Learn how to replicate or replace derivative payoffs through synthetic positions, exploring the intricacies of arbitrage strategies in derivative markets, payoff replication, and potential market frictions.
When we talk about arbitrage in derivatives, it’s hard not to get excited about those near-magical strategies that lock in risk-free profits. Perhaps you’ve heard stories of traders quickly piecing together “synthetic” trades that replicate an existing derivative’s payoff but at a better price. Believe it or not, these stories aren’t always tall tales—they’re what’s behind “synthetic positions in derivative arbitrage.”
In this section, we’ll explore how to build synthetic long and short positions using combinations of options, forwards, futures, or swaps. Specifically, we’ll dig into how creating the same payoff profile as a standard derivative contract can reveal when and where arbitrage opportunities exist. We’ll examine a few key synthetic relationships (like Call – Put = Forward) and show that as soon as there’s a mismatch between a synthetic price and the actual price of a derivative, an astute arbitrageur can pounce. That said, watch out: transaction costs, regulations, margin requirements, and good old “real-world headaches” often stand in the way of perfect alignments.
We’ll start with the basic building blocks—like put–call parity—then show various ways to replicate (or replace) payoff profiles. Ultimately, we’ll cover some advanced topics such as equity-based swaps and box spreads. Let’s jump in.
A “synthetic position” is any combination of instruments that produces nearly the same profit/loss payoff as another, single instrument. You can have:
• A synthetic forward contract via options (combining a call and put with the same strike and expiration).
• A synthetic long position in a stock by buying a call and selling a put on that stock.
• A synthetic short position in a bond by shorting a futures contract on that bond—and so on.
If your synthetic position is cheaper (or more expensive) than the real position, an arbitrage opportunity arises. In principle, you’d buy what’s undervalued, sell what’s overvalued, and lock in a profit with no net risk.
Put–call parity is the conceptual backbone of many synthetic trades. The simplest statement of put–call parity for a European option on a non-dividend-paying stock is:
C – P = S₀ – PV(K)
• C is the price of a European call.
• P is the price of a European put (both have the same strike K and expiration).
• S₀ is the current price of the underlying.
• PV(K) is the present value of the strike price K discounted at the risk-free rate until expiration.
From a synthetic perspective, rearranging that equality can give you any leg you want. For example:
Call – Put = Forward Position
(This is a simplified conceptual expression, ignoring interest on the strike, but the key idea is that one can replicate a forward with a call and put that share the same strike.)
An even simpler relationship is:
Long Stock + Short Call = Short Put
Have you ever tried this out in a practice trade? A friend of mine once combined these legs to replicate being short a put contract (and was genuinely surprised when they realized the payoff diagrams were basically identical). From an algebraic perspective, if you add a stock position and subtract one portion of call payoff, you end up with the “downside liability” profile that matches a short put.
Below is a quick Mermaid diagram illustrating the payoff relationships between (1) Long Stock, (2) Short Call, and (3) the resulting Synthetic Short Put:
flowchart LR
A["Stock Payoff"] --> B["Combine with <br/> Short Call Payoff"]
B["Combine with <br/> Short Call Payoff"] --> C["= Final Synthetic Payoff <br/> (Short Put)"]
The final synthetic payoff is nearly identical to just selling a put. This identity underpins some option strategies in hedging or generating income from a net bullish view.
The most famous synthetic is the “forward synthesized with options.” As we saw with put–call parity, combining a long call and a short put with the same strike and maturity can replicate being long the underlying forward. Suppose we denote F as the forward contract price:
The result is a payoff that’s basically the same as a forward contract at strike K (assuming the underlying doesn’t pay dividends and ignoring interest rates for simplicity).
If the forward contract’s market price deviates from the synthetic forward’s “cost” determined by option prices, you can execute an arbitrage. But you’ll need to carefully watch:
• Transaction costs in buying calls and selling puts.
• Slippage or the difference between the bid and ask for each leg.
• Margin requirements (both sides might require margin).
You might find that by the time you pay for these costs, the “free lunch” you hoped for is no longer free. That’s nearly always the reality in heavily arbitraged markets.
No market is truly frictionless. Even if theory suggests riskless profits from mispricing, actual trading requires:
• Paying commissions and fees.
• Maintaining required margins with your broker or clearinghouse.
• Accounting for the possibility of partial fills or price moves while assembling your positions.
• Considering the effect of bid–ask spreads.
In my earlier days, I recall trying to do a box spread arbitrage—where you combine a bull spread (long call plus short put at one strike) with a bear spread (short call plus long put at a different strike)—and I was convinced I’d make a quick buck. After paying the crossing spread for each leg, plus broker commissions, plus some non-negligible market fees, the trade basically broke even at best. That’s not to say box spreads never work, but in liquid markets, they’re usually so tightly priced that only the largest players with minimal transaction costs can exploit them.
While options are the classic path to constructing synthetic exposures, you can also replicate an equity position with an equity swap. For instance, receiving the total return on a stock index while paying a floating rate (like SOFR or another reference rate) is effectively a synthetic long position in the underlying index. Alternatively, a futures contract on an index can replicate the same, typically with lower transaction costs. These multi-asset strategies can get complex, especially if you need to manage settlement differences (e.g., how the swap is paid out versus how futures are margined daily).
We just hinted at box spreads. Let’s put them in context:
• A bull spread uses calls (or puts) at different strikes, creating a capped upside but with lower cost than a single call.
• A bear spread similarly sets a range on the downside.
By layering a bull spread on top of a bear spread, you can create a “box” whose final payoff is fixed (riskless), leading to a type of arbitrage if the net cost of the box diverges from an equivalent risk-free bond. In theory, if you can buy a box at a discount to its riskless payoff, you lock in risk-free profit. If you can sell it at a premium (collect more than you’ll have to pay out), that works too. Again, keep an eye on transaction costs—box spreads often look better on paper than in practice.
flowchart TB
A["Bull Spread <br/> (e.g. Long Call K1,<br/> Short Call K2)"] -- combine --> B["Bear Spread <br/> (e.g. Short Put K1,<br/> Long Put K2)"]
B --> C["Box Spread's <br/> Riskless Payoff"]
Let’s consider a quick numeric example. Suppose:
• The underlying stock (S) is priced at $100.
• A European call (C) with strike $100 (maturity in 3 months) trades for $3.
• A European put (P) with the same strike and maturity trades for $2.
• The 3-month risk-free rate is 2% annualized (assume continuous compounding for simplicity), so PV($100) is approximately $99.50 for that short timespan.
From put–call parity:
C – P = S₀ – PV(K)
3 – 2 = 100 – 99.50 = 0.50
But 1 – 0.50 = 0.50, not 0. So if the left-hand side is $3 – $2 = $1, there’s an apparent mismatch. Hypothetically, you could:
• Sell a call (collect $3) and buy a put ($2) for a net credit of $1.
• To fully replicate a short forward, you’d also short the stock at $100 and invest $99.50 at 2% to settle the strike at maturity.
If everything else lines up, the profit might be $0.50 risk-free, at least in an idealized frictionless world. In reality, you’d discover the market adjusts quickly once it sees any meaningful discrepancy, and your final net payoff might become razor thin.
• Option Assignment Risk: If you’re dealing in American-style options, an early exercise of short calls or puts can surprise you, throwing off your intended payoff structure.
• Liquidity: Thinly traded options can have wide bid–ask spreads that crimp your theoretical gains.
• Margin Calls: Synthetic positions can require complex margin offsets, so you have to manage your margin carefully or risk forced liquidation at the worst time.
• Model Risk: If you rely on theoretical pricing from, say, a Black–Scholes model that’s miscalibrated to the real implied volatility environment, your “arbitrage” might not actually exist.
“Omega Hedge” typically refers to advanced risk management of the second derivative with respect to the underlying price (akin to gamma or vega management, but more nuanced). For our synthetic discussion, we rarely need to dive this deep. But if you manage a large, complex portfolio of synthetic exposures, you might come across second-order hedging techniques, sometimes labeled with Greek letters like “omega” or “color.” These can be relevant if you attempt to hedge the curvature of your payoff or manage intense volatility scenarios around exotics or deep out-of-the-money options. For most standard synthetic trades, focusing on the main Greeks (delta, gamma, vega, rho) suffices.
• Pre-calculate your total cost: This includes commissions, fees, bid–ask spreads, financing costs, and any charges for shorting the underlying.
• Watch correlation with other positions: A synthetic forward could inadvertently increase your risk exposure if you hold correlated assets.
• Size your trade modestly: The bigger your trade, the more you risk “moving the market” or failing to get everything filled at the right price.
• Perform scenario stress tests: Even if payoffs are theoretically locked in, real market events (like large price jumps) can force partial fills, slippage, or unexpected assignment.
For CFA candidates, synthetic positions often pop up in item sets or constructed-response questions dealing with put–call parity, cost-of-carry arguments, or advanced derivative hedging strategies. You might be asked to identify a misprice or to show how to lock in an arbitrage. You must demonstrate how to put all the puzzle pieces together—calls, puts, equity positions, bonds, discounting, and so on—while explaining why the payoff is riskless.
In real markets, these ideas show up when big dealers or hedge funds spot small misalignments in option or futures prices. Although opportunities are quickly arbitraged away, the fundamental principle never disappears: the relationship between derivatives, their underlying assets, and synthetic constructions enforces consistent market pricing.
We’ve taken a look at how to synthesize different positions to replicate (and potentially arbitrage) derivative payoffs. The fundamental logic is always the same: if you can replicate a derivative more cheaply or expensively than the actual market price of that derivative, you can create a low- or zero-risk profit by going long “cheap” and short “expensive.” But in actual trading, the puzzle is rarely that simple—transaction costs, execution slippage, margin constraints, and i-dotting, t-crossing friction can all erode (or even eliminate) your theoretical profit. Still, the concepts of constructing synthetic forwards, box spreads, or bull/bear spreads are crucial for understanding how derivatives are priced and how the markets maintain no-arbitrage conditions.
• Always check if your synthetic’s payoff truly matches: A mismatch in strikes, expirations, or underlying assets can lead to hidden risk.
• Don’t forget time value of money: Use the present value of strike prices or carrying costs for underlying assets.
• Mind your Greeks: If your question or scenario highlights gamma and vega, ensure your hedge accounts for potential changes in implied volatility or underlying price.
• Know your instrument’s settlement: Physical vs. cash settlement can alter your final cash flow timing.
• Practice the formulas: Being comfortable with put–call parity and the cost-of-carry formula is essential (they’re commonly tested).
• McDonald, Robert L. “Derivatives Markets.” Pearson. See sections on Synthetic Futures and Forwards.
• Hull, John C. “Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives.” Pearson.
• CFA Institute, Level I and Level II Derivatives Readings.
Important Notice: FinancialAnalystGuide.com provides supplemental CFA study materials, including mock exams, sample exam questions, and other practice resources to aid your exam preparation. These resources are not affiliated with or endorsed by the CFA Institute. CFA® and Chartered Financial Analyst® are registered trademarks owned exclusively by CFA Institute. Our content is independent, and we do not guarantee exam success. CFA Institute does not endorse, promote, or warrant the accuracy or quality of our products.