Risk and reward of a synthetic option position
You sold a call, and have a risk if the stock rises.  You bought a put and gain when the stock drops. You, sir, have a synthetic short position.  It's Case 3 from your linked example: Suppose you own Long Stock and the company is going to report earnings   but you’re going on vacation. How can you hedge your position without   selling your stock? You can short the stock synthetically with   options! Short Stock = Short Call + Long Put They conclude with the net zero remark, because the premise was an existing long position. A long plus this synthetic short results in a neutral set of positions (and the author's ability to go on vacation not concerned about any movement in the stock.) But if underlying goes to 103 at expiration, both the call and the put   expire worthless If the stock closes at 103 on expiration, the 105 put is worth $2, not worthless.
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. "First, your professor should learn proper grammar. Should be, ""Why **do**....""  Second, it looks like you're dealing with synthetic securities. You can create a synthetic T-Bill by doing a combination of long/short calls/puts.  But ignore all that. Just think about this without the technical jargon. We know that the risk free rate is typically what T-Bills are yielding right? And we know that since options are inherently more risky than US government debt, investors will demand a higher interest rate to compensate them for the risk. So, as the risk free rate increases, the value of a call will move the same direction, otherwise investors would stop dealing with call options and would instead buy safer, less-risky ""riskless"" investments.  It's not really an options question, just one of basic finance, risk, understanding of interest rates, etc." Well, yes -- you've implicitly made many assumptions (such as that the embedded option has longer maturity). The important thing to consider is when this option pays out; the premium will obviously be adjusted.  For a concrete example, consider an equity option-on-an-option. The outer option has strike 110, the inner option has strike 100 (spot = forward = 100). Then the inner strike pays out when spot_T &gt; 100, but the outer option has zero value there; the overall option only pays out if spot_T &gt; 110, reducing the structure to a call option with strike 110. You're correct. If you have no option position at execution then you carry no risk. Your risk is only based on the net number of options you're holding at execution. This is handled by your broker or clearinghouse. Pretend that you wrote 1000 options, (you're short the call) then you bought 1000 of the same option (bought to cover) ... you are now flat and have zero options exposure. Pretend you bought 1000 options (you're long the calls) then you sold 1000 of them (liquidated your long) ... you are now flat and have zero options exposure. I think your premise is slightly flawed. Every investment can add or reduce risk, depending on how it's used. If your ordering above is intended to represent the probability you will lose your principal, then it's roughly right, with caveats. If you buy a long-term government bond and interest rates increase while you're holding it, its value will decrease on the secondary markets. If you need/want to sell it before maturity, you may not recover your principal, and if you hold it, you will probably be subject to erosion of value due to inflation (inflation and interest rates are correlated). Over the short-term, the stock market can be very volatile, and you can suffer large paper losses. But over the long-term (decades), the stock market has beaten inflation. But this is true in aggregate, so, if you want to decrease equity risk, you need to invest in a very diversified portfolio (index mutual funds) and hold the portfolio for a long time. With a strategy like this, the stock market is not that risky over time. Derivatives, if used for their original purpose, can actually reduce volatility (and therefore risk) by reducing both the upside and downside of your other investments. For example, if you sell covered calls on your equity investments, you get an income stream as long as the underlying equities have a value that stays below the strike price. The cost to you is that you are forced to sell the equity at the strike price if its value increases above that. The person on the other side of that transaction loses the price of the call if the equity price doesn't go up, but gets a benefit if it does. In the commodity markets, Southwest Airlines used derivatives (options to buy at a fixed price in the future) on fuel to hedge against increases in fuel prices for years. This way, they added predictability to their cost structure and were able to beat the competition when fuel prices rose. Even had fuel prices dropped to zero, their exposure was limited to the pre-negotiated price of the fuel, which they'd already planned for. On the other hand, if you start doing things like selling uncovered calls, you expose yourself to potentially infinite losses, since there are no caps on how high the price of a stock can go. So it's not possible to say that derivatives as a class of investment are risky per se, because they can be used to reduce risk. I would take hedge funds, as a class, out of your list. You can't generally invest in those unless you have quite a lot of money, and they use strategies that vary widely, many of which are quite risky. How would this trade behave IRL? I don't know how the simulation handles limit orders and bid/ask spreads to know it's feasible, but buying at 4.04 when the current ask is 8.00 seems unlikely.  That would mean that all other sell orders between 8.00 and 4.04 were fulfilled, which means that there were very few sellers or that sell pressure spiked, both of which seem unlikely. In reality, it seems more likely that your order would have sat there until the ask dropped to $4.04 (if it ever did), and then you'd have to wait until the bid rose to $7.89 in order to sell them at that price. However, that kind of swing in option prices in not unrealistic.  Options near at-the-money tend to move in price at about 50% of the change in the underlying, so if amazon suddenly dropped by $5, the option price could drop by $2.60 (from 6.66 to $4.04), and then rise back to $7.89 if the price rose $8 (which would be 1% swing and not unheard of intra-day). But it sounds like you got very lucky (or the simulation doesn't handle option trading realistically) - I've traded options in the past and have had some breaks similar to yours.  I've also had bad breaks where I lost my entire investment (the options expire out-of-the money). So it should be a very limited part of your portfolio, and probably only used for risk management (e.g. buying put options to lock in some gains but keeping some upside potential). If a market is efficient then risk/reward should be linear.  In simple markets like stocks and bonds, everyone thinks the same way and the risk/reward calculation is simple, so everyone can have an accurate idea of the risk/reward ratio, unless the company has serious undisclosed problems. But in other markets like derivatives and mortgage bonds, few people understand what they're buying so the risks remain hidden. Someone might think a company will do well, so they buy an derivative on that company. But no one understands risk/reward calculations on derivatives, so the risk/reward on the derivative could be way off the price on the derivative. "The ""pure play"" would be using interest rate options.  http://www.cboe.com/Products/InterestRateOptionsSpecs.aspx" Excellent, very sharp. No it will not be vega neutral exactly! If you think about it, what does a higher vol imply? That the delta of the option is higher than under BS model. Therefore, the vega should also be greater (simplistic explanation but generally accurate). So no, if you trade a 25-delta risky in equal size per leg, the vega will not be neutral. But, in reality, that is a very small portion of your risk. It plays a part, but in general the vanna position dominates by many many multiples.  What do you do that you asked such a question, if you don't mind? "The question you are asking concerns the exercise of a short option position.  The other replies do not appear to address this situation. Suppose that Apple is trading at $96 and you sell a put option with a strike price of $95 for some future delivery date - say August 2016.  The option contract is for 100 shares and you sell the contract for a premium of $3.20. When you sell the option your account will be credited with the premium and debited with the broker commission.  The premium you receive will be $320 = 100 x $3.20.  The commission you pay will depend on you broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple drops to $90 and your option is exercised, either on expiry or prior to expiry.  Then you would be obliged to take delivery of 100 Apple shares at the contracted option strike price of $95 costing you $9,500 plus broker commission.  If you immediately sell the Apple shares you have purchased under your contract obligations, then assuming you sell the shares at the current market price of $90 you would realise a loss of $500 ( = 100x($95-$90) )plus commission.  Since you received a premium of $320 when you sold the put option, your net loss would be $500-$320 = $180 plus any commissions paid to your broker. Now let's look at the case of selling a call option.  Again assume that the price of Apple is $96 and you sell a call option for 100 shares with a strike price of $97 for a premium of $3.60.  The premium you receive would be $360 = 100 x $3.60.  You would also be debited for commission by your broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple shares rises to $101 and your option is exercised.  Then you would be obliged to deliver 100 Apple shares to the party exercising the option at the contracted strike price of $97.  If you did not own the shares to effect delivery, then you would need to purchase those shares in the market at the current market price of $101, and then sell them to the party exercising the option at the strike price of $97.  This would realise an immediate loss of $400 = 100 x ($101-$97) plus any  commission payable.  If you did own the shares, then you would simply deliver them and possibly pay some commission or a delivery fee to your broker.  Since you received $360 when you sold the option, your net loss would be $40 = $400-$360 plus any commission and fees payable to the broker. It is important to understand that in addition to these accounting items, short option positions carry with them a ""margin"" requirement.  You will need to maintain a margin deposit to show ""good faith"" so long as the short option position is open.  If the option you have sold moves against you, then you will be called upon to put up extra margin to cover any potential losses." A bullish (or 'long') call spread is actually two separate option trades.  The A/B notation is, respectively, the strike price of each trade. The first 'leg' of the strategy, corresponding to B, is the sale of a call option at a strike price of B (in this case $165).  The proceeds from this sale, after transaction costs, are generally used to offset the cost of the second 'leg'. The second 'leg' of the strategy, corresponding to A, is the purchase of a call option at a strike price of A (in this case $145). Now, the important part: the payoff.  You can visualize it as so. This is where it gets a teeny bit math-y.  Below, P is the profit of the strategy, K1 is the strike price of the long call, K2 is the strike price of the short call, T1 is the premium paid for the long call option at the time of purchase, T2 is the premium received for the short call at the time of sale, and S is the current price of the stock.  For simplicity's sake, we will assume that your position quantity is a single option contract and transaction costs are zero (which they are not). P = (T2 - max(0, S - K2)) + (max(0, S - K1) - T1) Concretely, let's plug in the strikes of the strategy Nathan proposes, and current prices (which I pulled from the screen).  You have: P = (1.85 - max(0, 142.50 - 165)) - (max(0, 142.50 - 145)) = -$7.80 If the stock goes to $150, the payoff is -$2.80, which isn't quite break even -- but it may have been at the time he was speaking on TV. If the stock goes to $165, the payoff is $12.20. Please do not neglect the cost of the trades!  Trading options can be pretty expensive depending on the broker.  Had I done this trade (quantity 1) at many popular brokers, I still would've been net negative PnL even if NFLX went to >= $165. You are missing a few variables from your calculation, particularly implied volatility.  Even so it does not look like it would be too great a predictor even if incorporated.  You should focus on calculating the option price at a different point in time (with a different underlying price) instead of using a total position value as that can be done afterwards. I programmed and use the standard Black-Scholes model to calculate expected returns.   There are many tools online to help you without doing the programming or calculations yourself. "You make several good points.  I'll start with Black-Scholes; the arbitrage argument in Black-Scholes is between the option and a hypothetical and unobserved portfolio with identical cash flows (the replicating portfolio).  We then value the replicating portfolio via an equilibrium model.  When you use BS, there isn't necessarily *any* observed security whose is guaranteed not imply some arbitrage opportunity, because BS makes no reference to observed prices.  A no-arbitrage modification might look like this: ""I observe the prices (and implied volatilities) of some options, and use the implied volatilities to price another option (maybe with a different strike).  Doing so ensures that there is no arbitrage between my price and the market prices implied by my model.""  Realistically, the problem arbitrage-free models are addressing is that our models and assumptions are wrong, even though they're reasonable approximations a lot of the time.  A no-arbitrage model removes some set of obvious deficiencies, but at the cost of not being able to explain why things are priced as they are.  So, for instance, Vasicek won't reproduce the observed term structure, and Hull-White fixes this, but Hull-White doesn't explain where the term structure comes from (i.e., what the term structure *should* be)." &gt;If we are looking to offset risk in location A where we are not able to buy forward with location W, and they are the same commodity is this even a common practice in risk management?  Let me prephase this by saying I don't do work directly in this area, but sometimes I analyze what's happening in less liquid markets compared to more liquid markets in various commodities to get a better sense of the supply and demand dynamics of the market.   It's normal - but just looking at the ratios - it looks like the spread is quite volatile - it looks like the price at location W went from trading at 130% of location A to 170% of the price at location A. (I also don't use R so I don't know which time period was the start and which was the end)  What moved in one direction can definitely reverse. If you don't know what is driving this movement in the spread then adding the hedge could be riskier than not having any hedge on. And there are scenarios where the price of the commodity you want to buy at location A is going to rise towards the price at liquid location W and if you are unable to buy it and store it then there isn't much you can do to hedge your company's exposure. You could try to refine your options strategy:  For instance you could buy the USD 750 call option(s) you mentioned and at the same time sell (short) call options with a higher strike price, which is above the share price level you expect that Apple will trade at in one year (for instance USD 1,100).  By doing this, you would receive the premium of the call option(s) with the higher option, which in turn would help you finance buying your USD 750 call(s). The net effect of this trading strategy would be that you would give up the extra profit you would earn if Apple would rose above USD 1,100 (the strike price of the call option sold short). Your total risk would be even less than with your actual strategy (in my view).