Is selling put options an advisable strategy for a retiree to generate stable income?
No.  In good years, the income seems free. In a down year, particularly a bad one, the investor will be subject to large losses that will prove the strategy a bad one.  On the other hand, one often hears of the strategy of selling puts on stock you would like to own. If the stock rises, you keep the premium, if it drops, you own it at a bit of a discount from that starting point. "This is a really bad idea. You are asking to be forced to pay for something at a time when you most likely NOT want to buy it. Why? There is no stability (much less any degree of predictability) to give up the right to control when and for how much you would be willing to own the S&P500. Just don't do it.....""generate stable income"" and ""selling puts"" is an oxymoron.  ===retired investment advisor" I am close to retirement and sell cash secured puts and covered calls on a regular basis.  I make 15 % plus per year from the puts.  Less risky than buying stocks, which I also do.  Riskier than bonds, but several times the income. Example:  I owned 4,000 shares of XYZ, which I bought last year at 6.50 and was at 7.70 two months ago.  I sold 3,000 shares, sold 10 Dec puts @ 7.50 (1,000 shares) for $.90 per share and sold 10 Dec calls at 10.00 for $.20.  Now I had cash from the sale of 3,000 shares ($23,100) plus $900 cash from the sale of the puts, plus $200 cash from the sale of the calls.  Price is now at 6.25.  Had I held the 4,000 shares, I would be down $5,800 from when it was 7.70. Instead, I am down $1,450 from the held 1,000 shares, down $550 on the put and up $200 on the calls.  So down $1,800 instead of down $5,800.  I began buying XYZ back at 6.25 today. "There is only one way to create ""stable"" income using options: write COVERED calls.   This means you must own some stocks which offer an active and liquid option market (FB would be good; T would be useless.) In other words, you need to own some ""unstable"" stocks, tickers that have sometimes scary volatility, and of course these are not great stocks for a retiree. But, let's assume you own 500 shares of FB, which you bought in June of 2015 for $75.    Today, you could have been paid $2,375 for selling five Mar18'16 $105 Calls. Your reasoning is:  So, the rule is: ONLY SELL COVERED CALLS AT A PRICE YOU WOULD BE HAPPY TO ACCEPT.    If you follow the rule, you'll generate more-or-less ""stable"" income. Do not venture off this narrow path into the rest of Option Land. There be dragons.     You can select strike prices that are far out of the money to minimize the chance of being exercised (and sweeten the deal by collecting an even higher price if the stock flies that high).    If you are thinking about doing this, study the subject thoroughly until you know the terminology backwards and forwards. (Don't worry about ""the greeks"" since market makers manipulate implied volatility so wildly that it overrides everything else.)" As you move toward retirement, your portfolio is supposed to move toward low risk, stable investments, more bonds, less stocks, etc.  Your question implies that you want to increase your income, most likely because your income is not satisfying your desires. First, any idea that you have that risks your savings, just eliminate it.  You are not able to replace those savings.  The time for those kind of plays has passed. However, you can improve your situation.  Do random odd jobs.  Find a part time job that you're willing to do for 10 hours a week or something.  Keep this money separate from your retirement savings.  Research the stock trades you would like to make and use that 'extra' money to play in the market.  Set a rule that you do not touch your nest egg for trading.  You may find that being retired gives you the time to do the #1 thing that helps investors make good investments -- research. Then when you make your first million doing this, write a book.  If you call it Retire - And Then Get Rich, I expect royalties and a dedication. Selling options is a great idea, but tweak it a bit and sell credit spreads on both sides of the market, i.e. sell OTM bear call spreads and OTM bull put spreads. This is also known as an iron condor, and limits risk, and allows for much more flexibility. Yes -- If you are prepared to own the stock and have the cash to buy it, it can be a good way to generate income. The downside is really no more than buying a stock and it goes down -- which can happen to any investment -- and you have the premium of the put. Just don't do it on any stock you would not buy outright. To the posters who say it's a bad idea, I would like some more info on why they think that. It's not more bad idea than any investment. Yes it has risk, but so does buying stocks in general, buying dividend stocks etc and since most options expire worthless the odds are more in your favor selling puts.
Unless you plan to sell your home and live in a box during your retirement I wouldn't consider it an investment that is a viable replacement for a retirement account. Consider this: Even if housing prices DO go way up, you still need a place to live. When you sell that house and try to buy another one to live in, you will find that the other houses went up in price too, negating your gain. The only way this might work is if you buy a much bigger house than you will need later and trade down to pull out some equity, or consider a reverse-mortgage for retirement income. You are probably right that using a traditional buy and hold strategy on common equities or funds is very unlikely to generate the types of returns that would make you a millionaire in short order. However, that doesn't mean it isn't possible. You just have to accept a more risk to become eligible for such incredible returns that you'd need to do that. And by more risk I mean a LOT more risk, which is more likely to put you in the poorhouse than a mansion. Mostly we are talking about highly speculative investments like commodities and real estate. However, if you are looking for potential to make (or more likely lose) huge amounts of money in the stock market without a very large cache of cash. Options give you much more leverage than just buying a stock outright. That is, by buying option contracts you can get a much larger return on a small movement in the stock price compared to what you would get for the same investment if you bought the stock directly.  Of course, you take on additional risk. A normal long position on a stock is very unlikely to cause you to lose your entire investment, whereas if the stock doesn't move far enough and in the right direction, you will lose your entire investment in option contracts. "Exactly. I'll ""retire"" from teaching in two years and will be given the chance to take half of my retirement in one lump sum payment and take home $1,000 a month, or take nothing and bring home 2,000 a month. The other thing to remember is the 30% tax payment that next April. That's tough.   This looks like a no-brainer because in just seven years, I'd eclipse the cash out. However, I might do it because I'll take the money and possibly pay off a rental home. With a rental, I'll be able to raise the rent if inflation kicks in. Of course, if deflation continues, that might be a bad move. The thing is, I'll be able to decide." In addition to what others have said, I think it is important to consider that government retirement assistance (whatever it is called in each instance) is basically a promise that can be revoked. I talked to a retired friend of mine just yesterday and we got onto that subject; she mentioned that when she was young, the promise was for 90% of one's pay, paid by the government after retiring. It is very different today. Yes, you can gamble that you won't need the saved money, and thus decide not to save anything. What then if you do end up needing the money you did not set aside, but rather spent? You are just now graduating college, and assuming of course that you get a decently-paying job, are likely going to have loads more money than you are used to. If you make an agreement with yourself to set aside even just 10-15% of the difference in income right from the start, that is going to grow into a pretty sizable nest egg by the time you approach retirement age. Then, you will have the option of continuing to work (maybe part-time) or quitting in a way you would not have had otherwise. Now I'm going to pull numbers out of thin air, but suppose that you currently have $1000/month net, before expenses, and can get a job that pays $1800/month net starting out. 10-15% of the difference means you'll be saving around $100/month for retirement. In 35 years, assuming no return on investment (pessimistic, but works if returns match inflation) and no pay rises, that will still be over $40K. That's somewhere on the order of $150/month added to your retirement income for 25 years. Multiply with whatever inflation rate you think is likely if you prefer nominal values. It becomes even more noticable if you save a significant fraction of the additional pay; if you save 1/3 of the additional money (note that you still effectively get a 50% raise compared to what you have been living on before), that gives you a net income of $1500/month instead of $1800 ($500/month more rather than $800/month more) which grows into about $110K in 35 years assuming no return on investment. Nearly $400 per month for 25 years. $100 per week is hardly chump change in retirement, and it is still quite realistic for most people to save 30% of the money they did not have before. I think a larger issue is that you're trying to do market timing. Whether you had a large or small amount of money to invest, no one wants to put the money in to watch it go down.  You can't really predict if prices in a market or security will go up in six months (in which case you want to put all your cash in now), of if it will go down (in which case you'd want to wait until the bottom), or if it will skitter around (in which case you'd want to only buy at the bottoms).  Of course, if you're magic enough to nail all of those market conditions, you're a master finance trader and will quickly make billions. If you're really concerned with protecting your money and want to take some long positions, I'd look into some put options. You'll of course pay the fees for those put options, but they'll protect your downside.  Much of this depends on your time horizon: at the age of 35, someone can expect to see ~6 more recessions and perhaps ~30 more market corrections before retirement. With that big of a time range, it's best to avoid micro-optimizing since that tends to hurt your performance overall (because you won't be able to time the market correctly most of the time).  One thing that's somewhat reasonable, if you have the stomach for it, is to not buy at somewhat-obvious market highs and wait for corrections. This isn't fool proof by any means, but as an example many people realized that US equities basically were on a ~5 year up run by December 2014. Many people cashed out those positions, expecting that a correction would be due. And around late summer of 2015, that correction came. For those with patience, they made ~15% with a few mouse clicks.  Of course many others would have been waiting for that correction since 2010 and missed out on the market increases.  Boiled down: That's up to you, but I wouldn't play around with my retirement money if I was in your situation. Your earning potential during your retirement years will likely be at its nadir. Do you really want to risk being forced to be a Wal-Mart greeter when you are 80? Also, considering your earning potential now is probably at or near the peak, your opportunity cost for each hour of your life is much higher now than it will be later. So ultimately you'd be working a little harder now or a lot harder later for less money. "There are two things going on here, neither of which favors this approach. First, as @JohnFx noted, you should be wary of the sunk-cost fallacy, or throwing good money after bad. You already lost the money you lost, and there's no point in trying to ""win it back"" as opposed to just investing the money you still have as wisely as possible, forgetting your former fortune. Furthermore, the specific strategy you suggest is not a good one. The problem is that you're assuming that, whenever the stock hits $2, it will eventually rebound to $3. While that may often happen, it's far from guaranteed. More specifically, assuming the efficient market hypothesis applies (which it almost certainly does), there are theorems that say you can't increase your expected earning with a strategy like the one you propose: the apparent stability of the steady stream of income is offset by the chance that you lose out if the stock does something you didn't anticipate." Assuming that you have capital gains, you can expect to have to pay taxes on them. It might be short term, or long term capital gains. If you specify exactly which shares to sell, it is possible to sell mostly losers, thus reducing or eliminating capital gains.  There are separate rules for 401K and other retirement programs regarding down payments for a house. This leads to many other issues such as the hit your retirement will take. I think it depends on your broker. Some brokers will not try to auto exercise in the money options. Others will try to do the exercise it if you have available funds. Your best bet, if find yourself in that situation, is to sell the option on the open market the day of or slightly before expiration. Put it on your calendar and don't forget, you could loose your profits. @#2 Its in the best interest of your broker to exercise because they get a commission. I think they are used to this situation where there is a lack of funds. Its not like bouncing a check. You will need to check with your broker on this. @#3 I think many or most options traders never intend on buying the underling stock. Therefore no, they do not always make sure there is enough funds to buy. Best thing to do is convert your money into something that will retain value. Currency is a symbol of wealth, and can be significantly devalued with inflation. Something such as Gold or Silver might not allow you to see huge benefit, but its perhaps the safest bet (gold in particular, as silver is more volatile), as mentioned above, yes you do pay a little above spot price and receive a little below spot when and if you sell, but current projections for both gold and silver suggest that you won't lose money at least. Safe bet. Suggesting it is a bad idea at this time is just silly, and goes against the majority of advisers out there. "I agree that you should CONSIDER a shares based dividend income SIPP, however unless you've done self executed trading before, enough to understand and be comfortable with it and know what you're getting into, I would strongly suggest that as you are now near retirement, you have to appreciate that as well as the usual risks associated with markets and their constituent stocks and shares going down as well as up, there is an additional risk that you will achieve sub optimal performance because you are new to the game. I took up self executed trading in 2008 (oh yes, what a great time to learn) and whilst I might have chosen a better time to get into it, and despite being quite successful over all, I have to say it's the hardest thing I've ever done! The biggest reason it'll be hard is emotionally, because this pension pot is all the money you've got to live off until you die right? So, even though you may choose safe quality stocks, when the world economy goes wrong it goes wrong, and your pension pot will still plummet, somewhat at least. Unless you ""beat the market"", something you should not expect to do if you haven't done it before, taking the rather abysmal FTSE100 as a benchmark (all quality stocks, right? LOL) from last Aprils highs to this months lows, and projecting that performance forwards to the end of March, assuming you get reasonable dividends and draw out £1000 per month, your pot could be worth £164K after one year. Where as with normal / stable / long term market performance (i.e. no horrible devaluation of the market) it could be worth £198K! Going forwards from those 2 hypothetical positions, assuming total market stability for the rest of your life and the same reasonable dividend payouts, this one year of devaluation at the start of your pensions life is enough to reduce the time your pension pot can afford to pay out £1000 per month from 36 years to 24 years. Even if every year after that devaluation is an extra 1% higher return it could still only improve to 30 years. Normally of course, any stocks and shares investment is a long term investment and long term the income should be good, but pensions usually diversify into less and less risky investments as they get close to maturity, holding a certain amount of cash and bonds as well, so in my view a SIPP with stocks and shares should be AT MOST just a part of your strategy, and if you can't watch your pension pot payout term shrink from 26 years to 24 years hold your nerve, then maybe a SIPP with stocks and shares should be a smaller part! When you're dependent on your SIPP for income a market crash could cause you to make bad decisions and lose even more income. All that said now, even with all the new taxes and loss of tax deductible costs, etc, I think your property idea might not be a bad one. It's just diversification at the end of the day, and that's rarely a bad thing. I really DON'T think you should consider it to be a magic bullet though, it's not impossible to get a 10% yield from a property, but usually you won't. I assume you've never done buy to let before, so I would encourage you to set up a spread sheet and model it carefully. If you are realistic then you should find that you have to find really REALLY exceptional properties to get that sort of return, and you won't find them all the time. When you do your spread sheet, make sure you take into account all the one off buying costs, build a ledger effectively, so that you can plot all your costs, income and on going balance, and then see what payouts your model can afford over a reasonable number of years (say 10). Take the sum of those payouts and compare them against the sum you put in to find the whole thing. You must include budget for periodic minor and less frequent larger renovations (your tenants WON'T respect your property like you would, I promise you), land lord insurance (don't omit it unless you maintain capability to access a decent reserve (at least 10-20K say, I mean it, it's happened to me, it cost me 10K once to fix up a place after the damage and negligence of a tenant, and it definitely could have been worse) but I don't really recommend you insuring yourself like this, and taking on the inherent risk), budget for plumber and electrician call out, or for appropriate schemes which include boiler maintenance, etc (basically more insurance). Also consider estate agent fees, which will be either finders fees and/or 10% management fees if you don't manage them yourself. If you manage it yourself, fine, but consider the possibility that at some point someone might have to do that for you... either temporarily or permanently. Budget for a couple of months of vacancy every couple of years is probably prudent. Don't forget you have to pay utilities and council tax when its vacant. For leaseholds don't forget ground rent. You can get a better return on investment by taking out a mortgage (because you make money out of the underlying ROI and the mortgage APR) (this is usually the only way you can approach 10% yield) but don't forget to include the cost of mortgage fees, valuation fees, legal fees, etc, every 2 years (or however long)... and repeat your model to make sure it is viable when interest rates go up a few percent." "I would start with long term data. It would show how 40 years worth of stock investing puts the investor so far ahead of the ""safe"" investor that they can afford to lose half and still be ahead. But - then I would explain about asset allocation, and how the soon to be retired person had better be properly allocated if they weren't all along so that the impact of down years is mitigated. The retiree is still a long term investor as life spans of 90 are common.  Look at the long term charts for the major indexes. So long as you average in, reinvest earnings (dividends) and stay diversified, you will be ahead. The market is still not where it was at the end of 2001, but in the decade, our worth has risen from 5X our income to 12.5X. This was not genius, just a combination of high savings and not panicking." You're correct in your implied point: Selling a cash secured put has less risk (in terms of both volatility and maximum loss) than buying the security outright. However, many brokerages don't allow cash-secured put writing in IRA accounts.   There are three reasons this tends to be the case: If you have your long positions established and are investing responsibly (assuming you know the risks and can accept them), the next step IMO is typically learning hedging - using options or option strategies to solidify positions. Collars (zero cost) and put options are a good place to start your education and they can be put to use to both speculate (what you are effectively doing with short-position trading) or long-term oriented edging. Day trading equites can be lucrative but it is a difficult game to play - learning options (while more complex on speculation) can provide opportunities to solidify positions. Options trading is difficult grounds. I just think the payoff long term to knowing options is much greater than day-trading tactics (because of versatility) One advantage of paying down your primary residence is that you can refinance it later for 10-15 years when the balance is low. Refinancing a rental is much harder and interest rates are often higher for investors. This also assumes that you can refinance for a lower rate in the nearest future. The question is really which would you rather sell if you suddenly need the money? I have rental properties and i'd rather move myself, than sell the investments (because they are income generating unlike my own home). So in your case i'd pay off primary residence especially since the interest is already higher on it (would be a harder decision if it was lower)