Black–Scholes–Merton, Liquidity, and the Valuation of Executive Stock Options

Abstract

In some contexts, this illiquidity of executive stock options is referred to as non-transferability. In others, the problem is cast in terms of the highly concentrated portfolios that managers hold, an implication of which is that managers could not trade the options to diversify. The notion of option liquidity usually conjures up images of trading pits at the Chicago Board Options Exchange or other exchanges. The existence of an active trading pit gives a powerful visual image of liquidity, but, as evidenced by the success of electronic options exchanges such as New York's International Securities Exchange and Frankfurt's EUREX, a trading pit is hardly a requirement for liquidity. The existence of a guaranteed market for standardized options as implied by options exchanges (whether pit-based or electronic) further gives a misleading appearance of high liquidity. There is also a very large market for customized over-the-counter options. It is a misconception to think that these options are not liquid when they are simply not standardized. If an investor can create a highly customized long position in an option, that investor should be able to create a highly customized short position in the same option at a later date before expiration. If both options are created through the same dealer, they will usually be treated as an offset, as they would if they were standardized options clearing through a clearinghouse. If the two transactions are not with the same dealer, they would both remain alive, but the market risks would offset. Only the credit risk, a factor we ignore in this paper, would remain. Hence, these seemingly illiquid options are, for all practical purposes, liquid.²

Citation

Chance, D.M. and Yang, T.-H. (2007), "Black–Scholes–Merton, Liquidity, and the Valuation of Executive Stock Options", Hirschey, M., John, K. and Makhija, A.K. (Ed.) Issues in Corporate Governance and Finance (Advances in Financial Economics, Vol. 12), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 271-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1569-3732(07)12011-9