
Gamma zero: an overlooked signal of volatility is flashing red
Markets are most erratic when option hedging exposures are flat
Options dealers know only too well the dangers of short gamma positioning, which causes hedgers to sell into falling markets, triggering further price falls and more selling by hedgers – a feedback loop known as a gamma trap.
Less well understood is how the gamma positioning of dealers might signal turbulence even when dealer exposures are flat — when the trap, so to speak, is not loaded.
Traders and investors know that markets are more volatile when gamma exposures are negative, says Garrett DeSimone, head of quantitative research at options data firm OptionMetrics. “What’s less widely known is that markets are at their most volatile when gamma is at zero.”
OptionMetrics estimates exposures by tracking data on the volumes of options written at different strikes. A graph of its estimates plotted against volatility in US stocks illustrates the point DeSimone refers to.
Volatility is greatest when the Street’s gamma exposure is neither positive nor negative, it turns out. This isn’t to say negative or so-called short gamma isn’t the problem markets have long thought it to be. But flat gamma, it seems, is cause for worry too.
Gamma zero could be compared with the event horizon of a black hole where normal rules cease to apply, DeSimone says. “When you get closer to that zero value, markets become totally out of whack.”
The influence of gamma is one of the more complex structural elements in markets. The term refers to the rate of change in an option’s delta as the price of the underlying moves.
Dealers build up exposure when they write options, the values of which change more violently the closer the spot price of the underlying is to the option’s strike.
When they are short gamma, in a sell-off they are forced to pare those hedges aggressively – selling as prices fall; the deeper the drop, the harder dealers have to sell.
The dynamic has been blamed for flash crashes, and the wrong kind of exposures cited as the cause for failing strategies. Quants that trade intraday trends watch gamma indicators closely, such is the influence of hedging flows on late-session price moves.
Positive gamma exposures have the opposite effect, dampening volatility. Dealers that are ‘long gamma’ add to their hedges when prices fall, meaning they buy assets.
Flat gamma, though, is a different case entirely. It indicates that dealers are holding more balanced books, DeSimone says, probably because they are nervous about the market outlook. It means firms are hiking the price of options – making protection more expensive for investors – so as to write fewer contracts and so reduce the need to hedge.
When gamma is flat, then, markets jump because investors are less well hedged and because the absence of dealer hedging reduces market liquidity.
Gamma zero does not always create volatility, of course. Other factors – inflation, rate hikes, wars, and so on – commonly play the lead role. Equity volatility has remained oddly low this year despite gamma exposures at much lower levels than in 2018 and 2019, for example.
Yet the flattening of exposures has been a feature of markets since the Covid pandemic struck in March 2020 (see figure 2). And a concern now is that such a flattening could point to elevated volatility in future.
“It looks like dealers are unwilling to hold big gamma positions anymore,” DeSimone says.
In an uncertain macroeconomic environment, dealers pulling back from offering protection cannot be good news for investors.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Our take
Podcast: Lyudmil Zyapkov on the relativity of volatility
BofA quant’s new volatility model combines gamma processes and fractional Brownian motion
Market knee-jerks keep VAR models on their toes
With a return to volatility, increased backtesting exceptions show banks’ algos are stretched
A market-making model for an options portfolio
Vladimir Lucic and Alex Tse fill a glaring gap in European-style derivatives modelling
How AI agents could become investing’s crash test dummies
Firms mull the use of chatbot simulations to test organisational set-ups
Degree of influence 2024: volatility and credit risk keep quants alert
Quantum-based models and machine learning also contributed to Cutting Edge’s output
Podcast: Alexandre Antonov turns down the noise in Markowitz
Adia quant explains how to apply hierarchical risk parity to a minimum-variance portfolio
Why did UK keep the pension fund clearing exemption?
Liquidity concerns, desire for higher returns and clearing capacity all possible reasons for going its own way
UBS’s Iabichino holds a mirror to bank funding risks
Framing funding management as an optimal control problem affords an alternative to proxy hedging