Thank you for the coaching, I can tell you really understand options.I'm asking myself, "Why I am bothering with this?" "That's a good question", I answered myself. Be that as it may...
This study concludes that that the covered combination and covered call strategies outperform the long stock strategy which outperforms the collar and protective put strategies. I assume that's on a risk adjusted basis rather than actual $$ performance since the very last chart shows that put protected stock and the collar did far better than the other too. Honestly, it's too much effort to waste time on sorting this out.
What I will say is that put protected stock is equivalent to a buying a call. The study couldn't figure that out?
Also, since their covered combination is defined as long stock plus short call plus short put, all that means is that you're doubling up. It should obviously generate greater return. IOW, a covered call is equivalent to a short put so this covered combination is equivalent to:
1) long stock plus short call plus short put (as they described)
2) two covered calls
3) two short puts
Whether they adjusted for size to compare equally, I dunno and I don't care. Studies like this prove nothing because 1/2 the time, the academic pinheads doing them are far removed from the reality of trading... and 10 stocks plus a market proxy proves squat.
No need to get upset sir, I understand your observations and agree with many of your points.
About academic studies, they often have to assume a set of produceable but consistent, simple, assumptions in order for the hypothesis to be testable, an automatic algorithm can be programmed to run the tests and PhD thesis written. They are however very useful to me as they provide a framework for me, a retail, to understand the fundamental principles of options pricing and interdependency.
Best regards to you,
