
Last post I wrote to introduce the concept that options and other derivative products are tools. They can be used to increase risk or to decrease risk of a stock or a portfolio. In the pieces on Options Trading Strategy I wrote about buying a call when you are bullish on the market or a stock, and buying a put when you are negative on a stock or the market. I gave an example of Google (GOOG) and showed how you could leverage or hedge an existing stock position. Using options in the manner is called covered options.
The price of GOOG as I write this is $383.59. To buy 100 shares would cost $38,359.00. To buy a call on 100 shares at the money to September would cost $5,450.00 (GOPIP 380 16 Sep 06). To buy a put on 100 shares at the money to September would cost $4,110.00 (GOPUP 380 16 Sep 06). If you were bullish on Google, you could spend $38,359.00 for 100 shares or buy 1 call for $5,450 that gives you the performance of 100 shares. Which investment is more risky?
Your downside risk on the stock is $38,359, if the stock goes to zero. For the call option it is $5,450. If the stock stays the same price, you still have all your value in the stock. In the option, you would lose $5,450 at expiration (the value of the premium you paid). If the stock goes up, you make a profit immediately if you own the stock outright. With the call option, you start to make a profit when the stock rises more than $54.50/share.
So how bullish do you have to be to buy an at the money September call option? You have to be sure in your own mind that sometime between February and September of 2006 the price of Google stock will increase by more than 14.21%. That is the one scenario where you make a profit on your call option.
As you look at your own risk tolerance, does this seem like an attractive trade? Let me know what you think.







Re: Options Risk
You write about writing naked options and ask for our comments about this level of risk. If I understand the practical application of such a strategy, you might use the sale of one option to pay for the other if you don't have stock or money; i.e. sell a naked call to buy several puts, in the hope that the stock goes down and you make a killing. If you are wrong, of course, you get the green weenie when you have to deliver stock on your naked call. Or you might sell some naked puts to buy a call in the hope that the stock goes up. If you are right, you make a nice profit on the call. But if you are wrong, you get the shaft when stock is put to you. I think this strategy is only for those with brass balls and a cast-iron stomach. It's probably the highest potential profit strategy, but it certainly is also the highest risk strategy that you can employ in options trading. Furthermore, your broker must be a very trusting soul to let you do this in the first place. Since the stock market crash in October of 1987, brokers are generally very reluctant to let all but their deepest-pocket customers write naked options. (I guess if you've got enough reserve capital, your broker might allow you the freedom to either get rich quickly or to crash and burn. However, it is very likely that your broker will be very nervous and watch your activities like a hawk. Naked options traders put several brokers into the deep six during the crash of '87, and nearly wiped out Schwab & Co. Wouldn't you consider this particular option strategy a pretty advanced one?
Posted by: Bob Hansell | February 11, 2006 12:56 PM | Permalink to Comment