- Joined
- 21 December 2004
- Posts
- 674
- Reactions
- 1
I agree with you that the premium you receive is the same but as you stated the risk graph is different. The only scary part of a covered call is the share price dropping, but thats a risk everyone takes. With naked calls or puts, when the price spikes, it is much harder to get out of your position in options than it is with shares. With shares you can get out straight away. A good example would be AMC which dropped 45 cents overnight from a closing of 7.55 and re-opening of 7.10 the next morning on 7 Dec '04. The options markets don't really open until 11 am so you would have to watch as your losses built up. Even when the options market dp open, it would be harder to get out because options become very expensive with price spikes (so your losses would be greater with naked calls or puts than if you only had the shares) and also the problem of liquidity. With shares you can get out any time without attracting a premium price as options tend to do.
Anyway, I suppose it comes down to what you're comfortable with. I still disagree that naked Puts are the same as covered calls just because they have the same payout. The big difference to me is the difference in the risk graphs.
If you're doing covered calls and you're comfortable selling naked calls and puts, then I don't see any reason why you wouldn't sell naked Puts with a covered call, thereby maximising your profit.
Anyway, I suppose it comes down to what you're comfortable with. I still disagree that naked Puts are the same as covered calls just because they have the same payout. The big difference to me is the difference in the risk graphs.
If you're doing covered calls and you're comfortable selling naked calls and puts, then I don't see any reason why you wouldn't sell naked Puts with a covered call, thereby maximising your profit.