麻烦各位高手，帮忙翻译一下

Question

Testing Models with Real Option Prices

In a sense, the mirror image of an option trader evaluating market prices using the model is the academic theorist "testing" a model on market data. The standard procedure is to compute theoretical values for a set of actual options and compare them with market prices. Small random differences can be explained as "noise," but systematic deviations are viewed as evidence of problems with the model. The common finding that deep-out-of-the-money options seem to be priced higher in the market than Black-Scholes would suggest has given rise to any number of increasingly complex alternative models to explain the phenomenon.
Tinkering with a model to try to make it fit market prices better confuses valuation and pricing. What an arbitrage-based option model says is that buying the option at its fair value and following the arbitrage strategy until expiration will return the risk-free rate of interest. If empirical tests
show that this would happen in practice, assuming you could buy the option for its model value and had no transaction costs, then the valuation formula is correct. How those options might be priced in the market has nothing to do with whether the model values them correctly!
What model-testers have in mind, of course, is that the theoretical valuation model should also be the market's pricing equation. As we have seen, in the real world an arbitrage-based valuation model produces a band around the theoretical option value, within which the excess profit that could be made is smaller than the cost to set up the arbitrage trade. In this context, the model only says that the price should be within the bounds. It is perfectly consistent with the model for the market price to be always at the lower bound or the upper bound, or following any kind of pattern in between. The finding of a consistent "bias" in market prices does not indicate a rejection of the model, unless the bias is large enough that prices lie well outside the arbitrage bounds. And those bounds may be very wide.

Is the Skeptic Right?

A true skeptic might argue that this discussion has shown two things. First, option valuation models don't give correct fair values because the continuous arbitrage can’t be done in practice. Second, even if models did give correct values, option prices in the market would not equal those values because of all of the other factors affecting supply and demand.
I would not go so far, although I think some skepticism is a healthy, and risk-averse, attitude in this case. A model does not have to be exactly right for it to be of use. The general acceptance of option models in the real world, and the fact that extensive empirical examination of those models has not led to widespread rejection of them, suggests that, at least for short-maturity, exchange-traded option contracts, the models work acceptably well.
暂时还没有满意的答案，还请高手帮帮忙

Answer 1

但是一些情形跟其它比起来保证一个怀疑论的较棒的程度。 有二个类型的问题: 模型可能是错误的,所以理论上的价值不是真实的选项价值, 或模型可能提供正确的价值, 但是市场不同地定价格选项。
在第一个阶元中，我们包括样板的假定被违犯的情形。 (对较大的范围超过常态) 这对长-成熟选项,叁数 , 像是挥发性和利率 (哪一个能对待当做非常持续在一个月之上 ) 能广泛地而且无法预测地在较长的期数之上改变是真实的。 我们只能有对一个评价模型的信心到那范围我们对选项呼出在外我们的它的叁数的预测是自信的, 未来可能是许多年。
我们也能期待从学名差错在仿制如几何学的 brownian 运动的安全价格方面出现的错误。有真实的价格变化有 " 胖尾部 " 一的相当多的证据哪一是, 超过模型有在一方面的大改变的较棒的可能性一个短间隔承担, 带领到围以树篱问题和短-成熟选项的低估之价值。 也有增加的结束两者的长和短地平线,有存货的价格运动的一些非任意的证据。
无疑地有理由在一个在下面的资产上怀疑以仲裁为基础的模型选项的评价没被交易, 即使理论家通常应用黑色者 - Scholes 为古代希腊的金额单位到仲裁是不可能的情形的所有样子, 或本质上如此。 举例来说，在破产的有限制的 1iability 对鸣叫选项用杰出的债务来制造公司的公正相似藉由支付债务来买来自公司债所有者的公司的资产是重要的理论上的洞察力。 但是公司整体而言不是能被独立地从它的安全交易的一个资产, 没有方法投资者会仲裁对抗在下面的公司群体如果他们
被想的市场正在标错价格它的选项价值。
相同的问题在任何的非交易资产上适用于选项, 或在一点也不是一个资产, 像是 " 选项 " 放弃一个投资计画的任何事上。 甚至评价在一个像一个独特财产这样的可销售的但是不能分割的资产上的选项, 引起困难当没有方法形成能被再平衡的一个树篱文件夹。 在哪一个一定有关源自来自不能够被做的一个仲裁策略的选项 s 价值是怀疑的有清楚许多情形。
当模型提供选项的真实价值的时候，问题的第二个阶元属于，但是市场不同地定价格它。 更困难和更昂贵的仲裁贸易将做, 比较棒的范围是让在模型没被复盖的因素从它的理论上价值把市价移开。 一些情形对于以仲裁为基础的模型是特别地困难的已经证明