-2
$\begingroup$

A stock is like a living organism. A sparrow, say. And we are able to create an emergent-based abstraction of that sparrow, which closely approximates the sparrow itself, accounting for migration patterns, wind, weather, and other variables. We can create a similar abstraction of a stock combining the information from the specific ETFs, which represent its underlying dependencies. And if we apply this to the stock we can predict its delta, following the path of its extracted self, because nature follows abstraction.

Delta of $V$ is $$\frac{\partial V}{\partial S}$$

So delta of S (long) or -S (short) is $$\frac{\partial (\pm S)}{\partial S} = \pm 1 \ ?$$

If so, does this mean the hypothesis is unnecessary?

if we apply this to the stock

because anyone, for any stock,

can predict its delta

?

I have a feeling the show might've been just saying a bunch of words to sound smart but then turned out incorrect.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Definition of delta:

Delta is the ratio that compares the change in the price of an asset, usually marketable securities, to the corresponding change in the price of its derivative.

Yes, if you are measuring the delta of a long or short position in a stock, that's meaningless because the ratio of the change in the price of a stock, to the change in the price of a stock, is always 1. And if you short it then it's -1. It is like asking how many gallons per gallon your car gets.

Delta is a measurement that applies to derivatives, such as options.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ thanks! do you agree with 'the show might've been just saying a bunch of words to sound smart but then turned out incorrect' ? $\endgroup$
    – BCLC
    Jul 9 at 13:27

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.