Relative Risk Perception and the Puzzle of Covered Call Writing
No 199882, Risk and Sustainable Management Group Working Papers from University of Queensland, School of Economics
Market professionals with decades of experience typically argue that a call option is a surrogate for the underlying asset, indicating that they perceive the risk of a call option as similar to the risk of the underlying asset. Experimental evidence also points to the same conclusion. Such relative risk perception is in sharp contrast with finance theory, which argues that only the absolute quantity of risk contained in a call option should matter for its price. I show that relative risk perception provides a potential explanation for the puzzling performance of covered call writing.
Keywords: Financial; Economics (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ags:uqsers:199882
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Risk and Sustainable Management Group Working Papers from University of Queensland, School of Economics Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by AgEcon Search ().