any option sellers

Just curious if naked option sellers realize that they are liable for the deficit if losses exceed account balance. In other words, you could lose $100,000 or more on a $10,000 account. Brokers will and do sue and force bankruptcy for unpaid debit balances.

In the case of a sudden catastrophic event, for example if terrorists exploded a dirty nuclear bomb in some major city, you would be instantly bankrupt. There would be no time for "adjustments"!

You might be able to sue TastyTrade for negligence though in recommending this strategy (if they did)....
 
Quote from comintel:

Just curious if naked option sellers realize that they are liable for the deficit if losses exceed account balance. In other words, you could lose $100,000 or more on a $10,000 account. Brokers will and do sue and force bankruptcy for unpaid debit balances.

In the case of a sudden catastrophic event, for example if terrorists exploded a dirty nuclear bomb in some major city, you would be instantly bankrupt. There would be no time for "adjustments"!

You might be able to sue TastyTrade for negligence though in recommending this strategy (if they did)....
More...


naked put sellers to be specific is what you are talking about.

Market would only "crash" up 2000points if Cramer was hit by a bus on live tv,,lol,,

kidding.

EF
 
Someone selling CL calls right now is not getting paid very well to assume the risk. Earlier this year, ATM IV hit a 16 or 17 year low (according to B'Berg) at around 18%. They're currently around 21%.

Selling fairly short terms (I believe the poster said 30 days), with historically low IV, and ~10% OTM is not a good risk/reward in my book.

Buy some tail protection (here the low IV is to your benefit) or find a different trade.
 
Quote from comintel:

Just curious if naked option sellers realize that they are liable for the deficit if losses exceed account balance. In other words, you could lose $100,000 or more on a $10,000 account. Brokers will and do sue and force bankruptcy for unpaid debit balances.

In the case of a sudden catastrophic event, for example if terrorists exploded a dirty nuclear bomb in some major city, you would be instantly bankrupt. There would be no time for "adjustments"!

You might be able to sue TastyTrade for negligence though in recommending this strategy (if they did)....
More...

Trade through a Ltd Co or LLC and you wouldn't risk more than bankrupt the company. No personal liability beyond that AFAIK if there is no fraud involved.
 
Quote from luisHK:

Trade through a Ltd Co or LLC and you wouldn't risk more than bankrupt the company. No personal liability beyond that AFAIK if there is no fraud involved.
More...

True although many/most brokers ask for a personal guarantee in the case of a company.

I have found that some do not though.
 
IB doesn't AFAIK, and even opens account to individuals/companies residing in countries where it would probably be hard to sue. This might explain in part their automatic liquidation policy.
 
Quote from comintel:

Just curious if naked option sellers realize that they are liable for the deficit if losses exceed account balance. In other words, you could lose $100,000 or more on a $10,000 account. Brokers will and do sue and force bankruptcy for unpaid debit balances.

In the case of a sudden catastrophic event, for example if terrorists exploded a dirty nuclear bomb in some major city, you would be instantly bankrupt. There would be no time for "adjustments"!

You might be able to sue TastyTrade for negligence though in recommending this strategy (if they did)....
More...

most brokers will only allow cash-secured naked option selling so it wouldn't matter anyways.
 
Quote from luisHK:

IB doesn't AFAIK, and even opens account to individuals/companies residing in countries where it would probably be hard to sue. This might explain in part their automatic liquidation policy.
More...


You are correct, IB doesnt.

Ef
 
Quote from luisHK:

IB doesn't AFAIK, and even opens account to individuals/companies residing in countries where it would probably be hard to sue. This might explain in part their automatic liquidation policy.
More...

Exactly right.

IB believes they can control risk so firmly in real-time that they freely accept company trading accounts without personal guarantees on the belief that they are never going to allow debit balances to occur in the first place.

You can bet this means that they have many many accounts whose owners will take large risks.

IB knows this and therefore has to implement significant margin increases, and, as you say, automated liquidation, very promptly when the markets get wild, which they certainly do.

So one might face automated liquidation a lot more promptly with IB if markets get really wild, as well as trading limits. Well, we know that too I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top