Large volume options sell
It depends upon who the counterparty is. If the counterparty is the OCC, they would most likely call force majeure if their finances were at serious risk.  They could be forced to take a loss but not to be pulled apart.  Villain could always try to take the OCC to court, but then his plot would probably be exposed in discovery. The need to involve the courts is even greater if these are private contracts. If the options were on one security, they would be difficult to sell in one day.  If they were spread across the most liquid ETFs and equities, they could be sold in one day easily, the above solvency problems notwithstanding. "Yes this is possible in the most liquid securities, but currently it would take several days to get filled in one contract at that amount There are also position size limits (set by the OCC and other Self Regulatory Organizations) that attempt to prevent people from cornering a market through the options market. (getting loads of contacts without effecting the price of the underlying asset, exercising those contracts and suddenly owning a huge stake of the asset and nobody saw it coming - although this is still VERY VERY possible) So for your example of an option of $1.00 per contract, then the position size limits would have prevented 100 million of those being opened (by one person/account that is). Realistically, you would spread out your orders amongst several options strike prices and expiration dates. Stock Indexes are some very liquid examples, so for the Standard & Poors you can open options contracts on the SPY ETF, as well as the S&P 500 futures, as well as many other S&P 500 products that only trade options and do not have the ability to be traded as the underlying shares. And there is also the saying ""liquidity begets liquidity"", meaning that because you are making the market more liquid, other large market participants will also see the liquidity and want to participate, where they previously thought it was too illiquid and impossible to close a large position quickly"
The trader has purchased 1095 options, each of which is a contract which entitles him to sell 100 shares of Cisco stock for $16 a share. He paid $71 for each contract (71 cents a share x 100) which is roughly $78k total. He will get $109,500 for each dollar below $16 Cisco's stock is when he exercises it (he can buy the stock for the going rate and then sell it for $16 immediately), or he can sell the option itself to someone else for a similar gain (usually a little more, especially if the option has a long time until it expires). If the option expires when the stock is over $16/share, he gets nothing; i.e. the original $78k is lost. For reference, Cisco's stock was trading at $17.14/share as of market close on March 18, 2010. The share price had recently been boosted by the recent news that they would be paying a quarterly dividend. It has been heading mostly downward since February 9, after they announced that they're not expecting profits to be as good as the analysts thought they would be: they claim that people aren't buying too much networking equipment just now, and they're also facing mounting competition from the likes of HP and Juniper for switches, and Aruba / HP / Motorola for wireless devices. They may lose market share or need to cut prices, hurting profits. Either way, there's certainly a real possibility of their stock going below $16 in the next few months, so people are willing to pay for those options. (Disclosure: I work for Aruba, who competes with Cisco. I also own shares of Aruba, possess assorted stock options and similar equity grants, and participate in the employee stock purchase program.  I also own shares in Cisco indirectly through various mutual funds and ETFs.) "Its bandwidth, so no, it wouldn't clog up the ""tubes"" like a highway. Everyone who quotes has a fixed amount of bandwidth and an exchange can cut off a firm's connection. The exchanges know who is quoting- you have to buy connections to them to do this stuff. Every exchange I have seen has reporting capability to see who is quoting what, and who is trading what.   Whoever is doing this isn't making any money, because they didn't trade anything! Servers and connectivity are expensive, so they are actually losing money. This situation is almost certainly due to either a new algo ""soft launching"" or being tweaked and having its parameters set too conservatively." "Your plan already answers your own question in the best possible way: If you want to be able to make the most possible profit from a large downward move in a stock (in this case, a stock that tracks gold), with a limited, defined risk if there is an upward move, the optimal strategy is to buy a put option.  There are a few Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track the price of gold.  think of them as stocks that behave like gold, essentially.  Two good examples that have options are GLD and IAU. (When you talk about gold, you'll hear a lot about futures.  Forget them, for now.  They do the same essential thing for your purposes, but introduce more complexity than you need.) The way to profit from a downward move without protection against an upward move is by shorting the stock.   Shorting stock is like the opposite of buying it.    You make the amount of money the stock goes down by, or lose the amount it goes up by.   But, since stocks can go up by an infinite amount, your possible loss is unlimited. If you want to profit on a large downward move without an unlimited loss if you're wrong and it goes up, you need something that makes money as the stock drops, but can only lose so much if it goes up.   (If you want to be guaranteed to lose nothing, your best investment option is buying US Treasuries, and you're technically still exposed to the risk that US defaults on its debt, although if you're a US resident, you'll likely have bigger problems than your portfolio in that situation.) Buying a put option has the exact asymmetrical exposure you want.   You pay a limited premium to buy it, and at expiration you essentially make the full amount that the stock has declined below the strike price, less what you paid for the option.   That last part is important - because you pay a premium for the option, if it's down just a little, you might still lose some or all of what you paid for it, which is what you give up in exchange for it limiting your maximum loss. But wait, you might say.  When I buy an option, I can lose all of my money, cant I?  Yes, you can.    Here's the key to understanding the way options limit risk as compared to the corresponding way to get ""normal"" exposure through getting long, or in your case, short, the stock: If you use the number of options that represent the number of shares you would have bought, you will have much, much less total money at risk. If you spend the same ""bag 'o cash"" on options as you would have spent on stock, you will have exposure to way more shares, and have the same amount of money at risk as if you bought the stock, but will be much more likely to lose it. The first way limits the total money at risk for a similar level of exposure; the second way gets you exposure to a much larger amount of the stock for the same money, increasing your risk. So the best answer to your described need is already in the question:   Buy a put.  I'd probably look at GLD to buy it on, simply because it's generally a little more liquid than IAU. And if you're new to options, consider the following: ""Paper trade"" first.  Either just keep track of fake buys and sells on a spreadsheet, or use one of the many online services where you can track investments - they don't know or care if they're real or not. Check out www.888options.com.  They are an excellent learning resource that isn't trying to sell you anything - their only reason to exist is to promote options education.   If you do put on a trade, don't forget that the most frustrating pitfall with buying options is this:  You can be basically right, and still lose some or all of what you invest.  This happens two ways, so think about them both before you trade: If the stock goes in the direction you think, but not enough to make back your premium, you can still lose.  So you need to make sure you know how far down the stock has to be to make back your premium.  At expiration, it's simple: You need it to be below the strike price by more than what you paid for the option. With options, timing is everything.  If the stock goes down a ton, or even to zero - free gold! - but only after your option expires, you were essentially right, but lose all your money.  So, while you don't want to buy an option that's longer than you need, since the premium is higher, if you're not sure if an expiration is long enough out, it isn't - you need the next one. EDIT to address update: (I'm not sure ""not long enough"" was the problem here, but...) If the question is just how to ensure there is a limited, defined amount you can lose (even if you want the possible loss to be much less than you can potentially make, the put strategy described already does that - if the stock you use is at $100, and you buy a put with a 100 strike for $5, you can make up to $95.   (This occurs if the stock goes to zero, meaning you could buy it for nothing, and sell it for $100, netting $95 after the $5 you paid).   But you can only lose $5. So the put strategy covers you. If the goal is to have no real risk of loss, there's no way to have any real gain above what's sometimes called the ""risk-free-rate"".  For simplicity's sake, think of that as what you'd get from US treasuries, as mentioned above. If the goal is to make money whether the stock (or gold) goes either up or down, that's possible, but note that you still have (a fairly high) risk of loss, which occurs if it fails to move either up or down by enough.  That strategy, in its most common form, is called a straddle, which basically means you buy a call and a put with the same strike price.  Using the same $100 example, you could buy the 100-strike calls for $5, and the 100-strike puts for $5.  Now you've spent $10 total, and you make money if the stock is up or down by more than $10 at expiration (over 110, or under 90).   But if it's between 90 and 100, you lose money, as one of your options will be worthless, and the other is worth less than the $10 total you paid for them both." &gt; “If the [Black-Scholes] formula is applied to extended time periods….it can produce absurd results.”  &gt; -Warren Buffett, 2008 Letter to Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders  I will give your question more thought, and come back with a quantitative solution. It may be most fruitful to apply a backward-induction options pricing model with detailed scenario-based discounted cash flow valuation models supported by pro forma financial statement and investment analysis.    Nonetheless, my initial reaction is inline with Warren Buffett's belief that in the long-run an assumption of the Black-Scholes options pricing model is invalid (see [here](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.613.1657&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf) and [here](http://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/academics/business/economics/faculty/kurt/OptionValuationBuffetCritique_123113.pdf)). The perceived invalid assumption is that the distribution of expected future stock prices is *not* log-normal in the long-run. This non-log-normal view is especially true for a single company stock.   This invalid assumption results in over-valuation of options prices from Black-Scholes - which makes it much better to sell long-term options than to buy them if market participants are using Black-Scholes pricing models.  Again, without having done the math yet, my gut tells me if the option seller is using Black-Sholes pricing for long-dated options, you would be best to avoid buying them as the prices will be inflated compared to an economic reality fair price. "Most of the investors who have large holdings in a particular stock have pretty good exit strategies for those positions to ensure they are getting the best price they can by selling gradually into the volume over time. Putting a single large block of stock up for sale is problematic for one simple reason: Let's say you have 100,000 shares of a stock, and for some reason you decide today is the day to sell them, take your profits, and ride off into the sunset.  So you call your broker (or log into your brokerage account) and put them up for sale.  He puts in an order somewhere, the stock is sold, and your account is credited. Seems simple, right?  Well...not so fast. Professionals - I'm keeping this simple, so please don't beat me up for it! The way stocks are bought and sold is through companies known as ""market makers"".  These are entities which sit between the markets and you (and your broker), and when you want to buy or sell a stock, most of the time the order is ultimately handled somewhere along the line by a market maker.  If you work with a large brokerage firm, sometimes they'll buy or sell your shares out of their own accounts, but that's another story. It is normal for there to be many, sometimes hundreds, of market makers who are all trading in the same equity.  The bigger the stock, the more market makers it attracts.  They all compete with each other for business, and they make their money on the spread between what they buy stock from people selling for and what they can get for it selling it to people who want it. Given that there could be hundreds of market makers on a particular stock (Google, Apple, and Microsoft are good examples of having hundreds of market makers trading in their stocks), it is very competitive.  The way the makers compete is on price.  It might surprise you to know that it is the market makers, not the markets, that decide what a stock will buy or sell for. Each market maker sets their own prices for what they'll pay to buy from sellers for, and what they'll sell it to buyers for.  This is called, respectively, the ""bid"" and the ""ask"" prices.  So, if there are hundreds of market makers then there could be hundreds of different bid and ask prices on the same stock.  The prices you see for stocks are what are called the ""best bid and best ask"" prices.  What that means is, you are being shown the highest ""bid"" price (what you can sell your shares for) and the best ""ask"" price (what you can buy those shares for) because that's what is required.  That being said, there are many other market makers on the same stock whose bid prices are lower and ask prices are higher.  Many times there will be a big clump of market makers all at the same bid/ask, or within fractions of a cent of each other, all competing for business.  Trading computers are taught to seek out the best prices and the fastest trade fills they can. The point to this very simplistic lesson is that the market makers set the prices that shares trade at.  They adjust those prices based (among other factors) on how much buying and selling volume they're seeing.  If they see a wave of sell orders coming into the system then they'll start marking down their bid prices.  This keeps them from paying too much for shares they're going to have to find a buyer for eventually, and it can sometimes slow down the pace of selling as investors and automated systems notice the price decline and decide to wait to sell.  Conversely, if market makers see a wave of buy orders coming into the system, they'll start marking their ask prices up to maximize their gains, since they're selling you shares they bought from someone else, presumably at a lower price.  But they typically adjust their prices up or down before they actually fill trades.  (sneaky, eh?) Depending on how much volume there is on the shares of the company you're selling, and depending on whether there are more buyers than sellers at the moment, your share sell order may be filled at market by a market maker with no real consequence to the share's price. If the block is large enough then it's possible it will not all sell to one market maker, or it might not all happen in one transaction or even all at the same price. This is a pretty complex subject, as you can see, and I've cut a LOT of corners and oversimplified much to keep it comprehensible.  But the short answer to your question is -- it depends. Hope this helps. Good luck!" I frequently do this on NADEX, selling out-of-the-money binary  calls. NADEX is highly illiquid, and the bid/ask is almost always from  the market maker. Out-of-the-money binary calls lose value quickly  (NADEX daily options exist for only ~21 hours). If I place an  above-ask order, it either gets filled quickly (within a few minutes)  due to a spike in the underlying, or not at all. I compensate by  changing my price hourly.  As Joe notes, one of Black-Scholes inputs is volatility, but price  determines (implied) volatility, so this is circular. In other words, you can  treat the bid/ask prices as bid/ask volatilities. This isn't as  far-fetched as it seems:  http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/fx/volatility-quoting-fx-options.html "For stock options, where I'm used to seeing these terms: Volume is usually reported per day, whereas open interest is cumulative. In addition, some volume closes positions and some opens positions.  For example, if I am long one contract and sell it to someone who was short one contract, then that adds to volume and reduces open interest.  If I hold no contracts and sell (creating a short position) to someone who also had no contracts, then I add to volume and I increase open interest. EDIT: With the clarification in your comment, then I would say some people opened and closed positions in that one day.  Their opening and closing trades both contribute to ""volume"" but they have not net position in the ""open interest.""" Well the thing to understand about HFT is that the volume levels heavily affect not just the earnings but also the ecosystem. HFT is almost always liquidity constrained so the volume and volatility is going to affect the overall profitability of the strategy since less of these things means fewer and smaller trading opportunities.  Since 2008 volume and volatility have been heavily negatively correlated with risk-on/risk-off. During risk-off periods investors seem to panic and trading hits a frentic pace. This describes late 2008 and more recently August 2011. Even in 2012 the highest volume/volatility period was in May when the Euro deals were in danger. Risk-on environments tend to be marked be calm, orderly buying.  Second the dark pool issue is bringing liquidity out of the lit markets where HFT normally makes its money. The primary reason for this trend is that dark pools are allowed to offer sub-penny quotes whereas lit exchanges are not. Because of this arbitrary regulatory constraint most of the time dark pools are going to offer better prices, especially on thick book securities.  But beyond that the level of volume effects some HFT players more heavily then others. Imagine all the HFT firms as a pride of lions. When volume is high and liquidity is flowing it's like the pride has brought in a giant water buffalo. The biggest, baddest cats eat first, but there's still food left for the cubs after they're finished feeding.  But if the pride only brings in say a baby gazelle the alpha cats will eat everything and the runts will go hungry. That basically describes what's happening now. A firm like RennTech or GETCO will make less money in a low volume environment, but still do fine. Marginal firms like Eladian will lose the ability to make any money.  Since the marginal firms need the press and the dominant firms tend to be more secretive than the NSA, you'll tend to read more about the former than the latter. Depending on the day and even time, you'd get your $2 profit less the $5 commission. Jack's warning is correct, but more so for thinly traded options, either due to the options having little open interest or the stock not quite so popular. In your case you have a just-in-the-money strike for a highly traded stock near expiration. That makes for about the best liquidity one can ask for.  One warning is in order - Sometime friday afternoon, there will be a negative time premium. i.e. the bid might seem lower than in the money value. At exactly $110, why would I buy the option? Only if I can buy it, exercise, and sell the stock, all for a profit, even if just pennies. I would say the most challenging fact for this assertion is that HFT firms operate with extremely limited capital bases. For a stock with say 10m shares ADV, even a very large and successful HFT strategy might use a position limit of no more than 5000 shares.  That is to say if you sum up and net the buys and sells for a stock across the day the HFT firm will never exceed 10,000 shares (2x position limits assuming it completely flipped) on a stock that trades 10,000,000 shares on a given day. The high volumes are attained through high turnover, the strategy might trade up to 500,000 shares (or 5% of the volume) attaining a 50x turnover.  But that brings me back to the original point. In the market microstructure literature market impact generally has been found to scale linearly or even sub-linearly for net volume executed.   If I alternate between thousands of 1 lot buy and sell orders, it would be very difficult for me to move the market because the market impact of every one of my buy orders roughly cancels the market impact of my almost exactly equal number of sell orders.   There might be a higher-order mechanism at work, but I'm genuinely curious what you think it might be. How could strategies that attain such small net positions have such out-sized impact on market direction? 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. "Seems like you are concerned with something called assignment risk. It's an inherent risk of selling options: you are giving somebody the right, but not the obligation, to sell to you 100 shares of GOOGL. Option buyers pay a premium to have that right - the extrinsic value. When they exercise the option, the option immediately disappears. Together with it, all the extrinsic value disappears. So, the lower the extrinsic value, the higher the assignment risk. Usually, option contracts that are very close to expiration (let's say, around 2 to 3 weeks to expiration or less) have significantly lower extrinsic value than longer option contracts. Also, generally speaking, the deeper ITM an option contract is, the lower extrinsic value it will have. So, to reduce assignment risk, I usually close out my option positions 1-2 weeks before expiration, especially the contracts that are deep in the money. edit: to make sure this is clear, based on a comment I've just seen on your question. To ""close out an options position"", you just have to create the ""opposite"" trade. So, if you sell a Put, you close that by buying back that exact same put. Just like stock: if you buy stock, you have a position; you close that position by selling the exact same stock, in the exact same amount. That's a very common thing to do with options. A post in Tradeking's forums, very old post, but with an interesting piece of data from the OCC, states that 35% of the options expire worthless, and 48% are bought or sold before expiration to close the position - only 17% of the contracts are actually exercised! (http://community.tradeking.com/members/optionsguy/blogs/11260-what-percentage-of-options-get-exercised) A few other things to keep in mind: certain stocks have ""mini options contracts"", that would correspond to a lot of 10 shares of stock. These contracts are usually not very liquid, though, so you might not get great prices when opening/closing positions you said in a comment, ""I cannot use this strategy to buy stocks like GOOGL""; if the reason is because 100*GOOGL is too much to fit in your buying power, that's a pretty big risk - the assignment could result in a margin call! if margin call is not really your concern, but your concern is more like the risk of holding 100 shares of GOOGL, you can help manage that by buying some lower strike Puts (that have smaller absolute delta than your Put), or selling some calls against your short put. Both strategies, while very different, will effectively reduce your delta exposure. You'd get 100 deltas from the 100 shares of GOOGL, but you'd get some negative deltas by holding the lower strike Put, or by writing the higher strike Call. So as the stock moves around, your account value would move less than the exposure equivalent to 100 shares of stock." This can be done, you can be prosecuted for some forms of it, in any case there are more riskless ways of doing what you suggested. First, buying call options from market makers results in market makers buying shares at the same delta as the call option. (100 SHARES X DELTA = How many shares MM's bought). You can time this with the volume and depth of the shares market to get a bigger resulting move caused by your options purchase to get bigger quote changes in your option. So on expiration day you can be trade near at the money options back and forth between being out the money and in the money. You would exit the position into liquidity at a profit. The risk here is that you can be sitting on a big options position, where the commissions costs get really big, but you can spread this out amongst several options contracts. Second, you can again take advantage of market maker inefficiencies by getting your primary position (whether in the share market or options market) placed, and then your other position being a very large buy order a few levels below the best bid. Many market makers and algorithms will jump in front of your, they think they are being smart, but it will raise the best bid and likely make a few higher prints for the mark, raising the price of your call option. And eventually remove your large buy order. Again, you exit into liquidity. This is called spoofing. There have been some regulatory actions against people in doing this in the last few years. As for consequences, you need to put things into perspective. US capital market regulators have the most nuanced regulations and enforcement actions of worldwide capital market regulators, and even then they get criticized for being unable or unwilling to curb these practices. With that perspective American laws are basically a blueprint on what to do in 100 other country's stock exchanges, where the legislature has never gotten around to defining the same laws, the securities regulator is even more underfunded and toothless, and the markets more inefficient. Not advice, just reality. "A straddle is an options strategy in which one ""buys"" or ""sells"" options of the same maturity (expiry date) that allow the ""buyer"" or ""seller"" to profit based on how much the price of the underlying security moves, regardless of the direction of price movement. IE: A long straddle would be: You buy a call and a put at the same strike price and the same expiration date. Your profit would be if the underlying asset(the stock) moves far enough down or up(higher then the premiums you paid for the put + call options) (In case, one waits till expiry) Profit = Expiry Level - Strike Price - (Premium Paid for Bought Options) Straddle" You can't know. It's not like every stock has options traded on it, so until you either see the options listed or a company announcement that option will trade on a certain date, there's no way to be sure.