Talk:Volatility smile

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Finance & Investment Stub‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Explanation of vol smile

Should the article include some explanation of why the volatility smile is observed, e.g. Black-Scholes normality assumption, fat tail events, etc? Finnancier 08:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure needed

It is inappropriate to have "volatility surface" diverted to this article, when the former is a much larger subject. Would it be preferred to have two articles, or to have a single article called "volatility surface", with a subsection "volatility smile"?

Also the article makes an unwarranted generalisation at the start. It is an easily observed empirical fact that there is not always a volatility smile in equity index markets. The implied volatility curve at a particular moment in time can be monotone even though there is a kink in the slope at the money. Elroch (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "smile" derived from curve shape?

If the term smile is used because the curve of this concept resembles a smile, i.e. a downward and then upward sloping curve, then I think it should be made explicit in the beginning of the article. I think it adds helpful definitional context for the novice reader. At first I thought the article was a misspelling of "simile". 24.193.42.103 (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, 3 years late.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deeply out-of-the-money

In the top section: "...than what is suggested by standard option pricing models. These options are said to be deep out-of-the-money." Not only do deeply out-of-the-money options command higher prices, but also deeply in-the-money options, as the figure clearly shows. 71.139.161.9 (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

true, but deeply in the money options aren't all that interesting. Basically buying the underlier but with a bid-ask spread typically many multiples higher. Ronnotel (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]