wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,581
- Reactions
- 12,707
I guess my point was to argue the myth that LR is always safer, not to use the comparison as a basis to pick UR over LR, so I agree with your last statement. Sharp as always
I remember back there was a blogger trading GOOG
Implied vol was ~ 70%
He could have shorted 1x atm straddle, but choose to short 20x IC's >1.5 sigma out. GOOG rallied and he lost much more than he would have with the naked combo due to the greater dgamma leverage in the IC [as Grinder points out].
Although the error was probably also related to the structure of the trade. He wanted to be short vol only, so choosing options that far otm was not optimal.
The leverage is the killer I guess .
Totally agree, and the GOOG thing is a great example.
The leverage thing is a point I've been trying to make around the blogosphere. It's not the strategy, it's the leverage.
People will quite happily enter a 100 share block of shares with immediate delta exposure ( +/- 100 deltas) without a worry in the world, but mention a 100 share + 2 x short option combo (synthetic short straddle with only the potential of +/- 100 deltas) and suddenly the option world starts tut tutting about all that unlimited risk. They prefer to see someone with 50 of those 1.5 sigma condors you mentioned with potential gamma/delta/vega measured in megatonnes.
It's totally illogical. Well meaning, but illogical.