( St , X ). Consequently, the current value of these portfolios must also be the same; otherwise there would be a riskless arbitrage opportunity. Therefore, the price of a European put option, P, can be determined as follows:
P = C + Xe rt S = SN ( d 1 ) Xe rt N ( d 2 ) + Xe rt S = Xe rt [1 N ( d 2 )] S [1 N ( d 1 )] = Xe rt N ( d 2 ) SN ( d 1 ).

(23)

COMPARATIVE STATICS OF THE BLACK-SCHOLES CALL AND PUT EQUATIONS

As indicated by equations (22) and (23), the prices of European call and put options depend upon five parameters: S, X, t, r, and . Next, we provide comparative statics analysis of call and put option prices. Relationship between the call and put option prices and the price of the underlying asset Consider the relationship between the price of the call option and the price of the underlying asset, C/S: C/S = N( d 1 ) +S(N( d 1 )/ d 1 )( d 1 /S) - X e rt (N( d 2 )/ d 2 )( d 2 /S) = N( d 1 ) + Sn( d 1 )( d 1 /S) - X e rt n( d 2 )( d 2 /S) Since d 2 = d 1 - t , d 2 /S = d 1 /S and n( d 2 ) = n( d 1 - t ). Substituting these relationships into equation (24) gives us C/S = N( d 1 ) + ( d 1 /S)[Sn( d 1 ) - X e rt n( d 1 - t )] = N( d 1 ) + ( d 1 /S)
2 1 [S e .5d1 - X e rt e .5( d1 2

(24)

t )2

(25)

Recall that d 1 = [ln(S/X) + ( r + .5 2 )t ]/ t . Solving for S, we find that S =

Xe d 1
t ( r +.5 2 )t

. Substituting this expression for S into equation (25)s bracketed term yields
2 1 [X e .5d1 e d1 2

C/S = N( d 1 ) + ( d 1 /S) = N( d 1 ) + ( d 1 /S)

t ( r +.5 2 )t

- X e rt e .5( d 1 t
2

.5 2

])] )] (26)

2 1 [X( e ( r +.5 )t + d1 2

2 t .5 d 1

- e ( r +.5

2 )t + d 1 t .5 d 1

Since the bracketed term on the right hand side of equation (26) equals zero, C/S = N( d 1 ) > 0; i.e., the price of a call option is positively related to the price of its underlying asset. Furthermore, from our earlier analysis of the Black-Scholes partial differential equation, we know that a dynamically hedged portfolio consisting of one long call position per t = C / S short shares of the underlying asset is riskless (cf. equation (5)). Since C/S = N( d 1 ), N( d 1 ) is commonly referred to as the options delta, and the dynamic hedging strategy described here is often referred to as delta hedging. Intuitively, since the put option provides its holder with the right to sell rather than buy, one would expect a negative relationship between the price of a put option and the price of its underlying asset.
P/S = -N(- d 1 ) + X e rt (N(- d 2 )/ d 2 )( d 2 /S) - S(N(- d 1 )/ d 1 )( d 1 /S)

= -N(- d 1 ) - X e rt n(- d 2 )( d 1 /S) + Sn(- d 1 )( d 1 /S)

= -N(- d 1 ) + ( d 1 /S)[ Sn(- d 1 ) - X e rt n( t - d 1 )]

(27)

Rearranging the bracketed term in equation (27), we find that Sn(- d 1 ) - X e rt n( t - d 1 ) =

Sn( d 1 ) - X e rt n( d 1 - t ). From our analysis of equations (25)-(26), we know that this term is equal to zero. Therefore, P/S = -N(- d 1 ) < 0. Thus our intuition is confirmed; i.e., the price of a put option is negatively related to the price of its underlying asset. Relationship between call and put option prices and the exercise price

Consider next the relationship between the price of the call option and the exercise price, C/X:
C/X = - e rt N( d 2 ) +S(N( d 1 )/ d 1 )( d 1 /X) - X e rt (N( d 2 )/ d 2 )( d 2 /X)

10

= - e rt N( d 2 ) +Sn( d 1 )( d 1 /X) - X e rt n( d 2 )( d 2 /X)

(28)

Substituting d 2 = d 1 - t , d 2 /X = d 1 /X and n( d 2 ) = n( d 1 - t ) into (28) gives us

C/X = - e rt N( d 2 ) + ( d 1 /X)[Sn( d 1 ) - X e rt n( d 1 - t )].

(29)

Since [Sn( d 1 ) - X e rt n( d 1 - t )] = 0, it follows that C/X = - e rt N(d2) < 0; i.e., the price of a call option is negatively related to its exercise price. Intuition suggests that since the price of a call option is negatively related to its exercise price, one would expect to find that a positive relationship exists between the price of a put option and its exercise price, which we confirm in equation (30):
P/X = e rt N(- d 2 ) + X e rt (N(- d 2 )/ d 2 )( d 2 /X) - S(N(- d 1 )/ d 1 )( d 1 /X)

= e rt N(- d 2 ) - X e rt n(- d 2 )( d 1 /X) + Sn(- d 1 )( d 1 /X)

= e rt N(- d 2 ) + ( d 1 /X)[Sn(- d 1 ) - X e rt n( t - d 1 )]

(30)

Since [Sn(- d 1 ) - X e rt n( t - d 1 )] = 0, it follows that P/X = e rt N(- d 2 ) > 0; i.e., the price of a put option is positively related to its exercise price.
Relationship between call and put option prices and the interest rate

Consider next the relationship between the price of the call option and the rate of interest, C/r:
C/r = tX e rt N(d2) +S(N( d 1 )/ d 1 )( d 1 /r) - X e rt (N( d 2 )/ d 2 )( d 2 /r)

= tX e rt N( d 2 ) + Sn( d 1 )( d 1 /r) - X e rt n( d 2 )( d 1 /r)

= tX e rt N( d 2 ) + ( d 1 /r) [Sn( d 1 ) - X e rt n( d 1 - t )] = tX e rt N( d 2 ).

(31)

Since the right-hand side of Equation (31) is positive, this implies that the price of a call option is positively related to the rate of interest. This comparative static relationship is commonly referred to as the options rho. 11

Intuition suggests that since the price of a call option is positively related to the rate of interest, one would expect to find that a negative relationship exists between the price of a put option and the rate of interest, which we confirm in equation (32):
P/r = -tX e rt N(- d 2 ) + X e rt (N(- d 2 )/ d 2 )( d 2 /r) - S(N(- d 1 )/ d 1 )( d 1 /r)

= -tX e rt N(- d 2 ) - X e rt n(- d 2 )( d 1 /r) + Sn(- d 1 )( d 1 /r)

= -tX e rt N(- d 2 ) + ( d 1 /r)[Sn(- d 1 ) - X e rt n( t - d 1 )] = -tX e rt N(- d 2 ).

(32)

Since the right-hand side of Equation (32) is negative, this implies that the price of a put option is negatively related to the rate of interest.
Relationship between call and put option prices and the time to expiration

Consider next the relationship between the price of the call option and the time to expiration, C/t:
C/t = rX e rt N( d 2 ) + S(N( d 1 )/ d 1 )( d 1 /t) - X e rt (N( d 2 )/ d 2 )( d 2 /t). (33)

Substituting X = Se d1

t +( r +.5 2 )t

into equation (33) and simplifying further, we obtain

t +( r +.5 2 )t rt

C/t = rX e rt N( d 2 ) + S[n( d 1 )( d 1 /t) - e d 1

n( d 1 - t )( d 2 /t)]
t +( r +.5 2 ) t rt .5( d 1 t )2

= rXe -rt N ( d 2 ) + S = rXe - rt N ( d 2 ) + S

2 1 [( d 1 / t )e .5d 1 ( d 2 / t )e d 1 2

2 1 [( d 1 / t )e .5d 1 ( d 2 / t )e d 1 2

2 t +d 1 t +rt rt +.5 2 t .5 2 t .5 d 1

= rXe -rt N ( d 2 ) + Sn( d 1 )[( d 1 / t ) ( d 2 / t )] = rXe - rt N ( d 2 ) + Sn( d 1 )

.5 . t

(34)

Since the both terms on the right-hand side of Equation (34) is positive, this implies that the price of a call option is positively related to the time to expiration; i.e., longer lived European 12

call options are worth more than otherwise identical shorter lived European call options. Next, we consider the relationship between the price of a put option and the time to expiration:
P/t = -rX e rt N(- d 2 ) + X e rt (N(- d 2 )/ d 2 )( d 2 /t) - S(N(- d 1 )/ d 1 )( d 1 /t) (35)

Substituting X = Se d1

t +( r +.5 2 )t

into equation (35) and simplifying further, we obtain

t +( r +.5 2 )t rt

P/t = - rXe - rt N ( d 2 ) + Se d 1

n( t d 1 )( d 2 / t ) Sn( d 1 )( d 1 / t )
( d 2 / t ) Sn( d 1 )( d 1 / t )

= - rXe - rt N ( d 2 ) +

S d1 e 2

t +( r +.5 2 )t rt .5( t d 1 )2

= - rXe - rt N ( d 2 ) + Sn( d 1 )[( d 2 / t ) ( d 1 / t )] = rXe -rt N ( d 2 ) + Sn( d 1 )

.5 k ? <> 0 t

(36)

It is not possible to sign P/t , because the first term is negative and the second term is

positive. Therefore, the relationship between put value and time to expiration is ambiguous.9

Relationship between call and put option prices and volatility of the underlying asset

Finally, consider the relationship between the price of the call option and the volatility of the underlying asset, C / :

9 The theta for an option represents the rate at which its value changes with the passage of time, given a fixed time to

expiration. Therefore, the first term on the left-hand side of equation (8) corresponds to the theta for a call option which expires in T periods, where T represents a fixed unit of time. Thus theta for a call option, C , is equal to
1 C / t , where C / t corresponds to the right-hand side of equation (34); i.e., C = rXe -rt N ( d 2 ) .5 Sn( d 1 ) < 0. Since the theta of a call option is negative, this implies that with the passage of time, call options t .5 become less valuable. However, since, P = rXe -rt N ( d 2 ) - Sn( d 1 ) k , this implies that the theta for a put option may t be positive or negative depending upon the relative magnitudes of the two terms with opposing signs.

13

C / = S

N ( d 1 ) d 1 N ( d 2 ) d 2 - Xe -rt . d 1 d 2
t +( r +.5 2 )t

(37)

Substituting

N ( d 2 ) d d = n( d 2 ) = n( d 1 k t ) , 2 = 1 t , and X = Se d1 d 2 equation (37) and simplifying further, we obtain

into

C/ = S[n( d 1 )( d 1 /) - e d1
e
2 .5 d 1

t +( r +.5 2 )t rt

n( d 1 - t )( d 2 /)]
)
2

=S
(

d 1 Se d1 2
)
2

t +( r +.5 )t - rt

.5 d 1 t

2
2

d 1 t

(38)

Since e

d 1 t + rt +.5 2t rt .5 d 1 t

=e

2 .5 d 1

e .5d1 and n( d 1 ) = , equation (38) can be rewritten as 2

2

d e .5d 1 d 1 C / = Sn( d 1 ) 1 S t 2 d d = Sn( d 1 ) 1 Sn( d 1 ) 1 + Sn( d 1 ) t = Sn( d 1 ) t .

(39)

As equation (39) indicates, the price of a call option is positively related to the volatility of the underlying asset. This comparative static relationship is commonly referred to as the options vega. Next, we consider the relationship between the price of a put option and the volatility of the underlying asset, P / :
P / = Xe -rt N ( d 2 ) d 2 N ( d 1 ) d 1 S d 2 d 1 d 2 d + Sn( d 1 ) 1 .
t +( r +.5 2 )t

= Xe - rt n( d 2 ) Substituting d 2 = t d 1 ,

(40)

d 2 d 1 = t , and X = Se d 1 side of equation (40) and simplifying further yields:

into the right hand

14

d e P/ = S[ n( d 1 ) 1

d 1 t +rt +.5 2 t rt .5 t d 1

2 d d = Sn( d 1 )[ 1 ( 1 t )] = Sn( d 1 ) t .

d 1 t )]

(41)

As equation (41) indicates, the price of a put option is positively related to the volatility of the underlying asset. Table 1 summarizes the comparative statics of the Black-Scholes call and put option pricing formulas.

15

REFERENCES

Black, F., and M. Scholes (1973), The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities, Journal of Political Economy 81:637-659. Brennan M. J., 1979, The Pricing of Contingent Claims in Discrete Time Models, Journal of Finance, Vol. 34, No. 1 (March), pp. 53-68. Churchill, R. V. (1963), Fourier Series and Boundary Value Problems, 2nd edition, New York: McGraw-Hill. Cox, J. C., and S. A. Ross (1976), The Valuation of Options for Alternative Stochastic Processes, Journal of Financial Economics 3:145-166. Rubinstein, M. (1976), The Valuation of Uncertain Income Streams and the Pricing of Options, Bell Journal of Economics 7:407-425. Rubinstein, M. (1987), Derivative Assets Analysis, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1(Autumn): 73-93. Stapleton, R. C. and M. G. Subrahmanyam, 1984, The Valuation of Multivariate Contingent Claims in Discrete Time Models, Journal of Finance, Vol. 39, No. 1 (March), pp. 207228. Wilmott, P. (2001), Paul Wilmott Introduces Quantitative Finance, Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Winkler, R. L., G. M. Roodman and R. R. Britney (1972), The Determination of Partial Moments, Management Science 19(3):290-296.

16

Table 1. Comparative Statics of the Black-Scholes Model Derivative

C P and S S (delta) C P and X X C P and r r (rho) C P and t t

Call Option
C = N( d 1 ) > 0 S C = - e -rt N( d 2 ) < 0 X C = tX e -rt N( d 2 ) > 0 r C .5 = rXe -rt N ( d 2 ) + Sn( d 1 ) >0 t t

Put Option
P = -N(- d 1 ) < 0 S P = e -rt N(- d 2 ) > 0 X P = -tX e -rt N(- d 2 ) < 0 r P .5 ? = rXe -rt N ( d 2 ) + Sn( d 1 ) k <> 0 t t

theta
C P and (vega)

C .5 = rXe -rt N ( d 2 ) Sn( d 1 ) <0 t t C = Sn( d 1 ) t > 0

P .5 ? = rXe -rt N ( d 2 ) Sn( d 1 ) k <> 0 t t P = Sn( d 1 ) t > 0

17