本研究透過檢視台指選擇權市場中供給及需求不平衡的狀況，來探討投資者行為對選擇權隱含波動率的影響，並研究投資者的投資行為到底是會被套利限制所影響，還是被市場預期所主導。以及探討投資者在面對不同的投資環境時，選擇權的淨買壓對隱含波動率的影響是否相同。
本研究中發現，台指選擇權市場在整個研究期間較符合套利限制假說，前一期隱含波動率的變化對當期的隱含波動率變化呈負相關，以及價外選擇權的淨買壓比價平選擇權的淨買壓更能影響隱含波動率的變化。本研究再將樣本資料區分為景氣循環及市場波動兩個層面，個別探討選擇權的淨買壓是否對隱含波動率變化仍然具有影響力，發現在景氣前景較差及多頭市場的投資環境中，選擇權市場仍普遍支持套利限制假說，但在景氣前景較好及空頭市場的投資環境中卻出現不一致的分析結果。本研究推論在市場短期變動較大的投資環境中，投資者對新訊息較為敏感，並以操作價平選擇權的買賣來避免新訊息所帶來的風險，而使學習假說代替套利限制假說來決定隱含波動度。

In this study, we investigate how the investment behavior influences option implied volatility by inspecting the supply and demand imbalance of the option market in Taiwan. Moreover, we wonder whether the investment behavior is affected by the arbitrage limitations or the anticipation of the market. Finally, we discuss the influence of the investor’s net buying pressure on the implied volatility under different investment environments.
The results of empirical test find that the option market in the entire research period conforms to the limits to arbitrate hypothesis. This research also discusses the net buying pressure whether still to have the influence to the implied volatility change, when the sample discrimination for the business cycle and the market fluctuation. We find that in the recession or bull market investment environment, the option market still generally supported the limits to arbitrate hypothesis, but in the booming or bear market investment environment actually presents the inconsistent analysis result. The learning hypothesis will replace the limits to arbitrate hypothesis to decide the implied volatility when the large changes of investment environment in short term.

中文參考文獻
1. 丁碧惠、曾家齊 (2005)，市場狀態與動能投資策略績效關聯性之研究，台灣金融財務季刊，6卷，4期，1-19頁
2. 李佳玲 (2006)，台指選擇權波動度指標與景氣指標之關係性研究，國立中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文
3. 李淳祥 (2005)，台指選擇權市場淨買壓假說之驗證，國立政治大學財務管理研究所碩士論文
4. 姜書甄 (2004)，淨買壓解釋隱含波動率微笑現象，淡江大學財務金融研究所碩士論文
5. 黃裕烈、徐之強 (2005)，運用領先指標預測景氣變化之研究，行政院經濟建設委員會
6. 黃裕烈、徐之強、陳惠薇 (2005)，景氣基準循環指數之檢討與修訂，經濟論文叢刊，33卷，4期，295-319頁
7. 蘇世閎 (2004)，指數選擇權市場淨買壓對隱含波動率變動的影響：臺指選擇權市場是避險者為主的市場嗎，國立交通大學管理科學研究所碩士論文
英文參考文獻
1. Bakshi, G., C. Cao and Z. Chen (1997), “Empirical Performance of Alternative Option Pricing Models”, Journal of Finance, Vol. 52, pp.2003-2049.
2. Bates, D.S. (2000), “Post-’87 Crash Fears in the S&P 500 Futures Options Market”, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 94, pp.181 – 238.
3. Black, F. (1976), “Studies of Stock Price Volatility Changes”, in Proceedings of the 1976 Meetings of the Business and Economics Section, pp.177-181.
4. Black, F. and M. Scholes (1973), “The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 637-654.
5. Bollen, N.P.B. and R.E. Whaley (2004), “Does Net Buying Pressure Affect the Shape of Implied Volatility Functions?”, Journal of Finance, Vol. 59, pp.711-753.
6. Burns, A.F. and W.C. Mitchell (1946), “Measuring Business Cycles”, National Bureau of Economic Research.
7. Chan, K.C., L.T.W. Cheng and P.P. Lung (2004), “Net Buying Pressure, Volatility Smile, and Abnormal Profit of Hang Seng Index Options”, Journal of futures markets, Vol. 24, pp.1165-1194.
8. Chan, K.C., L.T.W. Cheng and P.P. Lung (2006), “Testing the Net Buying Pressure Hypothesis During the Asian Financial Crisis: Evidence form Hang Seng Index Options”, Journal of Financial Research, Vol. 29, pp.43-62.
9. Chernov, M., A. Gallant, E. Ghysels, and G. Tauchen, (2003), “Alternative Models of Stock Price Dynamics”, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 116, pp.225-257.
10. Cox, J.C. and S.A. Ross (1976), “The Valuation of Options for Alternative Stochastic Processes”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, pp.145-166.
11. Derman, E. and I. Kani (1994), “Riding on the Smile”, Risk, Vol. 7, pp.32-39.
12. Dupire, B. (1994), “Pricing with a Smile”, Risk, Vol. 7, pp.18-20.
13. Emanuel, D.C. and J.D. MacBeth, (1982) “Further Results on the Constant Elasticity of Variance Call Option Pricing Model”, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 17, pp.533-554.
14. Fabozzi, Frank J. and Jack C. Francis (1979), “Mutual Fund Systematic Risk for Bull and Bear Markets : An Empirical Examination”, The Journal of Finance , Vol. 34, No.5, pp.1243-1250.
15. Heston, S.L. (1993), “A Closed-form Solution for Options with Stochastic Volatility with Applications to Bond and Currency Options”, Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 6, pp.327-343.
16. Hull, J. and A. White (1987), “The Pricing of Options on Assets with Stochastic Volatilities”, Journal of Finance, Vol. 42, pp.281-300.
17. Kang, J. and H.J. Park (2005), “The Impact of Net Buying Pressure on Implied Volatility: The Learning Hypothesis versus the Limits of Arbitrage Hypothesis”, Working paper, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology.
18. Kim, I.J., K.C. Kim and R. Ziskind (1994), “On the Apparent Systematic Bias of Implied Volatility in the Black-Scholes Model”, Advances in Investment Analysis and Portfolio Management, Vol. 2, pp.133-158.
19. Kim, M.K. and J.K. Zumwalt (1979), “An Analysis of Risk in Bull and Bear Markets”, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 14, pp.1015-1025.
20. Liu, J. and F.A. Longstaff (2000), “Losing Money on Arbitrage: Optimal Dynamic Portfolio Choice in Markets with Arbitrage Opportunities”, The Review of Financial Studies Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.611-641.
21. Merton, R.C. (1976), “Option Pricing When Underlying Stock Return are Discontinuous”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, pp.125-144.
22. Nelson, D.B. (1991), “Conditional Heteroskedasticity in Asset Returns: A New Approach”, Econometrica, Vol. 59, pp.347-370.
23. Rubinstein, M. (1985), “Nonparametric Tests of Alternative Option Pricing Models Using All Reported Trades and Quotes on the 30 Most Active CBOE Option Classes from August 23, 1976 through August 31,1978”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 455-480.
24. Rubinstein, M. (1994), “Implied Binomial Trees”, Journal of Finance, Vol. 49, pp.771-818.
25. Samuelson, P.A. (1965), “Proof that Properly Anticipated Prices Fluctuate Randomly”, Industrial Management Review, Vol.6, pp.41-49.
26. Shleifer, A. and R.W. Vishny (1997), “The Limits of Arbitrage”, Journal of Finance, Vol. 52, pp.35-55.