Weird option strategies

[tradelosses]

'decay' is when a leveraged etf lags its underlying and is the function of many factors: volatility, leverage, dividends, fees, interest rate, etc. Depending on the path, some leverged ETFs may get a 'boost' but this seems to be less common.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=etf decay

I think you're deliberately being obtuse. that's just the lingo that I and thousands of other people who trade and study these instruments use to describe this phenomena. bring it up with them if you don't like the choice of terminology

 

[ironchef]

There's a caveat here. If you constantly write ATM put options on SPX, for example, that is a profitable strategy over the long term just by itself. However, it is a profitable strategy because buying and holding the S&P 500 is profitable over the long term, not because there's anything intrinsically profitable about writing puts on any random equity.

Which is more profitable, buy and hold SPX or writing ATM puts on SPX?

 

[Statistical Trader]

Which is more profitable, buy and hold SPX or writing ATM puts on SPX?

It depends on how you want to account for risk so as to compare apples to apples, of course. If you use the Sharpe ratio to adjust returns for "risk" (in quotations because the standard deviation of PL only approximately and incompletely captures the essence of risk in my opinion) then if I remember correctly the profitability is about the same, but don't quote me on that.

You might be interested in CBOE's Put Write Index: http://www.cboe.com/micro/put/ The data is free and you can compare the risk-adjusted returns using your favourite metric if you want.

 

[sle]

You can show mathematically that a leveraged ETF is short convexity and locks-in losses by daily rebalancing. The borrow rate on these products reflects it fairly well, so don't expect any miracles.

 

[Deuteronomy_24_7]

You can show mathematically that a leveraged ETF is short convexity and locks-in losses by daily rebalancing.

This is nonsense. But, please do "show mathematically" what you mean.

 

[turco_directo]

All option strategies are a gamble, crapshoot if you have poor ability to predict movement of the underlying

You should really study your underlying...and just KISS: keep it simple stupid. -- don't do any of those weird/complex strategies.
then Go long, or short, or both,

That's it. It's all about underlying. I have heard people on TastyTrade bragging those complex strategies, but seriously it takes one bad earning move or extreme news.

 

[sle]

This is nonsense. But, please do "show mathematically" what you mean.

Ok, sure, since I am bored stiff at the moment. Lets take a leveraged etf L with a leverage ratio of beta and model it's relationship with the underlying index returns.

To start, assume that underlying index is following a brownian motion process:
dS/S = vol * dW + m*dt
where W is Wiener process and m is drift. You would then express it's return process as:
dL/L = beta * dS/S - [ (beta - 1)* rate + fees ] * dt
= (rate - fees) * dt + beta * vol * dW
so, expressing the expected returns of the LETF in terms of the underlying index and it's vol:
Lt/L = (St/S) ^beta * exp{ -[ rate*(beta-1) + fees] * time - variance * time * (beta^2-beta)/2 }

the second term in the exponent implies that return of the leveraged ETF is going to be negatively related to variance of the underlying index.

 

[Telepuzik]

All I can reply with: E=mc2

 

[Eliterondrouge]

Ok, sure, since I am bored stiff at the moment. Lets take a leveraged etf L with a leverage ratio of beta and model it's relationship with the underlying index returns.

To start, assume that underlying index is following a brownian motion process:
dS/S = vol * dW + m*dt
where W is Wiener process and m is drift. You would then express it's return process as:
dL/L = beta * dS/S - [ (beta - 1)* rate + fees ] * dt
= (rate - fees) * dt + beta * vol * dW
so, expressing the expected returns of the LETF in terms of the underlying index and it's vol:
Lt/L = (St/S) ^beta * exp{ -[ rate*(beta-1) + fees] * time - variance * time * (beta^2-beta)/2 }

the second term in the exponent implies that return of the leveraged ETF is going to be negatively related to variance of the underlying index.

Since m = rate .... ;-)

 

[Sig]

'decay' is when a leveraged etf lags its underlying and is the function of many factors: volatility, leverage, dividends, fees, interest rate, etc. Depending on the path, some leverged ETFs may get a 'boost' but this seems to be less common.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=etf decay

I think you're deliberately being obtuse. that's just the lingo that I and thousands of other people who trade and study these instruments use to describe this phenomena. bring it up with them if you don't like the choice of terminology

No it's what's called a subtle but crucial difference. Most of those things you listed, like fees, interest rates internal to the fund... are indeed decay. Decay, by the very meaning of the word, means to gradually go down, get worse... What you're not getting is that if you run a backtest where you rebalance the portfolio daily so that you're doing an apples to apples comparison, there is essentially no "decay" of this type. The entire difference in prices is accounted for by the fact that you're holding 2 different securities, on of which returns the daily percentage change of the index and one of which returns the index. It's pure math, you can do a spreadsheet simulation and see that in half the scenarios your bet goes up and in half it goes down. Something that is as likely to go up as down is not "decay" regardless of your lingo, that's like saying you're taking advantage of the "decay" of MSFT by buying the stock, and it likewise shows that you don't grasp the underlying idea. There are a large number of people who don't grasp this concept of leveraged and inverse ETFs. There are also a large number of people who don't grasp the sunk cost fallacy or the concept of Beta. I don't go with their incorrect view of an easily provable concept simply because there are "thousands" of them, but if you want to I'll always be happy to take the other side of your trades.