I've started learning a bit about options and I have a couple of questions on covered calls.
If you buy a stock and write a call that is deep, deep, in the money, you will have downside protection of
Stock Price - Option Price.
However, your profit will be much smaller. I've done several examples of this and noticed several things, that need some clarifying: If the call is sold deep in the money (and the stock also bought) and it is exercised, your payoff is really the time premium, right (assuming no transaction costs)? So a covered call that is sold deep in the money and exercised really has a maximum profit of the time premium, right?
Because time premium increases on calls as we approach the stock price from low to high and decreases as you go from high to low, you get a higher payoff by selling calls with strikes closer to the stock price. i.e. you get a higher profit by selling a call which is for a strike of 35 as opposed to a strike of 30, if the stock is trading at 40. This is assuming you are pursing a covered call strategy and you have also bought the stock at 40. This also assume that your call has been exercised and your transaction costs are zero.
This is not the case if the call is sold out of the money (and the corresponding stock also bought).
In this case, you still have downside protection of stock_price - call price, but in order to achieve maximum profit, your stock must increase in price (To reap the difference between strike and stock price), right?
I was initially thinking of pursing a covered call strategy with an option that is deep in the money, but because time premium decreases as we get farther from the stock price, it seems that you will have very small reward/small risk and a large transaction costs that will ultimately make you lose money.
Therefore it's not a viable strategy for small-time individual traders.
One more quick thing, I've been reading McMillan's book and he says, "unless a fairly deep in-the-money write is considered, the return [using] on margin will always be higher than the return from cash." The reason this occurs is because the interest you pay large interest on margin and coupled with transaction costs, your costs will weigh you down and cause you to have a smaller return then using plain old cash, right?
-Larry
If you buy a stock and write a call that is deep, deep, in the money, you will have downside protection of
Stock Price - Option Price.
However, your profit will be much smaller. I've done several examples of this and noticed several things, that need some clarifying: If the call is sold deep in the money (and the stock also bought) and it is exercised, your payoff is really the time premium, right (assuming no transaction costs)? So a covered call that is sold deep in the money and exercised really has a maximum profit of the time premium, right?
Because time premium increases on calls as we approach the stock price from low to high and decreases as you go from high to low, you get a higher payoff by selling calls with strikes closer to the stock price. i.e. you get a higher profit by selling a call which is for a strike of 35 as opposed to a strike of 30, if the stock is trading at 40. This is assuming you are pursing a covered call strategy and you have also bought the stock at 40. This also assume that your call has been exercised and your transaction costs are zero.
This is not the case if the call is sold out of the money (and the corresponding stock also bought).
In this case, you still have downside protection of stock_price - call price, but in order to achieve maximum profit, your stock must increase in price (To reap the difference between strike and stock price), right?
I was initially thinking of pursing a covered call strategy with an option that is deep in the money, but because time premium decreases as we get farther from the stock price, it seems that you will have very small reward/small risk and a large transaction costs that will ultimately make you lose money.
Therefore it's not a viable strategy for small-time individual traders.
One more quick thing, I've been reading McMillan's book and he says, "unless a fairly deep in-the-money write is considered, the return [using] on margin will always be higher than the return from cash." The reason this occurs is because the interest you pay large interest on margin and coupled with transaction costs, your costs will weigh you down and cause you to have a smaller return then using plain old cash, right?
-Larry
