Unemployment Insurance Through Options
This is a snapshot of the Jan '17 puts for XBI, the biotech index.  The current price is $65.73. You can see that even the puts far out of the money are costly. The $40 put, if you get a fill at $3, means a 10X return if the index drops to $10. A 70X return for a mild, cyclic, drop isn't likely to happen.  Sharing youtube links is an awful way to ask a question. The first was far too long to waste my time. The second was a reasonable 5 minutes, but with no example, only vague references to using puts to protect you in bad years.  Proper asset allocation is more appropriate for the typical investor than any intricate option-based hedging strategy. I've successfully used option strategies on the up side, multiplying the returns on rising stocks, but have never been comfortable creating a series of puts to hit the jackpot in an awful year. That's not unemployment insurance. Because it's perfectly possible, and even likely, that your industry will do badly but you'll keep your job, or that your industry will do well but you'll lose your job anyway. Any bet you make to insure yourself against unemployment has to be individually about you -- there are no suitable proxies. Options do act, somewhat, like insurance.... However.... An insurance policy will not have such short term expiration time frames. A 20 year term life insurance policy can be thought of as insurance with an expiration. But the expiration on options is in weeks, not decades.  So (IMO) options make terrible insurance policies because of the very short term expirations they have.
Try wallstreetsurvivor.com It gives you $100k of pretend money when you sign up, using which you can take various courses on the website. It will teach you how to buy/sell stocks and build your portfolio. I am not sure if they do have Options Trading specifically, but their course line up is great! "Many companies (particularly tech companies like Atlassian) grant their employees ""share options"" as part of their compensation. A share option is the right to buy a share in the company at a ""strike price"" specified when the option is granted. Typically these ""vest"" after 1-4 years so long as the employee stays with the company. Once they do vest, the employee can exercise them by paying the strike price - typically they'd do that if the shares are now more valuable. The amount they pay to exercise the option goes to the company and will show up in the $2.3 million quoted in the question." An option, by definition, is a guess about the future value of the stock. If you guess too aggressively, you lose the purchase price of the option; if you guess too conservatively, you may not take the option or may not gain as much as you might have. You need to figure out what you expect to happen, and how confident you are about it, against the cost of taking the option -- and be reasonably confident that the change in the stock's value will be at least large enough to cover the cost of buying into the game. Opinion: Unless you're comfortable with expectation values and bell curves around them, it's significantly easier to lose money on options than to profit on them. And I'm not convinced that even statisticians can really do this well. I've always been told that the best use for options is hedging an investment you've already made; treating them as your primary bet is gambling, not investment. I am in a very similar situation as you (software engineer, high disposable income). Maximize your contributions to all tax-advantaged accounts first. From those accounts you can choose to invest in high risk funds. At your age and date-target funds will invest in riskier investments on your behalf; and they'll do it while avoiding the 30%+/- haircut that you'll be paying in taxes anyhow. If, after that, you're looking for bigger risk plays then look into a brokerage account that will let you buy and sell options. These are big risk swingers and they are sophisticated, complicated products which are used by many people who likely understand finance far better than you. You can make money with them but you should consider it akin to gambling. It might be more to your liking to maintain a long position in a stock and then trade options against your long position. Start with trading covered calls, then you could consider buying options (defined limited downside risk). "Wait, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I thought it worked:  ""say you work 40 hours a week ""during a recession, NO ONE GETS FIRED ""instead, they cut your hours ""from say 40 to 32 ""THEN unemployment benefits make up the difference in that eight hours you're not working ""then you get hired again""  This seems like the best system ever and something America should do. No one gets fired, and companies save oodles of money not training new workers." I wouldn't choose any of the above. Buying stocks and staying long in my case is the cheapest way to go (retail brokerage commissions have just been getting cheaper and cheaper. )   The added costs of trading options make it even dicier for me, a retail investor, to take risks. To understand how to make money with options, I'd have to be much more sophisticated investor. "With 40% of your take-home available, you have a golden opportunity here. Actually two, and the second builds out easily from the first.  Golden Opportunity # 1: Layoff Immunity Ok, not really immunity. Most people don't think of themselves getting laid off, and don't prepare. Of course it may not happen to you, but it can. It's happened to me twice. The layoff itself is an emotional burden (getting rejected is hard), but then you're suddenly faced with a gut-wrenching, ""how am I gonna pay the rent????"" If you have no savings, it's terrifying. Put yourself in that spot. Imagine that tomorrow, you're out of a job. For how many months could you pay your expenses with the money you have? Three months? One? Not even that?  How about shooting for 12 months? It's really, really comforting to be able to say: ""I don't have to worry about it for a year"". 12 months saved up gives you emotional and financial stability, and it gives you options -- you don't have to take the first job that comes along.  Now, saving 12 months of expenses is huge. But, you're in the wonderful spot where you can save 40% of your income. It would only take 2.5 years to save up a year's worth of income! But, actually, it's better than that. Because your 12-month Layoff Immunity fund doesn't have to include the amount for retirement, or taxes, or that 40% we're talking about. Your expenses are less than 60% of take-home -- you'd only need 12 months of that. So, you could have a fully funded 12-Month Layoff Immunity Fund only in a year and a half!  Golden Opportunity #2: Freedom Fund Do you like your Job? Would you still do it, if you didn't need the money? If so, great. But if not, why not get yourself into a position where you don't need it? That is, build up enough money from saving and investing to where you can pay your expenses - forever - from your investments. The number to keep in mind is 25. Figure out your annual expenses, and multiply it by 25. That's the amount you'd need to never need a job again. (That works out to a 4% withdrawal rate, adjusting for inflation every year, with a low risk of running out of money. It's a rule of thumb, but smart people doing a lot of math worked it out.) Here you keep saving and investing that 40% in solid mutual funds in a regular, taxable account. Between your savings and the compounding returns off the investments, you could easily have a fully funded ""Freedom Fund"" by the time you're 50. In fact, by 45 isn't unreasonable.  It could be even better. If you live in that high-rent area because of the job, and wouldn't mind living were the rents are lower once you quit, your target amount would be lower. Between that, working dedicatedly toward this goal, and maybe a little luck, you might even be able to do this by age 40.  Final Thoughts There are other things you could put that money toward, like a house, of course. The key take-away here, is to save it, and invest it.  You're in a unique position of being able to do that with 40% of your income. That's fabulous! But don't think it's the norm. Most people can't save that much, and, once you lose the ability to save that much, it's very difficult to get it back. Expenses creep in, lifestyle ""wants"" become ""needs"", and so on. If you get into the habit of spending it, it's very difficult to shrink your lifestyle back down - down to what right now you're perfectly comfortable with. So, spend some time figuring out what you want out of life -- and in the mean time, sock that 40% away." I was in your situation a few years ago and I discovered something that worked perfectly for me - a local health insurance broker. I met with her, discussed my needs, reviewed the options with her, then acted. She received a commission from the insurer, so it cost me nothing. I would certainly follow a similar approach again. You've convinced me with your capital letters. How could I have been so blind?   The average person on unemployment is there for 39 weeks. Not permanent. So, you're basing your argument on false data. Further, a certain portion of these are there not because of stigma, but because the industry in which they worked doesn't need the labor. Another portion is only actually looking for work in order to continue qualifying for unemployment, and will retire after the benefits run out.   You're talking about making a truly significant policy change with real negative effects on many, many real people in order to help a part of the population that doesn't necessarily exist in the manner you imagine it does. From what I can tell, you have done nothing to arrive at your conclusions beyond feeling an emotional reaction with no actual sense of the data. Or any actual knowledge of economics. "An option is an instrument that gives you the ""right"" (but not the obligation) to do something (if you are long). An American option gives you more ""rights"" (to exercise on more days) than a European option. The more ""rights,"" the greater the (theoretical) value of the option, all other things being equal, of course. That's just how options work.  You could point to an ex post result, and and say that's not the case. But it is true ex ante." "There are quite a few regulations on ""Insider Trading"". Blackouts are one of the means companies adopt to comply with ""Insider Trading"" regulations, mandating employees to refrain from selling/buying during the notified period. Once you leave the employment: So unless there is an urgent need for you to sell/buy the options, wait for some time and then indulge in trade." "A number of sites provide delayed option chains online. Yahoo Finance is one example:  I linked to Apple's chain, but to get one yourself, put the ticker you want in the search box, then click the ""options"" link in the sidebar that I called out in the image." Not sure I agree.    In your analogy, there was a car accident, or the closing of a position.  So, yes, it is okay to claim on the insurance.  Claiming and being granted unemployment requires that several very specific criteria are met on a continuing basis. Without commenting on your view of the TV market:  Let's have a look at the main ways to get negative exposure:  1.Short the stocks  Pros: Relatively Easy Cons: Interest rate, costs of shorting, linear bet    2.Options  a. Write Calls b. Buy puts  Pros: Convexity, leveraged, relatively cheap Cons: Zero Sum bet that expires with time, theta  3.Short Stock, Buy Puts, Write Calls  Short X Units of each stock, Write calls on them , use call premiums to finance puts.  Pros: 3x the power!, high kickout Cons: Unlimited pain You also need to remember that stock options usually become valueless if not exercised while an employee of the company.  So if there is any chance that you will leave the company before an IPO, the effective value of the stock options is zero.  That is the safest and least risky valuation of the stock options.   With a Google or Facebook, stock options can be exercised and immediately sold, as they are publicly traded.  In fact, they may give stock grants where you sell part of the grant to pay tax withholding.  You can then sell the remainder of the grant for money at any time, even after you leave the company.  You only need the option/grant to vest to take advantage of it.  Valuing these at face value (current stock price) makes sense.  That's at least a reasonable guess of future value.   If you are absolutely sure that you will stay with the company until the IPO, then valuing the stock based on earnings can make sense.  A ten million dollar profit can justify a hundred million dollar IPO market capitalization easily.  Divide that by the number of shares outstanding and multiply by how many you get.  If anything, that gives you a conservative estimate.   I would still favor the big company offers though.  As I said, they are immediately tradeable while this offer is effectively contingent on the IPO.  If you leave before then, you get nothing.  If they delay the IPO, you're stuck.  You can't leave the company until then without sacrificing that portion of your compensation.  That seems a big commitment to make.