What does this statement regarding put options mean?
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.) "fennec has a very good answer but i feel it provides too much information. So i'll just try to explain what that sentence says. Put option is the right to sell a stock. ""16 puts on Cisco at 71 cents"", means John comes to Jim and says, i'll give you 71 cent now, if you allow me to sell one share of Cisco to you at $16 at some point in the future ( on expiration date).  NYT quote says 1000 puts that means 1000 contracts - he bought a right to sell 100,000 shares of Cisco on some day at $16/share. Call option - same idea: right to buy a stock."
Options, both puts and calls, are typically written/sold at different strike prices. For example, even though the stock of XYZ is currently trading at $12.50, there could be put options for prices ranging from $0.50 to $30.00, just as an example. There are several factors that go into determining the strike prices at which people are willing to write options. The writer/seller of an option is the person on the other side of the trade that has the opposite opinion of you. If you are interested in purchasing a put on a stock to hedge your downside, that means the writer/seller of the put is betting that you are wrong and that the stock price will rise instead. On the US markets, most index options are European style.  Most stock and ETF options are, as you noted, American style. &gt; But, it seems like the pool is adding value out of nowhere!  Options don't simply exercise in the void. There are proceeds from the  exercise (option-holders must pay into the company). This amount is an additional investment in the company that hasn't precisely materialized yet, but is generally expected to (and is difficult to alter, as it's likely part of an employment contract). No, it means what it says. Prices change, hence price of the derivative can go down even if the price of the underlying doesn't change (e.g. theta decay in options). "I have traded options, but not professionally. I hadn't come across this terminology, but I expect it counts how far in-the-money, as an ordinal, an option is relative to the distinct strike prices offered for the option series — a series being the combination of underlying symbol, expiration date, and option type (call/put); e.g., all January 2015 XYZ calls, no matter the strike. For instance, if stock XYZ trades today at $11 and the available January 2015 XYZ calls have strike prices of $6, $8, $10, $12, $14, and $16, then I would expect the $10 call could be called one strike in the money, the $8 two strikes in the money, etc. Similarly, the $12 and $14 calls would be one and two strikes out of the money, respectively. However, if tomorrow XYZ moves to $13, then the $10 previously known as one strike in the money would now be two strikes in the money, and the $12 would be the new one strike in the money. Perhaps this terminology arose because many option strategies frequently involve using options that are at- or near-the-money, so the ""one strike in"" (or out) of the money contracts would tend to be those employed frequently? Perhaps it makes it easier for people to describe strategies in a more general sense, without citing specific examples. However, the software developer in me dislikes it, given that the measurement is relative to both the current underlying price (which changes quickly), and the strike prices available in the given option series. Hence, I wouldn't use this terminology myself and I suggest you eschew it, too, in favor of something concrete; e.g. specify your contract strikes in dollar terms — especially when it matters." "As I understand it, Implied Volatility represents the expected gyrations of an options contract over it's lifetime.  No, it represents that expected movement of the underlying stock, not the option itself.  Yes, the value of the option will move roughly in the same direction the value of the stock, but that's not what IV is measuring. I even tried staring at the math behind the Options pricing model to see if that could make more sense for me but that didn't help. That formula is correct for the Black-Scholes model - and it is not possible (or at least no one has done it yet) to solve for s to create a closed-form equation for implied volatility.  What most systems do to calculate implied volatility is plug in different values of s (standard deviation) until a value for the option is found that matches the quoted market value ($12.00 in this example).  That's why it's called ""implied"" volatility - the value is implied from market prices, not calculated directly. The thing that sticks out to me is that the ""last"" quoted price of $12 is outside of the bid-ask spread of $9.20 to $10.40, which tells me that the underlying stock has dropped significantly since the last actual trade.   If the Implied Vol is calculated based on the last executed trade, then whatever algorithm they used to solve for a volatility that match that price couldn't find a solution, which then choose to show as a 0% volatility.   In reality, the volatility is somewhere between the two neighbors of 56% and 97%, but with such a short time until expiry, there should be very little chance of the stock dropping below $27.50, and the value of the option should be somewhere around its intrinsic value (strike - stock price) of $9.18." "If I really understood it, you bet that a quote/currency/stock market/anything will rise or fall within a period of time.    So, what is the relationship with trading ? I see no trading at all since I don't buy or sell quotes. You are not betting as in ""betting on the outcome of an horse race"" where the money of the participants is redistributed to the winners of the bet. You are betting on the price movement of a security. To do that you have to buy/sell the option that will give you the profit or the loss. In your case, you would be buying or selling an option, which is a financial contract. That's trading. Then, since anyone should have the same technic (call when a currency rises and put when it falls)[...] How can you know what will be the future rate of exchange of currencies? It's not because the price went up for the last minutes/hours/days/months/years that it will continue like that. Because of that everyone won't have the same strategy. Also, not everyone is using currencies to speculate, there are firms with real needs that affect the market too, like importers and exporters, they will use financial products to protect themselves from Forex rates, not to make profits from them. [...] how the brokers (websites) can make money ? The broker (or bank) will either: I'm really afraid to bet because I think that they can bankrupt at any time! Are my fears correct ? There is always a probability that a company can go bankrupt. But that's can be very low probability. Brokers are usually not taking risks and are just being intermediaries in financial transactions (but sometime their computer systems have troubles.....), thanks to that, they are not likely to go bankrupt you after you buy your option. Also, they are regulated to insure that they are solid. Last thing, if you fear losing money, don't trade. If you do trade, only play with money you can afford to lose as you are likely to lose some (maybe all) money in the process." "Being ""Long"" something means you own it.  Being ""Short"" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else.  If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT.  If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them.  While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back.  Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares.  You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price.  The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000.  If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker.  I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed.  Call and Put options.  People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts.  Call and Put options have 3 important components.  The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the ""strike price"" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June.  If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month).  They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a ""contract"".  If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10.  If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions.  This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option.  Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value.  You can also sell a Call.  Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June.  So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10.  If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)!  If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price.  If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price.  Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process.  A Put is the opposite of a Call.  If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain.  You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June.  If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss.  You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example).  If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more?  Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price.  Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put.  HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48.  Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news.  While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48.  Not good!  When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you.  Often times you will always keep this premium.  Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market.  Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock.  Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call.  I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short.  The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call.  If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me.  There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from.  A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor.  Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives.  The value of the option is derived from the real stock price.  Bingo?  That's a derivative.  Lotto?  That is also a derivative.  Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements.  There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha.  Remember those calls and puts on stock prices?  There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha.  Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets ""free"" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers.  On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source.  If they own the ""Sunny Days in Omaha"" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days.  For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative.  The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model.  Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk.  The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average.  The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately.  This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called ""Sunny days in Omaha""), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine.  For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it.  Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain.  These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend..." Put options are basically this. Buying a put option gives you the right but not the obligation to sell the underlying security at a certain date for a fixed price, no matter its current market value at that time. However, markets are largely effective, and the price of put options is such that if you bought them to cover you the whole time, you would on average pay more than you'd gain from the underlying security. There is no such thing as a risk-free investment. I'll just copypasta out of the book for the sake of clarity:   * If you think about it, you see that the only brokers who touch the switch for light bulb number 64 are those whose numbers are divisors of 64. That is, light bulb 64 has its state changed by brokers whose numbers are factors of 64. This means brokers 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64. Because light bulb 64 is originally off, it must be after this odd number of switches that it is on.   * You want to be short a put if you expect a price rise. In this case, you expect to keep the option premium when the option expires worthless.   There are a few pages worth of questions for the options, so the explanation for the IBM one is somewhat limited. Since near-term at-the-money (ATM) options are generally the most liquid, the listed implied vol for a stock is usually pretty close to the nearest ATM volatility, but there's not a set convention that I'm aware of.  Also note that for most stocks, vol skew (the difference in vol between away-from-the-money and at-the-money options) is relatively small,  correct me if I'm wrong, IV is the markets assessment that the stock is about 70% likely (1 Standard Deviation) to move (in either direction) by that percent over the next year. Not exactly.  It's an annualized standard deviation of the anticipated movements over the time period of the option that it's implied from.  Implied vol for near-term options can be higher or lower than longer-term options, depending on if the market believes that there will be more uncertainty in the short-term.  Also, it's the bounds of the expected movement in that time period. so if a stock is at $100 with an implied vol of 30% for 1-year term options, then the market thinks that the stock will be somewhere between $70 and $130 after 1 year.  If you look at the implied vol for a 6-month term option, half of that vol is the range of expected movement in 6 months. "You're forgetting the fundamental issue, that you never have to actually exercise the options you buy.  You can either sell them to someone else or, if they're out of the money, let them expire and take the loss. It isn't uncommon at all for people to buy both a put and call option (this is a ""straddle"" when the strike price of both the put and call are the same). From Investopedia.com: A straddle is an options strategy in which the investor holds a position in both a call and put with the same strike price and expiration date, paying both premiums. This strategy allows the investor to make a profit regardless of whether the price of the security goes up or down, assuming the stock price changes somewhat significantly.   Read more: Straddle http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/straddle.asp#ixzz4ZYytV0pT" Options are an indication what a particular segment of the market (those who deal a lot in options) think will happen. (and just because people think that, doesn't mean it will)  Bearing in mind however that people writing covered-calls may due so simply as part of a strategy to mitigate downside risk at the expense of limiting upside potential.  The presence of more people offering up options is to a degree an indication they are thinking the price will fall or hold steady, since that is in effect the 'bet' they are making.  OTOH the people buying those options are making the opposite bet.. so who is to say which will be right.  The balance between the two and how it affects the price of the options could be taken as an indication of market sentiment (within the options market) as to the future direction the stock is likely to take. (I just noticed that Blackjack posted the forumula that can be used to model all of this)  To address the last part of your question 'does that mean it will go lower' I would say this.  The degree to which any of this puts actual pressure on the stock of the underlying instrument is highly debatable, since many (likely most) people trading in a stock never look at what the options for that stock are doing, but base their decision on other factors such as price history, momentum, fundamentals and recent news about the company.  To presume that actions in the options market would put pressure on a stock price, you would need to believe that a signficant fraction of the buyers and sellers were paying attention to the options market.  Which might be the case for some Quants, but likely not for a lot of other buyers.   And it could be argued even then that both groups, those trading options, and those trading stocks, are both looking at the same information to make their predictions of the likely future for the stock, and thus even if there is a correlation between what the stock price does in relation to options, there is no real causality that can be established.  We would in fact predict that given access to the same information, both groups would by and large be taking similar parallel actions due to coming to similar conclusions regarding the future price of the stock.  What is far MORE likely to pressure the price would be just the shear number of buyers or sellers, and also (especially since repeal of the uptick rule) someone who is trying to actively drive down the price via a lot of shorting at progressively lower prices.  (something that is alleged to have been carried out by some hedge fund managers in the course of 'bear raids' on particular companies) The put will expire and you will need to purchase a new one. My advise will be that the best thing is to sell more calls so your delta from the short call will be similr to the delta from the equity holding. At this point the cost of borrowing money is very low.  For the sake of argument, say it is 1% per year for a large institution. I can either go out and find a client to invest 100,000$ and split profit and loss with them. Or, I could borrow 50,000$, pay 500$/year in interest, and get the same return and loss, while moving the market half as much (which would let me double my position!) In both cases the company is responsible for covering all fixed costs, like paying for traders, trades, office space, branding, management, regulatory compliance, etc. For your system to work, the cost to gather clients and interact with them has to be significantly less than 1% of the capital they provide you per year. At the 50% level, that might actually be worth it for the company in question.  Except at the 50% level you'd have really horrible returns even when the market went up.  So suppose a more reasonable level is the client keeps 75% of the returns (which compares to existing companies which offer larger investors an 80% cut on profits, but no coverage on losses). Now the cost to gather and interact with clients has to be lower than 2500$ per million dollars provided to beat out a simple loan arrangement.  A single sales employee with 100% overhead (office, all marketing, support, benefits) earning 40,000$/year has to bring in 32 million dollar-years worth of investment every year to break even. Cash is cheap.  Investment houses sell cash management, and charge for it.  They don't sell shared investment risk (at least not to retail investors), because it would take a lot of cash for it to be worth their bother. More explicitly, for this to be viable, they'd basically have to constantly arrange large hedges against the market going down to cover any losses.  That is the kind of thing that some margin loans may require.  That would all by itself lower their profits significantly, and they would be exposed to counter-party risk on top of that. It is much harder to come up with a pile of cash when the markets go down significantly.  If you are large enough to be worthwhile, finding a safe counterparty may be nearly impossible.