金融期权策略早报-20250929

Report Industry Investment Rating No relevant content provided. 2. Core Viewpoints of the Report - The Shanghai Composite Index, large-cap blue-chip stocks, small and medium-cap stocks, and ChiNext stocks showed a market trend of gradually declining in the long position direction, then rebounding and rising, and finally oscillating at a high level [3]. - The implied volatility of financial options remained at a relatively high level of fluctuation [3]. - For ETF options, it is suitable to construct a long-biased buyer strategy and a bullish spread combination strategy of call options; for index options, it is suitable to construct a long-biased seller strategy, a bullish spread combination strategy of call options, and an arbitrage strategy of synthetic long futures with options and short futures [3]. 3. Summary According to Relevant Catalogs 3.1 Financial Market Important Index Overview - The Shanghai Composite Index closed at 3,828.11, down 25.20 points or 0.65%, with a trading volume of 927.9 billion yuan, a decrease of 73.3 billion yuan [3]. - The Shenzhen Component Index closed at 13,209.00, down 236.90 points or 1.76%, with a trading volume of 1,219 billion yuan, a decrease of 150.9 billion yuan [3]. - The Shanghai 50 Index closed at 2,941.02, down 11.72 points or 0.40%, with a trading volume of 150.2 billion yuan, a decrease of 8.5 billion yuan [3]. - The CSI 300 Index closed at 4,550.05, down 43.44 points or 0.95%, with a trading volume of 598.7 billion yuan, a decrease of 71.1 billion yuan [3]. - The CSI 500 Index closed at 7,240.91, down 100.41 points or 1.37%, with a trading volume of 430.2 billion yuan, a decrease of 62.8 billion yuan [3]. - The CSI 1000 Index closed at 7,397.59, down 108.92 points or 1.45%, with a trading volume of 436.9 billion yuan, a decrease of 27.9 billion yuan [3]. 3.2 Option Underlying ETF Market Overview - The Shanghai 50 ETF closed at 3.077, down 0.010 or 0.32%, with a trading volume of 4.6557 million shares, an increase of 4.5999 million shares, and a trading volume of 1.435 billion yuan, a decrease of 286 million yuan [4]. - The Shanghai 300 ETF closed at 4.651, down 0.044 or 0.94%, with a trading volume of 7.1531 million shares, an increase of 7.0759 million shares, and a trading volume of 3.345 billion yuan, a decrease of 270 million yuan [4]. - The Shanghai 500 ETF closed at 7.336, down 0.105 or 1.41%, with a trading volume of 2.21 million shares, an increase of 2.1936 million shares, and a trading volume of 1.634 billion yuan, an increase of 412 million yuan [4]. - The Huaxia Science and Technology Innovation 50 ETF closed at 1.524, down 0.024 or 1.55%, with a trading volume of 28.8739 million shares, an increase of 28.5448 million shares, and a trading volume of 4.446 billion yuan, a decrease of 640 million yuan [4]. - The E Fund Science and Technology Innovation 50 ETF closed at 1.493, down 0.020 or 1.32%, with a trading volume of 8.7634 million shares, an increase of 8.6592 million shares, and a trading volume of 1.32 billion yuan, a decrease of 253 million yuan [4]. - The Shenzhen 300 ETF closed at 4.800, down 0.044 or 0.91%, with a trading volume of 1.1526 million shares, an increase of 1.1384 million shares, and a trading volume of 556 million yuan, a decrease of 134 million yuan [4]. - The Shenzhen 500 ETF closed at 2.934, down 0.036 or 1.21%, with a trading volume of 2.052 million shares, an increase of 2.041 million shares, and a trading volume of 607 million yuan, an increase of 281 million yuan [4]. - The Shenzhen 100 ETF closed at 3.529, down 0.066 or 1.84%, with a trading volume of 557,900 shares, an increase of 550,100 shares, and a trading volume of 199 million yuan, a decrease of 81 million yuan [4]. - The ChiNext ETF closed at 3.129, down 0.082 or 2.55%, with a trading volume of 16.9276 million shares, an increase of 16.765 million shares, and a trading volume of 5.368 billion yuan, an increase of 168 million yuan [4]. 3.3 Option Factor - Volume and Open Interest PCR - For the Shanghai 50 ETF, the trading volume was 788,200 contracts, a decrease of 95,600 contracts; the open interest was 1,226,300 contracts, an increase of 72,800 contracts; the trading volume PCR was 0.91, an increase of 0.06; the open interest PCR was 0.76, a decrease of 0.01 [6]. - For the Shanghai 300 ETF, the trading volume was 937,300 contracts, a decrease of 123,700 contracts; the open interest was 1,079,900 contracts, an increase of 40,300 contracts; the trading volume PCR was 1.23, an increase of 0.38; the open interest PCR was 1.05, a decrease of 0.07 [6]. - For the Shanghai 500 ETF, the trading volume was 1,443,500 contracts, a decrease of 49,100 contracts; the open interest was 1,056,600 contracts, an increase of 66,300 contracts; the trading volume PCR was 1.19, an increase of 0.10; the open interest PCR was 1.30, a decrease of 0.06 [6]. - For the Huaxia Science and Technology Innovation 50 ETF, the trading volume was 1,434,300 contracts, a decrease of 322,400 contracts; the open interest was 1,670,200 contracts, an increase of 95,200 contracts; the trading volume PCR was 0.96, an increase of 0.22; the open interest PCR was 1.06, unchanged [6]. - For the E Fund Science and Technology Innovation 50 ETF, the trading volume was 284,500 contracts, a decrease of 60,900 contracts; the open interest was 448,400 contracts, an increase of 26,100 contracts; the trading volume PCR was 0.77, an increase of 0.18; the open interest PCR was 0.97, unchanged [6]. - For the Shenzhen 300 ETF, the trading volume was 134,500 contracts, a decrease of 45,800 contracts; the open interest was 228,500 contracts, an increase of 11,000 contracts; the trading volume PCR was 0.78, a decrease of 0.06; the open interest PCR was 0.78, a decrease of 0.12 [6]. - For the Shenzhen 500 ETF, the trading volume was 175,700 contracts, a decrease of 138,000 contracts; the open interest was 305,300 contracts, an increase of 600 contracts; the trading volume PCR was 1.06, a decrease of 0.01; the open interest PCR was 0.87, a decrease of 0.03 [6]. - For the Shenzhen 100 ETF, the trading volume was 124,500 contracts, an increase of 55,300 contracts; the open interest was 112,800 contracts, an increase of 22,100 contracts; the trading volume PCR was 3.26, an increase of 1.98; the open interest PCR was 1.18, unchanged [6]. - For the ChiNext ETF, the trading volume was 1,769,800 contracts, a decrease of 188,400 contracts; the open interest was 1,548,500 contracts, an increase of 115,300 contracts; the trading volume PCR was 1.02, an increase of 0.24; the open interest PCR was 1.19, a decrease of 0.16 [6]. - For the Shanghai 50 index options, the trading volume was 28,500 contracts, a decrease of 7,200 contracts; the open interest was 69,700 contracts, an increase of 3,100 contracts; the trading volume PCR was 0.55, an increase of 0.09; the open interest PCR was 0.66, an increase of 0.02 [6]. - For the CSI 300 index options, the trading volume was 106,400 contracts, a decrease of 27,800 contracts; the open interest was 176,200 contracts, an increase of 5,800 contracts; the trading volume PCR was 0.76, an increase of 0.09; the open interest PCR was 0.87, a decrease of 0.02 [6]. - For the CSI 1000 index options, the trading volume was 282,500 contracts, an increase of 53,400 contracts; the open interest was 273,600 contracts, an increase of 9,800 contracts; the trading volume PCR was 1.07, an increase of 0.27; the open interest PCR was 0.98, a decrease of 0.04 [6]. 3.4 Option Factor - Pressure and Support Levels - For the Shanghai 50 ETF, the closing price was 3.077, the at-the-money strike price was 3.10, the pressure level was 3.10, the support level was 3.00, the maximum open interest for call options was 125,773 contracts, and the maximum open interest for put options was 75,082 contracts [8]. - For the Shanghai 300 ETF, the closing price was 4.651, the at-the-money strike price was 4.70, the pressure level was 4.70, the support level was 4.60, the maximum open interest for call options was 84,102 contracts, and the maximum open interest for put options was 76,974 contracts [8]. - For the Shanghai 500 ETF, the closing price was 7.336, the at-the-money strike price was 7.25, the pressure level was 7.50, the support level was 7.00, the maximum open interest for call options was 85,185 contracts, and the maximum open interest for put options was 87,549 contracts [8]. - For the Huaxia Science and Technology Innovation 50 ETF, the closing price was 1.524, the at-the-money strike price was 1.50, the pressure level was 1.55, the support level was 1.35, the maximum open interest for call options was 86,459 contracts, and the maximum open interest for put options was 59,837 contracts [8]. - For the E Fund Science and Technology Innovation 50 ETF, the closing price was 1.493, the at-the-money strike price was 1.50, the pressure level was 1.50, the support level was 1.35, the maximum open interest for call options was 27,628 contracts, and the maximum open interest for put options was 17,091 contracts [8]. - For the Shenzhen 300 ETF, the closing price was 4.800, the at-the-money strike price was 4.80, the pressure level was 4.90, the support level was 4.80, the maximum open interest for call options was 19,543 contracts, and the maximum open interest for put options was 12,076 contracts [8]. - For the Shenzhen 500 ETF, the closing price was 2.934, the at-the-money strike price was 2.95, the pressure level was 2.95, the support level was 2.95, the maximum open interest for call options was 19,502 contracts, and the maximum open interest for put options was 12,725 contracts [8]. - For the Shenzhen 100 ETF, the closing price was 3.529, the at-the-money strike price was 3.50, the pressure level was 3.60, the support level was 3.50, the maximum open interest for call options was 12,404 contracts, and the maximum open interest for put options was 9,151 contracts [8]. - For the ChiNext ETF, the closing price was 3.129, the at-the-money strike price was 3.10, the pressure level was 3.20, the support level was 3.10, the maximum open interest for call options was 116,362 contracts, and the maximum open interest for put options was 75,995 contracts [8]. - For the Shanghai 50 index options, the closing price was 2,941.02, the at-the-money strike price was 2,950, the pressure level was 3,000, the support level was 2,850, the maximum open interest for call options was 6,003 contracts, and the maximum open interest for put options was 3,158 contracts [8]. - For the CSI 300 index options, the closing price was 4,550.05, the at-the-money strike price was 4,550, the pressure level was 4,600, the support level was 4,500, the maximum open interest for call options was 8,962 contracts, and the maximum open interest for put options was 7,653 contracts [8]. - For the CSI 1000 index options, the closing price was 7,397.59, the at-the-money strike price was 7,400, the pressure level was 7,500, the support level was 7,000, the maximum open interest for call options was 11,839 contracts, and the maximum open interest for put options was 7,776 contracts [8]. 3.5 Option Factor - Implied Volatility - For the Shanghai 50 ETF options, the at-the-money implied volatility was 18.23%, the weighted implied volatility was 19.81%, an increase of 0.45 percentage points, the annual average implied volatility was 16.11%, the call option implied volatility was 20.26%, the put option implied volatility was 19.12%, the historical volatility (HISV20) was 18.57%, and the difference between implied and historical volatility was 1.24 percentage points [11]. - For the Shanghai 300 ETF options, the at-the-money implied volatility was 19.26%, the weighted implied volatility was 20.31%, an increase of 0.82 percentage points, the annual average implied volatility was 16.56%, the call option implied volatility was 20.30%, the put option implied volatility was 20.32%, the historical volatility (HISV20) was 18.40%, and the difference between implied and historical volatility was 1.91 percentage points [11]. - For the Shanghai 500 ETF options, the at-the-money implied volatility was 26.30%, the weighted implied volatility was 27.75%, an increase of 1.01 percentage points, the annual average implied volatility was 20.39%, the call