Why does a long/purchased call option have a long position in the option itself?
"It will be helpful to establish some definitions: Long ""Long"" is financial slang for ""to have possession of an asset"", legally, and ""to debit an asset"", financially.   Short ""Short"" is financial slang for ""to be liable for an asset"", legally, and ""to credit an asset"", financially. Option ""Option"" is financial slang for ""to have the right but not obligation to force the liable to perform action"", legally.  Without limits and when taken to absurdity, this can mean slavery.  For equities, this means ""to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy/sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right"" for a call/put, respectively. By the above, a call option is ""the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right"". By the definition of ""long"" above, a call option is actually not long the underlying. By the definitions above and with a narrower scope applied to equities & indexes, to be ""long"" the call means ""to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right"" while to be ""short"" the call means ""to have the obligation to be forced to sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right"". So, to be ""long"" a call means to simply own the call." Being long the call is being long the option. The call is a type of option. A put is a type of option If you buy a call, you are long an option and long the underlying asset. If you buy a put, you are long an option and short the underlying asset. If it helps you to think about it, long is equivalent to betting for the upside and short is equivalent to betting for the downside. If you are long on options, then you expect the value of such options to increase.  If you are long an option, then you own the option.  If you are short an option, then generally you sold the option.  Someone who is short a call (sometimes called the writer or occasionally the issuer) has sold a call option to someone who is now long a call. Buying a call option that will increase in value is itself a form of investment, just as it's investment to buy stock or other instruments hoping they will appreciate in value.  An option's value will rise or fall with the underlying, so being long an option is a way to be long in the underlying.  Someone can be long in a stock by buying the stock, or long in a call by buying call options in the stock.  The long call generally requires less initial investment than buying the underlying, and lets the option-holder avoid the asset downside during the option term.  The risk is that the asset may not appreciate to the point that the call option will pay off. In the conceptual sense, a share of stock is a particular right to the profits and assets of a corporation, both in form of dividends and in liquidation.  An option is a particular right to the the share of stock.  It's just a further way to formalize and subdivide the various property rights that exist in a corporation.  If you can buy a piece of paper with particular rights to corporate profits and assets, then you can buy another piece of paper with particular rights to the former piece of paper.
When you buy a call option, you transfer the risk to the owner of the asset. They are risking losing out on gains that may accumulate in addition to the strike price and paid premium. For example, if you buy a $25 call option on stock XYZ for $1 per contract, then any additional gain above $26 per share of XYZ is missed out on by the owner of the stock and solely benefits the option holder. The fact that the option is deep in the money will be reflected in the market price of the option so you can just sell it at a profit. If there's a (n almost) guaranteed profit to be had, however, you can always find someone who will lend you the money to cover the exercise... they'll charge you interest, however! This sometimes happens to me. It depends on how liquid the option is. Normally what I see happening is that the order book mutates itself around my order. I interpret this to mean that the order book is primarily market makers. They see a retail investor (me) come in and, since they don't have any interest in this illiquid option, they back off. Some other retail investor (or whatever) steps in with a market order, and we get matched up. I get a fill because I become the market maker for a brief while. On highly liquid options, buy limits at the bid tend to get swallowed because the market makers are working the spread. With very small orders (a contract or two) on very liquid options, I've had luck getting quick fills in the middle of the spread, which I attribute to MM's rebalancing their holdings on the cheap, although sometimes I like to think there's some other anal-retentive like me out there that hates to see such a lopsided book. :) I haven't noticed any particular tendency for this to happen more with puts or calls, or with buy vs sell transactions. For a while I had a suspicion that this was happening with strikes where IV didn't match IV of other strikes, but I never cared enough to chase it down as it was a minor part of my overall P/L. "There some specific circumstances when you would have a long-term gain. Option 1:  If you meet all of these conditions: Then you've got a long-term gain on the stock.  The premium on the option gets rolled into the capital gain on the stock and is not taxed separately.  From the IRS: If a call you write is exercised and you sell the underlying stock, increase your amount realized on the sale of the stock by the amount you received for the call when figuring your gain or loss. The gain or loss is long term or short term depending on your holding period of the stock. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010630 Option 2: If you didn't hold the underlying and the exercise of the call that you wrote resulted in a short position, you might also be able to get to a long-term gain by buying the underlying while keeping your short position open and then ""crossing"" them to close both positions after one year. (In other words, don't ""buy to cover"" just ""buy"" so that your account shows both a long and a short position in the same security.  Your broker probably allows this, but if not you, could buy in a different account than the one with the short position.)  That would get you to this rule: As a general rule, you determine whether you have short-term or long-term capital gain or loss on a short sale by the amount of time you actually hold the property eventually delivered to the lender to close the short sale. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010586 Option 1 is probably reasonably common.  Option 2, I would guess, is uncommon and likely not worthwhile. I do not think that the wash sale rules can help string along options from expiration to expiration though.  Option 1 has some elements of what you wrote in italics (I find that paragraph a bit confusing), but the wash sale does not help you out." "Your broker likely didn't close your position out because it is a covered position. Why interfere with a trade that has no risk to it, from their perspective? There's no risk for the broker since your account holds the shares available for delivery (definition of covered), for if and when the options you wrote (sold) are exercised. And buyers of those options will eventually exercise the options (by expiration) if they remain in-the-money. There's only a chance that an option buyer exercises prematurely, and usually they don't because there's often time value left in the option. That the option buyer has an (ahem) ""option"" to exercise is a very key point.  You wrote: ""I fully expected my position to be automatically liquidated by whoever bought my call"". That's a false assumption about the way options actually work.  I suggest some study of the option exercise FAQs here: Perhaps if your position were uncovered – i.e. you wrote the call without owning the stock (don't try this at home, kids!) – and you also had insufficient margin to cover such a short position, then the broker might have justifiably liquidated your position. Whereas, in a covered call situation, there's really no reason for them to want to interfere – and I would consider that interference, as opposed to helpful.  The situation you've described is neither risky for them, nor out of the ordinary.  It is (and should be) completely up to you to decide how to close out the position. Anyway, your choices generally are:" "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..." Opened Long - is when you open a long position. Long means that you buy to open the position, so you are trying to profit as the price rises. So if you were closing a long position you would sell it. Closed Short - is when you close out a short position. Short means that you sell to open and buy back to close. With a short position you are trying to profit as the price falls. Scaled Out - means you get out of a position in increments as the price climbs (for long positions). Scaled In - means you set a target price and then invest in increments as the stock falls below that price (for long positions). "A derivative contract can be an option, and you can take a short (sell) position , much the same way you would in a stock. When BUYING options you risk only the money you put in. However when selling naked(you don't have the securities or cash to cover all potential losses) options, you are borrowing. Brokers force you to maintain a required amount of cash called, a maintenance requirement. When selling naked calls - theoretically you are able to lose an INFINITE amount of money, so in order to sell this type of options you have to maintain a certain level of cash in your account. If you fail to maintain this level you will enter into whats often referred to as a ""margin-call"". And yes they will call your phone and tell you :). Your broker has the right to liquidate your positions in order to meet requirements. PS: From experience my broker has never liquidated any of my holdings, but then again I've never been in a margin call for longer then a few days and never with a severe amount. The margin requirement for investors is regulated and brokers follow these regulations." It's an artifact of risk-neutral pricing, but the intuition is this:  A call option can be viewed as a levered equity position - meaning, you can get the same exposure by borrowing money and buying the stock.    Say you can buy some call options for $150 with a position delta of 1 (so it looks just like the stock).  You could also buy the stock outright for $1000 (by borrowing $850 at the risk-free rate and using your $150 cash).  If the risk-free rate rises, your cost of carry on the stock position increases.  In the case of the call option, the change in price can be viewed as the cost of *leverage* increasing. "people are willing to pay higher premiums for options when stocks go down. Obviously the time value and intrinsic value and interests rates of the option doesn't change because of this so the miscalculation remainder is priced into the implied volatility part of the formula.  Basically, anything that suggests the stock price will get volatile (sharp moves in either direction) will increase the implied volatility of the option. For instance, around earnings reports, the IV in both calls and puts in the nearest expiration dates are very high. When stocks go down sharply, the volatility is high because some people are buying puts for protection and others are buying calls because they think there will be a rebound move in the other direction. People (the ""sleep-at-night"" investors, not the derivatives traders ;) )  tend to be calm when stocks are going up, and fearful when they are going down. The psychology is important to understand and observe and profit from, not to quantitatively prove. The first paragraph should be your qualitative answer" The mathematics make it easier to understand why this is the case. Using very bad shorthand, d1 and d2 are inputs into N(), and N() can be expressed as the probability of the expected value or the most probable value which in this case is the discounted expected stock price at expiration. d1 has two σs which is volatility in the numerator and one in the denominator.  Cancelling leaves one on top.  Calculating when it's infinity gives an N() of 1 for S and 0 for K, so the call is worth S and the put PV(K).  At 0 for σ, it's the opposite. More concise is that any mathematical moment be it variance which mostly influences volatility, mean which determines drift, or kurtosis which mostly influences skew are all uncertanties thus costs, so the higher they are, the higher the price of an option. Economically speaking, uncertainties are costs.  Since costs raise prices, and volatility is an uncertainty, volatility raises prices. It should be noted that BS assumes that prices are lognormally distributed.  They are not.  The closest distribution, currently, is the logVariance Gamma distribution. 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.) Perhaps it was to close a short position.  Suppose the seller had written the calls at some time in the past and maybe made a buck or two off of them.  By buying the calls now they can close out the position and go away on vacation, or at least have one less thing they have to pay attention to.  If they were covered calls, perhaps the buyer wants to sell the underlying and in order to do so has to get out of the calls. "Firstly ""Most option traders don't want to actually buy or sell the underlying stock."" THIS IS COMPLETELY UTTERLY FALSE Perhaps the problem is that you are only familiar with the BUY side of options trading. On the sell side of options trading, an options desk engages in DELTA HEDGING. When we sell an option to a client. We will also buy an appropriate amount of underlying to match the delta position of the option. During the life time of the option. We will readjust our hedge position whenever the delta changes (those who follow Black Scholes will know that normally that comes from (underlying) price changes). However, we lose money on each underlying change (we have to cross the bid-ask spread for each trade). That is why we lose money when there is volatility. That is why we are said to be ""short VEGA"" or ""short volatility"". So one way to think about ""buying"" options, is that you are paying someone to execute a specific trading strategy. In general, those who sell options, are also happy to buy options back (at a discount of course, so we make a profit). But when doing so, we need to unroll our hedging position, and that again incurs a cost (to us, the bank). Finally. Since this is ""money"" stackexchange rather than finance. You are most likely referring to ""warrants"" rather than ""options"", which are listed on stock exchanges. The exchange in most regions give us very specific and restrictive regulations that we must abide by. One very common one is that we MUST always list a price which we are willing to buy the warrants back at (which may not be an unreasonable spread from the sell price). Since an Option is a synthetically created investment instrument, when we buy back the Option from the investor, we simply unwind the underlying hedging positions that we booked to synthesize the Options with. Source: I've worked 2 years on a warrant desk, as a desk developer." You don't need to file or do anything. The bank will report all transfers over 10 000, but chances are slim that it will even be looked at, if you don't do this every week. Worst case, someone will ask you about the source, and you tell them exactly what you wrote above (I had multiple international transfers over 60k and nobody ever asked). You said you paid his tuition, and he is now paying you back, so in case someone asks, you should be able to produce the documentation on the tuition payment - a bill, or your bank statement showing you paid it; and the amount should be matching, so you have proof. Note that if he pays you interest, it is taxable income. You are obligated to list it on your next tax filing.