IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ufajxx/v76y2020i1p82-99.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Option Investor Rationality Revisited: The Role of Exercise Boundary Violations

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Battalio
  • Stephen Figlewski
  • Robert Neal

Abstract

The authors dispute the theory that American call options should not be exercised early. By looking at intraday pricing, they find that the best bid price available is often lower than the option’s intrinsic value and early exercise can be rational.Our empirical results overturn the well-known textbook theory that American options should not be exercised early except in very limited conditions. In the real world, the best bid available in the market is frequently below the option’s intrinsic value (e.g., nearly half of all quotes for in-the- money calls), which we call an “exercise boundary violation” (EBV). In an EBV, early exercise can be the right strategy and the “American” option characteristic has economic value. Some option holders do exercise, some sell at EBV bid prices, and our results suggest that actual exercise behavior is much less irrational than earlier studies concluded.Disclosure: The authors report no conflicts of interest.Editor’s NotesSubmitted 26 May 2019Accepted 4 November 2019 by Stephen J. Brown.This article was externally reviewed using our double-blind peer-review process. When the article was accepted for publication, the authors thanked the reviewers in their acknowledgments. Giuseppe Ballocchi, CFA, and William Fung were the reviewers for this article.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Battalio & Stephen Figlewski & Robert Neal, 2020. "Option Investor Rationality Revisited: The Role of Exercise Boundary Violations," Financial Analysts Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(1), pages 82-99, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:ufajxx:v:76:y:2020:i:1:p:82-99
    DOI: 10.1080/0015198X.2019.1694362
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/0015198X.2019.1694362
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/0015198X.2019.1694362?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:ufajxx:v:76:y:2020:i:1:p:82-99. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/ufaj20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.