User:Gxti, CC BY 3.0 · CC-BY-3.0 · Wikimedia Commons
Put-call parity is a no-arbitrage identity, not a model: $C - P = S - K e^{-rT}$ for European options on a non-dividend-paying stock. It holds independent of any pricing model because both sides describe portfolios with identical payoffs at maturity. Given any five of $\{C, P, S, K, e^{-rT}\}$, the sixth is pinned down by algebra.
β Intro Β· expand
Try first (productive failure)
Before the worked example: spend 60 seconds taking your best shot at this.
A guess is fine β being briefly wrong about a problem makes the explanation
land harder when you read it. This appears once per tutorial; skip
if you already know the trick.
60s
β Try first Β· expand
Worked example
A non-dividend-paying stock trades at $S = \$100$. A 1-year European put with strike $K = \$100$ trades at $P = \$5$. The continuously-compounded risk-free rate is $r = 4\%$. Find the price of the European call with the same strike and maturity. Round to the nearest cent.
β Worked example Β· expand
Practice 1 of 3Type a fraction, decimal, or expression β mathjs parses it.
β Practice Β· expand
More examples
A handful of harder problems on the same theme. Click any prompt to reveal the solution sketch.
For European options on a non-dividend stock, the put-call parity reads $c + K e^{-r\tau} = p + S$, where $c$ and $p$ are the European call and put prices struck at $K$, $S$ is the current spot, $\tau$ is time to expiry, and $r$ is the risk-free rate. Prove this from a no-arbitrage argument.
Construct two portfolios at time $t$. Portfolio A: one European call + cash $K e^{-r\tau}$. Portfolio B: one European put + one share. At expiry $T$ both have payoff $\max(S_T, K)$: A pays $\max(S_T - K, 0) + K$, B pays $\max(K - S_T, 0) + S_T$. Since both terminal payoffs are identical and the underlying is non-dividend (so holding the share has no interim cashflow), no-arbitrage forces equal time-$t$ value: $c + K e^{-r\tau} = p + S$.
+ More examples Β· expand
Reflection
Parity is a <em>model-free</em> identity — it doesn’t care about volatility, the distribution of $S_T$, or whether the market is rational. So why does it still hold when Black-Scholes’s assumptions fail? And what real-world frictions actually <em>do</em> break it?