Quote from Cache Landing:
Also, the protective effects of long calls becomes greater when you consider the outcome of a 9/11 type event. With both the futures and the stock, your initial investment is completely wiped out with about a 150-point drop. But again, with the long calls, you benefit from gamma, decreased delta, and increasing volatility, causing you to lose money slower. If there was a 150-point drop in NDX right now, your ATM long calls would likely only lose about 60% of their value. That's pretty good when compared to 100% or more with the underlying leveraged 15:1.
Quote from Cache Landing:
You need to be careful about what you're saying. Leverage and gearing are two different things. Leverage as you state it is inherently more risky than utilizing gearing for enhanced return.
Also, the ATM NDX options I was referring to provides the equivalent of 15:1 leverage if trading the underlying. If you're willing to trade the 35 delta options instead, they are equivalent to 20:1 leverage.
As I stated before. Utilizing 15:1 leverage is more risky than utilizing a geared option with equivalent gains potential. I think this is one of the great myths in the trading world, so I'd better provide an example.
As the numbers show, the calls outperform on a 5-point move. The option position does even better than the underlying positions on large moves higher as gamma effects kick in and the delta increases.
Also, the protective effects of long calls becomes greater when you consider the outcome of a 9/11 type event. With both the futures and the stock, your initial investment is completely wiped out with about a 150-point drop. But again, with the long calls, you benefit from gamma, decreased delta, and increasing volatility, causing you to lose money slower. If there was a 150-point drop in NDX right now, your ATM long calls would likely only lose about 60% of their value. That's pretty good when compared to 100% or more with the underlying leveraged 15:1.
Quote from iloveoptions:
If we use your example of 5 NDX points which is perhaps equivalent of scalping 2 dimes on a 50 dollar stock. If you take out the spread (.70) on the NDX calls in your example, I believe the return falls to less than 3% (I could be off) on that 5 point move thus the underlying makes it moderately a better bang.
Now, If I were to daytrade options which I infrequently do, I would certainly not be choosing NDX as my vehicle of trading. APPL, RIMM and several NYSE stocks would be a better choice as the option spreads (using AAPL and RIMM here) is typically 0.20 cents versus .70 for NDX. Naturally I'm not comparing apples to apples when it comes to price, but the moves are typically greater (if you pick the right component stock) than their parent index.
Quote from Cache Landing:
Yes but you need to be fair. The return on the underlying trade also didn't consider costs. If I include Interactive Brokers costs on both the futures and options scenarios above, the results are as follows.
NQ roundtrip costs (comm + slippage) ~ $55
ROI = 2.65%
NDX Calls roundtrip costs ~ $130
ROI = 2.94%
I'm not saying that the options costs are desirable. Only that the two are quite comparable. Obviously, futures are easier to get desirable fills, which is why I said they are easier to daytrade.
I prefer index options for the absence of individual events and smoother IV changes. On a daytrading basis, vol changes aren't your friend. Daytrading is almost strictly directional. Just personal preference. I used to trade other tickers with 0.05 spreads until I realized that NDX options have nominal values around $60. A 0.10 spread on a $5 option sucks next to a 0.60 spread on a $60 option. Slippage with tickers like AAPL and RIMM is very close to slippage on NDX options, but commission are 6X higher with the individual equities.
0.10 - 0.20 roundtrip slippage on a $10 option
vs.
0.60 - 0.70 roundtrip slippage on a $60 option
I don't think the higher beta of the individual equities is a valid argument because that can either be beneficial or harmful. If the position moves with great magnitude in the wrong direction, you'll be wishing for lower beta. The higher beta increases both risk and return. Unfortunately a large favorable move won't get you a better fill on a limit sell, but a large unfavorable move will get you a worse fill on a stop loss. This is all just my personal preference though. To each his own.
, the results come out differently. Keep in mind that someone with 6K would be better off legging in $10 options on AAPL 6 times rather than putting the entire wad on 1 number with NDX. The trader can also be creative by buying 4 calls and 2 puts and not worry much about timing. So there's a few scenarios that to me at least would be more enticing. There will be more commissions but they're negligent when not being whipsawed is a top priority.