Talk:Delta neutral

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Large

I challenge this page to be larger. --User:General Eisenhower 03:05, March 25 2006

If you want the page to grow, feel free to research the subject and add information yourself! Good luck. -- Con Dem^Talk 02:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted a change to the example - if you believe the math is in error, please provide an explanation and let's discuss. Thanks. Ronnotel 03:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I have merged Delta hedging into this page as per the recent suggestion. I did it this way rather than into Delta hedging because I believe the term delta neutral is more general, and that delta hedging is the act of becoming delta neutral. Also, there was at least one link to a foreign language Wiki for Delta neutral and none for Delta hedging, hence it seemed easier this way. Ronnotel 01:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Static delta hedging

Static delta hedging is when you set delta to zero and delta does not vary when the price of the underlying changes... this article is simply wrong. 09:18, 4 December 2007 (CST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.141 (talk • contribs)

WP:SOFIXIT ;) Ronnotel (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mathematical interpretation

Does heteroscedasticity really have anything to do with delta hedging? I am not an expert in the field but it sounds counter intuitively since heteroscedasticity refers to changes in volatility and not stock prices.

Do we have an expert in the field? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.60.203.137 (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is hard to measure vol it is harder to divine an appropriate value for delta. Heteroscedasticity causes historical vol to be an inappropriate measure without adjustment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.63.213 (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why be delta neutral?

Could use some information as to why you would want to be delta-neutral

Good question and not really answered by the below link.

For individual investors it's not relevant.

For a hedge fund or IB that can take positions in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars,

it allows them to arbitrage a small discrepancy in pricing without taking the risk of the underlying security moving higher or lower.

i.e. They aren't making a directional bet, just an arbitrage. -- 67.150.104.16 (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)jimmyreno[reply]

There is a concrete example at http://www.quantprinciple.com/invest/index.php/docs/quant_strategies/delta_neutral_hedging_strategies/ Which shows how to assemble a portfolio that is Delta Neutral and how trading on the volatility makes money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by U912boiler (talk • contribs) 18:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notation in equation in article

I just changed the notation a bit. It previously used Δ to describe the change in price of the underlying asset (Δ = s - s0, which I mistakenly wrote as s0 - s in one of my edit summaries). Well that is confusing because that notation is generally used to describe the partial derivative of the option wrt the stock price which is one of the Greeks. So instead I made ε = s - s0 the change in price in order to avoid that confusion. Just wanted to explain my actions here and was surprised that no one noticed that up to this point in this article.--Jersey Devil (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article uses s as the initial price which is different than the way I used s in my above comment to denote the price after some time.--Jersey Devil (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to add a Nomenclature Section. Then we can be consistent. I personally don't get hung up on nomenclature myself, but I think for people new to the topic (most wikipedia users) it would be very important.

Also, I wanted to comment that I think the current quality of this article is low, and it is a very broad and deep subject. So I will try to add a better outline which will allow this article to get "Up to Snuff", and I will put a nomenclature section in there. (unless someone objects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by U912boiler (talk • contribs) 02:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is really good thing to make delta hedged at Portfolio level —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.222.5 (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]