What option-related strategies are better suited to increasing return potential?
"I've traded covered calls now and then. This is a recent trade. Bought 1000 shares of RSH (Radio Shack) and sold 10 calls. So, I own the stock at a cost of $6.05, but have to let it go for $7.50. There's a 50c dividend in November, so the call buyer will call it away even if the stock trades below the strike. So, I'm expecting this is a 10 month trade for a 24% return.  This is one strategy where options clearly take down the risk (of course, I did not say 'remove', just lessens). The stock can be 10% lower a year out, and I'm still ahead by 8% plus the dividend if it's not canceled.  Note - it's a rare case for a one year trade to return 20% or more at a flat stock price. More common is 10-12%.  (I hope this example is acceptable as an example of this type of trade. If not, I can edit to ""XYZ corp"" to remove the stock name. (So if anyone comments, please do not repeat name in case I need to remove)" It definitely depends on your risk appetite as Joe Taxpayer pointed out in his answer. Covered calls are a good choice for someone who already own's the stock, because the premium collected reduces the cost basis for the position. The downside is that if the calls are exercised, there is a good chance that you are missing out on additional upside in the stock price (because the strike is obviously below the market value for the stocks).  Another good option trade is the spread option. This would allow you to capture the difference between the two strikes of the options in the spread. This is also one of the less risky choices because your initial cost an potential profit/loss are known in advance of entering the position. I think you need to be very careful here. Covered calls don't reduce risk or increase performance overall. If they did, every investment manager would be using them. In a typical portfolio, over the long term, the gains you give up when your stock goes beyond the strike of your calls will negate the premiums you receive over time. Psychologically, covered calls are appealing because your gains happen over a long period and this is why many people suggest it. But if you believe the Black-Scholes model (used for pricing options) this is what the model predicts over the long term - that you won't do any better than just holding stock (unless you have some edge other traders don't). Now you say you want to reduce diversification and raise your risk. Keeping in mind that there is no free lunch, there are several ways to reduce your risk but they all come at a price. For simplicity, there are three elements to consider - risk, potential gain and cash. These are tradeoffs and you can't simultaneously make them all favorable. You must trade one or more of them to gain in the others. Let's say you wanted to concentrate into a few stocks... how could you counteract the additional risk? 1) Covered calls: very popular strategy usually intended (erroneously) for increasing returns. You get the bonus of cash along with marginally less risk. But you give up a substantial amount of potential return. You won't have blowout returns if you do this. You still face substantial risk. 2) Collar your stock: You sell a covered call while using the cash from the sale to buy puts for protection. You give up potential gains, you're neutral on cash but gain significantly on reducing risk.  3) Use calls as proxy for stock: You don't hold stock but only calls in equivalent delta to the stock you would have held. Substantially lower risk while still having potential gain. Your tradeoff is the cash you have to pay for the calls. When using this, one must be very, very careful not to overleverage.  4) Puts as protection for stocks: This is basically the same as #3 in tradeoffs. You won't overleverage and you also get dividends. But for the most part it's the same. These are the main ways to reduce the risk you gain by concentrating. Options themselves are far broader. But keep in mind that there is no free money. All these techniques involve tradeoffs that you have to be aware of.
Robert is right saying that options' prices are affected by implied volatility but is wrong saying that you have to look at the VIX index. For two reasons:  1) the VIX index is for S&P500 options only. If you are trading other options, it is less useful. 2) if you are trading an option that is not at the money, your implied volatility may be very different (and follow a different dynamics) that the VIX index.  So please look at the right implied volatility.  In terms of strategy, I don't think that not doing anything is a good strategy. I accept any point of view but you should consider that option traders should be able to adjust positions depending on market view.  So you are long 1 call, suppose strike 10. Suppose the underlying price at the time of entry was 10 (so the call was at the money). Now it's 9.  1) you still have a bullish view: buy 1 call strike 9 and sell 2 calls strike 10. This way you have a bull call spread with much higher probability of leading to profit. You are limiting your profit potential but you are also reducing the costs and managing the greeks in a proper way (and in line with your expectations).  2) you become bearish: you can sell 1 call strike 9. This way you end up with a bear call spread. Again, you are limiting your profit potential but you are also reducing the costs and managing the greeks in a proper way (and in line with your expectations). 3) you become neutral: buy 1 call strike 8 and sell 2 calls strike 9. This way you end up with a call butterfly. You are almost delta neutral and you can wait until your view becomes clear enough to become directional. At that point you can modify the butterfly to make it directional.  These are just some opportunities you have. There is no reason for you to wait. Options are eroding contracts and you must be fast and adjust the position before time starts eroding your capital at risk.  It's true that buying a call doesn't make you loose more than the premium you paid, but it's better to reduce this premium further with some adjustment. Isn't it?  Hope that helps. :) One such strategy I have heard for those who have this opportunity is to purchase the maximum allowed. When the window to sell opens, sell all of your shares and repurchase the most you can with the amount you gained (or keep an equivalent to avoid another transaction fee). This allows you to buy at a discount, and spread out the risk by investing elsewhere.  This way you are really only exposing yourself to lose money which you wouldn't have had access to without the stock discount. If anything special situations/value will be the most profitable strategy going forward. You can take advantage of quant funds reliance on probability and correlation and inability to do real price discovery. An idiosyncratic corporate event (i.e CEO's sudden retirement) that happens to google would lead to quant funds selling off Amazon, giving you a great opportunity to buy the unwarranted dip. The nature of options requires you to understand that they are essentially a bet. In one sense, so is investing in stocks. We imagine a bell curve (first mistake) with a median return at 10%/yr and a standard deviation of about 14%. Then we say that odds are that over some period of time a monte-carlo simulation can give us the picture of the likely returns.  Now, when you buy short term options, say one month or so, you are hoping the outcome is a rise in price that will yield some pretty high return, right?  There was a time I noticed a particular stock would move a large percent based on earnings. And earnings were a day before options expiration. So I'd buy the call that was just out of the money and if the surprise was up, I'd make 3-4X my money. But I was always prepared to lose it all and often did. I never called this investing.  I know of no recovery strategy. Sorry. "I recommend you take a look at this lecture (really, the whole series is enlightening), from Swenson. He identifies 3 sources of returns: diversification, timing and selection. He appears to discard timing and selection as impossible. A student kinda calls him out on this. Diversification reduces risk, not increase returns. It turns out they did time the market, by shorting .com's before the bubble, and real estate just before the downturn. In 1990, Yale started a ""Absolute Return"" unit and allocated like 15 percent to it, mostly by selling US equities, that specializes in these sorts of hedging moves. As for why you might employ managers for specific areas, consider that the expense ratio Wall Street charges you or me still represent a very nice salary when applied to the billions in Yale's portfolio. So they hire internally to reduce expenses, and I'm sure they're kept busy. They also need people to sell off assets to maintain ratios, and figuring out which ones to sell might take specialized knowledge. Finally, in some areas, you functionally cannot invest without management. For example, Yale has a substantial allocation in private equity, and by definition that doesn't trade on the open market. The other thing you should consider is that for all its diversification, Yale lost 25 percent of their portfolio in 2009. For a technique that's supposed to reduce volatility, they seem to have a large range of returns over the past five years." "Investing is always a matter of balancing risk vs reward, with the two being fairly strongly linked.  Risk-free assets generally keep up with inflation, if that; these days advice is that even in retirement you're going to want something with better eturns for at least part of your portfolio. A ""whole market"" strategy is a reasonable idea, but not well defined. You need to decide wheher/how to weight stocks vs bonds, for example, and short/long term. And you may want international or REIT in the mix; again the question is how much. Again, the tradeoff is trying to decide how much volatility and risk you are comfortable with and picking a mix which comes in somewhere around that point -- and noting which assets tend to move out of synch with each other (stock/bond is the classic example) to help tune that. The recommendation for higher risk/return when you have a longer horizon before you need the money comes from being able to tolerate more volatility early on when you have less at risk and more time to let the market recover. That lets you take a more aggressive position and, on average, ger higher returns. Over time, you generally want to dial that back (in the direction of lower-risk if not risk free) so a late blip doesn't cause you to lose too much of what you've already gained... but see above re ""risk free"". That's the theoretical answer. The practical answer is that running various strategies against both historical data and statistical simulations of what the market might do in the future suggests some specific distributions among the categories I've mentioned do seem to work better than others. (The mix I use -- which is basically a whole-market with weighting factors for the categories mentioned above -- was the result of starting with a general mix appropriate to my risk tolerance based on historical data, then checking it by running about 100 monte-carlo simulations of the market for the next 50 years.)" "If you buy a call, that's because you expect that the stock will go up. If it does not go up, then forget about buying more calls as your initial idea seems to be wrong. And I don't think that buying a put to make up for the loss will work either, the only thing that is sure is that you will pay another premium (on a stock that could stay where it is). Even if you are 100% sure that the stock will go up again, don't do anything, as John Maynard Keynes stated: ""Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent"". My idea is: wait until the expiration date. The good things about options is that you won't lose more than the premium that you paid for it and that until it reaches its maturity you can still make money if the market turns around. More generally, when you are purely speculating, adding to a position when it goes against you is called ""averaging down"". I sincerely discourage you to do that : If the stocks goes in the wrong direction, that means that your   initial idea was wrong in the first place (or you were not right at   the right moment). In my opinion, adding up to a wrong idea is not the   right thing to do. When you are losing, just take your loss and don't   add up to your position based on your emotions. On the other hand, adding to your position more when the stock goes in   your direction is called ""pyramiding"" and is, in my opinion, a better   way of doing things (you bought, you were right, let's buy more). But   at some point you will have to take your profits. There are plenty of other stocks on which you can try to invest and the market will still be here tomorrow, there will be other opportunities to make profits. Rushing things by constantly trying to have a position is not a good idea. Not doing anything is also a strategy." An alternative options strategy to minimize loss of investment capital is to buy a put, near the money around your original buy price, with a premium less than the total dividend. The value of the put will increase if the stock price falls quickly. Likely, a large portion of your dividend will go towards paying the option premium, this will however ensure that your capital doesn't drop much lower than your buy price. Continued dividend distributions will continue to pay to buy future put options. Risks here are if the stock does not have a very large up or down movement from your original buy price causing most of the dividend to be spent on insuring your position. It may take a few cycles, but once the stock has appreciated in value say 10% above buying price, you can consider either skipping the put insurance so you can pocket the dividend, or you can bu ythe put with a higher strike price for additional insurance against a loss of gains. Again, this sacrifices much of the dividend in favor of price loss, and still is open to a risk of neutral price movement over time. Very interesting. I would like to expand beyond just precious metals and stocks, but I am not ready just to jump in just yet (I am a relatively young investor, but have been playing around with stocks for 4 years on and off). The problem I often find is that the stock market is often too overvalued to play Ben Graham type strategy/ PE/B, so I would like to expand my knowledge of investing so I can invest in any market and still find value. After reading Jim Rogers, I was really interested in commodities as an alternative to stocks, but I like to play really conservative (generally). Thank you for your insight. If you don't mind, I would like to add you as a friend, since you seem quite above average in the strategy department. "Mathematically it seems like the expected rate of return, whatever that might be, is the same for both. An aggressive strategy is higher risk and higher reward. A conservative strategy is lower risk and lower reward. That is not true.  Roughly, the mathematical analogue of ""higher risk and higher reward"" is ""higher standard deviation and higher mean"".  In other words, the aggressive strategy does have a higher expected rate of return (higher mean).  Its disadvantage is that it has a higher likelihood of incurring intermediate losses (and/or higher magnitude of intermediate losses) on the way. This is classically illustrated with the following chart -  from Vanguard. You can see that the average return is greater the riskier the portfolio (i.e., the more allocated to stocks relative to bonds), but this higher average return comes at the price of a greater range of possible returns.  With an aggressive portfolio, you take a greater risk of losses at any given moment for a greater chance of gains over a long period. Given this, it should be obvious why the advice is to be aggressive early on.  Early in life, you don't care about whether your current position is up or down, because you're not taking the money out.  If your portfolio is down, you just leave the money in there until it goes back up again.  Later in life, you need to spend the money; you now care about whether your current position is up or down, because you can't afford to wait out a down market and may have to realize a loss by selling. It's important to note that the expected return is always greater for a higher-risk portfolio, as is the expected risk; the expected rate of return doesn't magically change as you age.  What changes is your ability to absorb losses to hold out for later gains." "The strategy is right. As pointed out by you, will the "" volatility cause the premium on the price of the options to be too high to make this worthwhile"" ... this is subjective and depends on how the markets feels about the volatility and the trend ... ie if the market believes that the stock will go up, the option at 45 would cost quite a bit less. However if the market believes the stock would go down, the option at 45 would be quite high [and may not even be available].   There is no generic right or wrong, the strategy is right [with out without putting dividend into equation] it depends what options are available at what prices." "Yes, of course there have been studies on this.  This is no more than a question about whether the options are properly priced. (If properly priced, then your strategy will not make money on average before transaction costs and will lose once transaction costs are included.  If you could make money using your strategy, on average, then the market should - and generally will - make an adjustment in the option price to compensate.) The most famous studies on this were conducted by Black and Scholes and then by Merton. This work won the Nobel Prize in 1995. Although the Black-Scholes (or Black-Scholes-Merton) equation is so well known now that people may forget it, they didn't just sit down one day and write and equation that they thought was cool. They actually derived the equation based on market factors. Beyond this ""pioneering"" work, you've got at least two branches of study.  Academics have continued to study option pricing, including but not limited to revisions to the original Black-Scholes model, and hedge funds / large trading house have ""quants"" looking at this stuff all of the time.  The former, you could look up if you want. The latter will never see the light of day because it's proprietary. If you want specific references, I think that any textbook for a quantitative finance class would be a fine place to start.  I wouldn't be surprised if you actually find your strategy as part of a homework problem. This is not to say, by the way, that I don't think you can make money with this type of trade, but your strategy will need to include more information than you've outlined here.  Choosing which information and getting your hands on it in a timely manner will be the key." "There isn't really a generic options strategy that gives you higher returns with lower risk than an equivalent non-options strategy. There are lots of options strategies that give you about the same returns with the same risk, but most of the time they are a lot more work and less tax-efficient than the non-options strategy. When I say ""generic"" I mean there may be strategies that rely on special situations (analysis of market inefficiencies or fundamentals on particular securities) that you could take advantage of, but you'd have to be extremely expert and spend a lot of time. A ""generic"" strategy would be a thing like ""write such-and-such sort of spreads"" without reference to the particular security or situation. As far as strategies that give you about the same risk/return, for example you can use options collars to create about the same effect as a balanced fund (Gateway Fund does this, Bridgeway Balanced does stuff like it I think); but you could also just use a balanced fund. You can use covered calls to make income on your stocks, but you of course lose some of the stock upside. You can use protective puts to protect downside, but they cost so much money that on average you lose money or make very little. You can invest cash plus a call option, which is equivalent to stock plus a protective put, i.e on average again you don't make much money. Options don't offer any free lunches not found elsewhere. Occasionally they are useful for tax reasons (for example to avoid selling something but avoid risk) or for technical reasons (for example a stock isn't available to short, but you can do something with options)." I am going to. Like I said I have not traded options much in general, but I can see a lot of potential in derivatives in general, and it makes me kind of grin. In the case of commodities, the advantages are really apparent. The only problem I see with stock options is that they expire, and thus if you are more long term bull on a stock, it would be harder. But for things like commodities, that are shorter term any ways and require margin, it makes a lot of sense IMO. I could see how you could gain a larger diversification through options (being able to bet on Russell 2000, S&amp;P, etc. ) or esoteric markets (electricity).   I will look up that book that you mentioned. Thanks man. If you have been putting savings away for the longer term and have some extra funds which you would like to take some extra risk on - then I say work yourself out a strategy/plan, get yourself educated and go for it. If it is individual shares you are interested then work out if you prefer to use fundamental analysis, technical analysis or some of both. You can use fundamental analysis to help determine which shares to buy, and then use technical analysis to help determine when to get into and out of a position. You say you are prepared to lose $10,000 in order to try to get higher returns. I don't know what percentage this $10,000 is of the capital you intend to use in this kind of investments/trading, but lets assume it is 10% - so your total starting capital would be $100,000. The idea now would be to learn about money management, position sizing and risk management. There are plenty of good books on these subjects. If you set a maximum loss for each position you open of 1% of your capital - i.e $1,000, then you would have to get 10 straight losses in a row to get to your 10% total loss. You do this by setting stop losses on your positions. I'll use an example to explain: Say you are looking at a stock priced at $20 and you get a signal to buy it at that price. You now need to determine a stop price which if the stock goes down to, you can say well I may have been wrong on this occasion, the stock price has gone against me so I need to get out now (I put automatic stop loss conditional orders with my broker). You may determine the stop price based on previous support levels, using a percentage of your buy price or another indicator or method. I tend to use the percentage of buy price - lets say you use 10% - so your stop price would be at $18 (10% below your buy price of $20). So now you can work out your position size (the number of shares to buy). Your maximum loss on the position is $2 per share or 10% of your position in this stock, but it should also be only 1% of your total capital - being 1% of $100,000 = $1,000. You simply divide $1,000 by $2 to get 500 shares to buy.  You then do this with the rest of your positions - with a $100,000 starting capital using a 1% maximum loss per position and a stop loss of 10% you will end up with a maximum of 10 positions. If you use a larger maximum loss per position your position sizes would increase and you would have less positions to open (I would not go higher than 2% maximum loss per position). If you use a larger stop loss percentage then your position sizes would decrease and you would have more positions to open. The larger the stop loss the longer you will potentially be in a position and the smaller the stop loss generally the less time you will be in a position. Also as your total capital increases so will your 1% of total capital, just as it would decrease if your total capital decreases. Using this method you can aim for higher risk/ higher return investments and reduce and manage your risk to a desired level. One other thing to consider, don't let tax determine when you sell an investment. If you are keeping a stock just so you will pay less tax if kept for over 12 months - then you are in real danger of increasing your risk considerably. I would rather pay 50% tax on a 30% return than 25% tax on a 15% return.