In your proof for the put-call parity, after making the table you say (at the 4 min mark) "the next step is...". Why do you need a next step? It seems to be that arguing that you have two portfolios who make the same profit at t=T is enough. By the law of one price it must follow that for all t (put-call parity).
What a legend. I've been trying to understand this for a while and you explained it really well. Thank you
You need to keep doing this Matt. Thanks
Nice work Matt
your videos are very helpful....thank you very much.....keep up the good work
You explain this very very very well!!!!!! Thank You!!!!
Thank you for so much clarity !
You're videos really helped me thanks bro
Amazing!! Thank you
Thank you so much sir for uploading a short video with the best explanation.:). It helped me a lot.
Very clearly explained...thankyou
so straightforward thanks
You are the best!
Awesome explanation. Thanks.
thanks for the explanation very succinct
In your proof for the put-call parity, after making the table you say (at the 4 min mark) "the next step is...". Why do you need a next step?
It seems to be that arguing that you have two portfolios who make the same profit at t=T is enough. By the law of one price it must follow that for all t (put-call parity).
Very helpful explanation.
straightforward. thanks!
excellent explaination
thanks for this!!
Good video
how to proof put-call parity with no dividend C>=0 by contradiction.thank you
this man looks like Jon Lovitz!! but thanks for the explanation.
Who prepare students online I want to take lessons from derivatives
Good but I personally prefer the graphical explanation method