I monitor a number of hedge funds and CTAs that sell credit spreads and/or naked options in either RUT, SPX or ES. I have also raised money for a few of these. They lost between 9.3% and 1.4% in January. One made 0.70%. When you consider how bad January was, that's not too bad. It is a viable strategy as long as it's not done randomly and you have a plan for when it goes against you. During good months, they earn between 1% and 5%. (After all fees)
The problem is simple. There is a lot of risk. Most of the risk comes from liquidity risk. During times of stress, these markets can get very wide and illiquid, just around the time you need to hedge or cover!
The clearing firms and FCM have been cutting back on this type of strategy by either not opening accounts that do this or by putting restriction on this strategy far higher than what the OCC or the future's exchanges allow. The clearing firms call these "add-ons" or risk requirements. Eg. INTL FC Stone shocks a a portfolio of futures/options +/-10% and +/- 20 Vol points. Apex Clearing, for SPX, rather than -8%/+6% shocks the OCC allows, uses -15%/+10% 1X your equity, -25% 2X your equity and -50% 4X your equity.
This will only get worse over time. This makes it very hard to build a trading business with this strategy.
Bob
Bob, January was not a bad month, not even close. I would argue the opposite, that January was the ideal month for premium sellers in that they got both high premiums AND mean reversion. It's the one way extended moves that hurt. These funds should not have even lost money in January, the fact that they didn't speaks volumes to their lack of edge.
