Two complementary outcomes do not create a free hedge. The combined entry cost must be compared with the combined contractual receipt, including fees and exceptions.

What the primary record establishes

The SEC/CFTC investor alert describes a binary contract whose cash payout depends on a yes/no proposition. It distinguishes that cash outcome from ownership of the underlying asset. The alert does not promise a profit from combining two contracts. SEC/CFTC — Investor Alert: Binary Options and Fraud ↗

For the calculation here, WFN assumes two contracts are exactly complementary: one pays 100 units when yes wins, the other pays 100 when no wins. They use the same currency, source, observation and payment time, with no void state. These are stated model assumptions.

What the distinction changes

If their hypothetical purchase prices are 58 and 47 units, the pair costs 105. Exactly one 100-unit payment leaves a five-unit loss before fees, whichever outcome occurs. Buying both sides removes the assumed outcome variation while preserving that negative cash difference.

A headline calling the pair fully hedged can therefore be arithmetically true about that narrow outcome risk and still omit the loss. Fees increase the cost. Different definitions, settlement times or cancellation rules can also prevent the contracts from being true complements.

What to check before drawing a conclusion

Compare the actual executable asks and available sizes, not two midpoints or screenshots taken at different times. Confirm that the contracts cover mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive outcomes under the same settlement rules before adding their receipts.

This example is a consistency check, not a recommendation or a claim of an available arbitrage. It does not remove counterparty, settlement, funding or access risk. Verify applicable product restrictions independently; a familiar payoff shape does not establish permission to trade it.