3 ms·
Thanks, very informative stuff. (1) and (3): If we're to use open interest (along with the gamma of such open interest), it seems that we have to make specific
by hntrader 6y ago
Thanks, very informative stuff.
(1) and (3): If we're to use open interest (along with the gamma of such open interest), it seems that we have to make specific assumptions about whether options' market makers are going to be net short/long, and by how much, in each specific contract, in order to perform the calculations. What such assumptions do you think that we should use for that, and I wonder if there's a way to make it more accurate than simply assuming "100% of this open interest in this specific put is held short by options market makers"? That seems to be the assumption made in [1], which is definitely very incorrect but maybe it's the best we can do?
(4) So I guess flow that results from vanna hedging (and the other greeks aside from delta/gamma) is pretty small then. A number of people on Twitter make a big deal out of vanna hedging - they seem to think it can predict moves in the underlying, but they must be mistaken if not much flow comes from it as a result.
[1] https://squeezemetrics.com/download/white_paper.pdf https://squeezemetrics.com/download/white_paper.pdf
- lordnacho 6y agoI didn't mean to suggest that vanna isn't important, it's just part of the same mix of things to think about when prices/vols/rates move. Somehow it never came up much in conversation by that name, but it was a thing to think about. The squeezemetrics people seem to have quantified it, it's actually quite impressive. The GEX and VEX thing seems to be what you are alluding to, and they seem to have crunched the numbers. Browsing the papers it seems they assume that the customers are selling the calls and buying the puts? I think it makes sense, it's more sensible than saying all the open interest is one way on the market makers.