Quote from neke:
Let me give you a little quiz. Suppose your trade has two possible outcomes: a gain of +20% or a loss of -10% with equal chance. Would you trade this scenario? What percentage of your account will you commit to each trade? Give me you answer, and I will see how much of risk/reward analysis you understand
I just couldn't refrain from thinking of the possibilities in exploiting the above edge using options. Like someone has mentioned, it is unrealistic to have that type of edge for short durations like intra-day trades. I find that on the average intra-day trade the underlying stock moves in my favour by, say 0.4%. While this is more than sufficient to make a profit in stocks, it will usually result in a loss for options because of the bid/ask spread (in addition to commissions). I find that this is the primary reason for my option trades being a net loss prior to the start of this thread. For instance, on tuesday I saw NTY trading at 40.86, down 6%. I looked at the possibility of buying the JULY 40 CALL for an overnight trade, but find the quotes bid 2.40, ask 2.80. What does this mean? If I should buy the option(at 2.80) and sell immediately (2.40), I would have incurred an immediate loss of 14% (in addition to commissions) even though the stock price has not changed. To break even on this position the stock price will have to appreciate by approximately 1.8%. That is too high an average expectation for an intra-day trade. On the other hand, if it were a one-week or two-week set-up with an average expectation of say 5%, it makes sense to go ahead in spite of the spread.
I am ready to reverse this trend by taking more longer term view to optionable set-ups.
The quiz earlier given implied an average of 5% per trade (on a one-week duration). That is certainly great for exploitation through options. Let's assume we are doing weekly options, with a premium at-the-money of 5% (pretty high for a one-week expiration, but goes to illustrate my point nevertheless). Let's also assume we are buying the options whose strike prices are the current stock price. So for the successful trades (up 20% in one week), this translates to a gain of 300% on the exposed amount (example strike 100 and current stock price 100, premium $5, at end of week premium rises to $20 from an initial $5, which is a 300% gain). For the losing trades (down 10% at the end of the week): this translates to a loss of 100%. So what is the optimum leverage to maximize our total returns (ignore commissions and slippage). This reduces to maximizing (1+3r)(1-r). This solves to r = 0.33 (1/3). Now let's see what our initial 10K would grow to using this leverage, as well as using some other leverage.
The table below summarizes them (using the random distribution used earlier):
Code:
Leverage Total Returns Max Drawdown
1.00 -100% 100% (This leverage would obviously be insane! You are bound to lose all)
0.60 1904% 100% almost
0.33 177062% 96% (This return is mouth-watering!!! Note the drawdown however!)
0.10 5927% 44%
0.05 998% 22%
The most frightening thing about this is that the returns decline precipitously once you exceed the optimum leverage (0.33). That is why it is so important to err on the safe side and use a leverage that is much less than estimated optimum. The real-life costs (bid/ask spread and commissions) will obviously eat into these returns.
I have been developing and refining a strategy for options that imply holding for a period of about 2 weeks. I am even being spurred more after seeing a position that my strategy would have caught two weeks ago shoot up nearly 20% since then. However once beaten twice shy: I am not in a rush to get this thing going. Of course the key to making it work would be the discipline to wait for the set-up and using consistent money management.