Why Some Market Participants Are Worried About “Zero Day to Expiry” Options Trading

by John Christofilos, Senior Vice-President, Chief Trading Officer and Investment Management, Operations Strategy, AGF Investments Inc.

The numbers speak for themselves. The market for short-term options has proliferated during the past year and is now hitting daily notional volumes of US$1 trillion, according to a recent report from J.P. Morgan Global Markets on February 15th. And it isn’t just institutional traders using zero day to expiry (0DTE) call and put strategies. In fact, a growing number of retail investors is also trading them, lured by the opportunity to gain big returns in a small window of time.

But here lies a potential problem. As more and more people exercise these types of options to gain exposure to broad-based indexes like the S&P 500, there is an underlying risk that it will create market instability – even more than it may already be doing – and could lead to another so-called “flash crash” in the very worst-case scenario.

In large part, this risk stems mainly from the actions that the seller of a 0DTE may or may not take to protect themselves from significant losses.

For example, let’s first consider the dynamics involved in a call option (versus a put option). On one side of the trade is the buyer or owner of the call, who pays a small premium to have the right to buy an underlying asset at a certain price by a specific time or date — which they will do if the market value of the underlying asset is higher than the agreed upon price at expiration of the contract. Indeed, that way, they can immediately sell the shares they bought for a profit.

But if the underlying asset doesn’t reach the price agreed upon, the owner can simply let the option expire and their loss is limited to the cost of the option itself, which is usually just a small fraction of what it would cost to buy the stock outright in the first place.

In other words, the buyer’s risk is capped, but that’s not true of the seller. In their case, the potential risk is unlimited because there is theoretically no limit to how high the price of the underlying asset could have climbed at expiry of the option.

And the same goes for put options that allow owners to sell an underlying asset at a certain price and time. While the buyer’s risk is limited, the seller’s is not because there’s virtually no limit to how low the price of the underlying asset could have dropped at expiry unless it falls to zero.

Granted, this isn’t much of an issue to date. 0DTE options rarely get “into the money”, according to J.P. Morgan and generally suppress volatility in the market, not exacerbate it. Moreover, sellers tend to adequately hedge their potential risk by either buying or selling the underlying asset well in advance of the exercise date.

But that doesn’t mean it can’t become an issue. As J.P. Morgan also recently noted in the same report, one of the worries they have is a big move in market prices that pushes 0DTEs well “into the money,” thus leaving sellers unable to support their positions. In turn, they say this may lead to forced covering that could result in intraday selling or buying worth as much as US$30 billion.

Of course, if that were to happen, market volatility would likely spike – or worse, it could manifest in a severe market meltdown. And while theoretically this could occur regardless of an option’s time horizon, many observers say this is a particular risk associated with 0DTE options (as opposed to more traditional longer-dated options) because even the smallest moves can lead to huge fluctuations in their value.

Ultimately, 0DTEs have become an important trading tool that can often generate positive returns for those who use them. But as they grow more ubiquitous, the level of market risk attached to them continues to grow, too.





The views expressed in this blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of AGF, its subsidiaries or any of its affiliated companies, funds, or investment strategies.

Commentary and data sourced Bloomberg, Reuters and company reports unless otherwise noted. The commentaries contained herein are provided as a general source of information based on information available as of March 10, 2023 and are not intended to be comprehensive investment advice applicable to the circumstances of the individual. Every effort has been made to ensure accuracy in these commentaries at the time of publication, however, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Market conditions may change and AGF Investments accepts no responsibility for individual investment decisions arising from the use or reliance on the information contained here.

This document may contain forward-looking information that reflects our current expectations or forecasts of future events. Forward-looking information is inherently subject to, among other things, risks, uncertainties, and assumptions that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed herein.

AGF Investments is a group of wholly owned subsidiaries of AGF Management Limited, a Canadian reporting issuer. The subsidiaries included in AGF Investments are AGF Investments Inc. (AGFI), AGF Investments America Inc. (AGFA), AGF Investments LLC (AGFUS) and AGF International Advisors Company Limited (AGFIA). AGFA and AGFUS are registered advisors in the U.S. AGFI is registered as a portfolio manager across Canadian securities commissions. AGFIA is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland and registered with the Australian Securities & Investments Commission. The subsidiaries that form AGF Investments manage a variety of mandates comprised of equity, fixed income and balanced assets.

® The “AGF” logo is a registered trademark of AGF Management Limited and used under licence.


Previous Article

Workday Inc. - (WDAY) - March 30, 2023 (Daily Stock Report)

Next Article

Dreams of a Soft Landing

Related Posts
Subscribe to AdvisorAnalyst.com notifications
Watch. Listen. Read. Raise your average.