For the Wallstreet haters.

Quote from FrostBead:

I bet George W. Bush had this "it all trickles down" perspective of the first post when he ran his temporary lower taxes on the rich.

If stability can induce investments then options should not be viewed as a zero sum game. Theoretically businesses would be willing to lose some money on an aggregated level in options, if they can make it back and then some with their investments.
More...

You got it wrong.

Reagan was the Godfather of "Trickle Down Economics".

Dubya never had an original thought before, during, or after his gig. That's why he kept Tricky Dick II around.

Except for how to mispronounce "nuclear", along with most of the rest of the English language.

:D
 
112fiwh.jpg

hsp0zc.jpg
 
Quote from atticus:

112fiwh.jpg


"Could you read that again Lupe? I think you're on the wrong page."

hsp0zc.jpg


"These damn goggles ain't workin'. Guess that's what you get when you only pay $170,000 for a pair of seein' thingys."
More...
 
Quote from Matt8200:

This is not true. Options are derivatives of stocks which are not a zero sum game. Many option trades involve owning the derivative as well as options. I can write a covered call (own the stock and sell the call) while you buy the call. If the stock price has increased enough at the expiration date, we both make money.
More...

does not compute.
 
Quote from Matt8200:

Please explain how the writer of a covered call and the purchaser of that call can't both be profitable on that trade then.
More...

Because the positions are not opposing. It's zero-sum limited to the options. The two counter-parties are not trading fungible positions at a price, so it's an apples to oranges comparison. The writer of the covered call is short a synthetic put, while the purchaser of the call, is long a natural call.

The outcome of the call-itself, it zero-sum (-sum with commissions).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top