Add training workflow, datasets, and runbook

training_data/relevant/text/4dc7420c4e7f22771cebdf9b1ef3ede50fe1151e787c10680611ed55213c8fc2.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+483
+AN INTrOduCTION TO OPTIONS ON FuTureS
+investing the cash received and so is willing to accept less; the value of the options fall. 
+However, in futures markets, part of the value of distant contracts in a carry market 
+reflects the interest costs associated with owning the commodity. An increase in the 
+interest rate might cause the futures price to increase, leading to the value of existing 
+calls going up. The net effect on calls is ambiguous, but puts should decline in value 
+with increasing interest rates, as the effects are reinforcing.
+ ■ Theoretical versus Actual Option Premiums
+There is a variety of mathematical models available that will indicate the theoretical “fair value” for an 
+option, given specific information regarding the four factors detailed in the previous section. Theoret-
+ical values will approximate, but by no means coincide with, actual premiums. 
+does the existence of 
+such a discrepancy necessarily imply that the option is mispriced? definitely not. The model-implied 
+premium will differ from the actual premium for two reasons:
+ 1. The model’s assumption regarding the mathematical relationship between option prices (premi-
+ums) and the factors that affect option prices may not accurately describe market behavior. This 
+is always true because, to some extent, even the best option-pricing models are only theoretical 
+approximations of true market behavior.
+ 2. The volatility figure used by an option-pricing model will normally differ somewhat from the 
+market’s expectation of future volatility. This is a critical point that requires further elaboration.
+recall that although volatility is a crucial input in any option pricing formula, its value can 
+only be estimated. The theoretical “fair value” of an option will depend on the specific choice of a 
+volatility figure. Some of the factors that will influence the value of the volatility estimate are the 
+length of the prior period used to estimate volatility, the time interval in which volatility is mea-
+sured, the weighting scheme (if any) used on the historical volatility data, and adjustments (if any) 
+to reflect relevant influences (e.g., the recent trend in volatility). It should be clear that any specific 
+volatility estimate will implicitly reflect a number of unavoidably arbitrary decisions. 
+different 
+assumptions regarding the best procedure for estimating future volatility from past volatility will 
+yield different theoretical premium values. Thus, there is no such thing as a single, well-defined fair 
+value for an option.
+All that any option pricing model can tell you is what the value of the option should be given 
+the specific assumptions regarding expected volatility and the form of the mathematical relationship 
+between option prices and the key factors affecting them. If a given mathematical model provides a 
+close approximation of market behavior, a discrepancy between the theoretical value and the actual 
+premium means the market expectation for volatility, called the implied volatility, differs from the 
+historically based volatility estimate used in the model. The question of whether the volatility assump-
+tions of a specific pricing model provide more accurate estimates of actual volatility than the implied 
+volatility figures (i.e., the future volatility suggested by actual premiums) can only be answered 
+empirically. A bias toward buying “underpriced” options (relative to the theoretical model fair value)