What is the options industry changing about option symbols in February, 2010?
"The change is generally known as the Options Symbology Initiative (or ""OSI"") and there is a highly comprehensive guide to what occurred here. The basic gist of what occurred was a shift FROM: A coded system in which a shorter (3   to 5 letter symbol) could be used, but   the symbols required a data source to   determine what they meant. MSQ AD   used to be a MSFT Jan 20 option, but   you had to look up MSQ in a table to   know that. TO: A system in which much longer symbols   are needed, but they contain all the   information required to identify a   unique option: DELL 4.000 C 5/16/2010   isn't easy to type, but once you know   how to read it, it's easy to see that   it's an option on DELL, expiring on May 16th 2010, is a call (rather   than a put,) and has a strike price   of 4. As to why they did it, there are a number of benefits, but most important reason is this one:  they were running out of symbols.  The number of permutations of 3-5 letter symbols had been exceeded by the number of options that had been listed, resulting in the need to ""recycle"" symbols.   This meant that a current option symbol would be the same as an old one, in some cases on a different stock, which was wreaking havoc on historical data." Here is what I could find on the net: http://education.wallstreetsurvivor.com/options-symbol-changes-coming-february-12th-2010 So it sounds like it does not affect how you invest in options but only how you look them up.  I remember using a Bloomberg terminal and it wasn't clear what the expiry date of the option you were looking at was.  It looks like the new quote system addresses this. HTH.
"What you are looking for is an indicator called the ""Rate of Change (Price)"". It provides a rolling % change in the price over the period you have chosen.  Below is an example showing a price chart over the last 6 months with a 100 day Rate of Change indicator below the price chart." "EDIT quid keenly identified the 1:7 reverse split In May 2017.  In a 1:7 reverse split, your shares are worth 7 times as much per share but you have 1/7 the amount of shares.  A share worth $3.78 now was worth (all else being equal) $0.54 a month ago.   So a call with a $2.50 strike a month ago was well out-of-the-money, and would now be the equivalent of a call with a $17.50 strike.  A $17.50 call with a $3.78 underlying (or a $2.50 call with a $0.54 underlying) would reasonably be worth only 5 cents. So I now suspect that the quote is a stale quote that existed pre-split and hasn't been adjusted by the provider. OLD ANSWER I can find no valid reason why those calls would be so cheap.  The stock price has been trending down from its onset in 2000, so either no one expects it to be above $2.50 in a month or it's so illiquid that there's not any real data to evaluate the options.  They did pay some massive (30%) dividends in 2010 and 2012, they've been hemorrhaging cash for the past 4 years at least, and I have found at least on ""strong sell"" rating, so there's not much to be optimistic about.  NASDAQ does not list any options for the stock, so it must be an OTC trade.   With an ask size of 10 you could buy calls on 1,000 shares for $0.05, so if you can afford to lose $50 and want to take a flyer you can give it a shot, but I suspect it's not a valid quote and is something that's been manufactured by the option broker." "Is there ever any ambiguity on what that that exact strike is in delta space, or does everyone back it out from the pricing model the same way?  I ask, because in my product nearly everyone runs a heavier delta to the put (the severity of that varies). So on trades that are ""tied up"", everyone participating on it can have slightly different deltas that they are modeling" "Not necessarily.  The abbreviation ""ESOP"" is ambiguous.  There are at least 8 variations I know of: You'll find references on Google to each of those, some more than others.  For fun you can even substitute the word ""Executive"" for ""Employee"" and I'm sure you'll find more.  Really. So you may be mistaken about the ""O"" referring to ""options"" and thereby implying it must be about options.  Or, you may be right.  If you participate in such a plan (or program) then check the documentation and then you'll know what it stands for, and how it works.  That being said: companies can have either kind of incentive plan: one that issues stock, or one that issues options, with the intent to eventually issue stock in exchange for the option exercise price. When options are issued, they usually do have an expiration date by which you need to exercise if you want to buy the shares. There may be other conditions attached. For instance, whether the plan is about stocks or options, often there is a vesting schedule that determines when you become eligible to buy or exercise. When you buy the shares, they may be registered directly in your name (you might get a fancy certificate), or they may be deposited in an account in your name. If the company is small and private, the former may be the case, and if public, the latter may be the case. Details vary. Check the plan's documentation and/or with its administrators." You can trade currency ETF options on IB. It is SIPC insured; the options are just like vanilla options in Saxo. Having stock options means that you have worked for and rightfully earned a part of the company's capital appreciation. Takeover of the company would indicate someone is interested in the company (something should be valuable). It would be unwise to not strike before the period lapses since the strike price is always lower than market price and takeovers generally increases stock values ... it is capital gains all the way my friend. Good luck. *observations not in professional capacity. pls consult a professional for investment related advice. 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 haven't said why you think you will gain at $41, but the graph never lies. Take it one piece at a time: At $41, your stock will lose a big chunk of value.  Your short calls will expire.  Your puts will gain a bit of value.  The stock's loss outweighs the option gains. 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). [] As you can see from the graphs above, as absolute distance from ATM (At The Money) increases, the ratio represented by Delta begins to approach 0:1 or 1:1. Meaning, as Delta approaches 1 the option price moves up 1 dollar for every 1 dollar the stock price moves up. As Delta approaches 0 the option price does not move as the stock price moves. As the absolute distance from ATM increases Gamma approaches zero (0). Meaning, as the price of the option increases or decrease the change in delta is at its highest as the option price is nearest the money. As the price of the option moves away from the money, in either direction, it changes less drastically. Interestingly, Delta is the first derivative of the value of the option price with respect to the underlying asset price. And Gamma is the first derivative of Delta. Definition of Delta Definition of Gamma Not necessarily though, since you can simply adjust the premium. I'm thinking an embedded option is just an option with longer maturity, and the increased price of that adjusted option can be reflected (like any other option) in the strike price or the premium. Am I missing something? you could try [FRED](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=HO7), or maybe try the CME and ICE's websites for some decent data.. haven't looked just suggestions - pretty sure the symbol for the Libor futures is EM, you could approximate from that so long as it's not a doctoral thesis It will be similar to what you have said -- the options price will adjust accordingly following a stock split - Here's a good reference on different scenarios - Splits, Mergers, Spinoffs & Bankruptcies also if you have time to read Characteristics & Risks of Standardized Options (Note: I am omitting the currency units.  While I strongly suspect it's US$ I don't know from the chart.  The system works the same no matter what the currency.) A call or a put is the right to sell (put) or buy (call) shares at a certain price on a certain day. This is why you see a whole range of prices.  Not all possible stock values are represented, the number of possibilities has to be kept reasonable.  In this case the choices are even units, for an expensive stock they may be spaced even farther apart than this. The top of the chart says it's for June.  It's actually the third Friday in the month, June 15th in this case.  Thus these are bets on how the stock will move in the next 10 days. While the numbers are per share you can only trade options in lots of 100. The left side of the chart shows calls.  Suppose you sell a call at 19 (the top of the chart)  The last such trade would have gotten you a premium of 9.70 per share (the flip side of this is when the third friday rolls around it will most likely be exercised and they'll be paying you only 19 a share for a stock now trading at something over 26.)  Note the volume, bid and ask columns though--you're not going to get 9.70 for such a call as there is no buyer.  The most anybody is offering at present is 7.80 a share. Now, lets look farther down in the chart--say, a strike price of 30.  The last trade was only .10--people think it's very unlikely that FB will rise above 30 to make this option worthwhile and thus you get very little for being willing to sell at that price.  If FB stays at 26 the option will expire worthless and go away.  If it's up to 31 when the 15th rolls around they'll exercise the option, take your shares and pay you 30 for them.  Note that you already gave permission for the trade by selling the call, you can't back out later if it becomes a bad deal. Going over to the other side of the chart with the puts: Here the transaction goes the other way, come the 15th they have the option of selling you the shares for the strike price.  Lets look at the same values we did before.  19?  There's no trading, you can't do it. 30?  Here you will collect 3.20 for selling the put.  Come the 15th they have the right to sell you the stock for 30 a share.  If it's still 26 they're certainly going to do so, but if it's up to 31 it's worthless and you pocket the 3.20 Note that you will normally not be allowed to sell a call if you don't own the shares in question.  This is a safety measure as the risk in selling a call without the stock is infinite.  If the stock somehow zoomed up to 10,000 when the 15th rolls around you would have to come up with the shares and the only way you could get them is buy them on the open market--you would have to come up with a million dollars.  If there simply aren't enough shares available to cover the calls the result is catastrophic--whoever owns the shares simply gets to dictate terms to you.  (And in the days of old this sometimes happened.) I don't think that you'll notice a difference in the NAV in a fund with fees that are low as the Vanguard Total Stock Market Fund. Their management fees are incorporated into the NAV, but keep in mind that the fund has a total of $144 billion in assets, with $66 billion in the investor class. The actual fees represent a tiny fraction of the NAV, and may only show up at all on the day they assess the fees. With Vanguard total stock market, you notice the fee difference in the distributions. In the example of Vanguard Total Stock Market, there are institutional-class shares (like VITPX with a minimum investment of $200M) with still lower costs -- as low as 0.0250% vs. 0.18% for the investor class. You will notice a different NAV and distributions for that fund, but there may be other reasons for the variation that I'm not familar with, as I'm not an institutional investor.