How does the process of “assignment” work for in-the-money Options?
First, it depends on your broker.  Full service firms will tear you a new one, discount brokers may charge ~nothing.  You'll have to check with your broker on assignment fees. Theoretically, this is the case of the opposite of my answer in this question: Are underlying assets supposed to be sold/bought immediately after being bought/sold in call/put option? Your trading strategy/reasoning for your covered call notwithstanding, in your case, as an option writer covering in the money calls, you want to hold and pray that your option expires worthless.  As I said in the other answer, there is always a theoretical premium of option price + exercise price to underlying prices, no matter how slight, right up until expiration, so on that basis, it doesn't pay to close out the option. However, there's a reality that I didn't mention in the other answer: if it's a deep in the money option, you can actually put a bid < stock price - exercise price - trade fee and hope for the best since the market makers rarely bid above stock price - exercise price for illiquid options, but it's unlikely that you'll beat the market makers + hft.  They're systems are too fast. I know the philly exchange allows you to put in implied volatility orders, but they're expensive, and I couldn't tell you if a broker/exchange allows for dynamic orders with the equation I specified above, but it may be worth a shot to check out; however, it's unlikely that such a low order would ever be filled since you'll at best be lined up with the market makers, and it would require a big player dumping all its' holdings at once to get to your order. If you're doing a traditional, true-blue covered call, there's absolutely nothing wrong being assigned except for the tax implications.  When your counterparty calls away your underlyings, it is a sell for tax purposes. If you're not covering with the underlying but with a more complex spread, things could get hairy for you real quick if someone were to exercise on you, but that's always a risk.  If your broker is extremely strict, they may close the rest of your spread for you at the offer.  In illiquid markets, that would be a huge percentage loss considering the wide bid/ask spreads. I often sell covered calls, and if they are in the money, let the stock go. I am charged the same fee as if I sold online ($9, I use Schwab) which is better than buying back the option if I'm ok to sell the stock.  In my case, If the option is slightly in the money, and I see the options are priced well, i.e. I'd do another covered call anyway, I sometimes buy the option and sell the one a year out.  I prefer to do this in my IRA account as the trading creates no tax issue. "When the strike price ($25 in this case) is in-the-money, even by $0.01, your shares will be sold the day after expiration if you take no action. If you want to let your shares go,. allow assignment rather than close the short position and sell the long position...it will be cheaper that way. If you want to keep your shares you must buy back the option prior to 4Pm EST on expiration Friday. First ask yourself why you want to keep the shares. Is it to write another option? Is it to hold for a longer term strategy? Assuming this is a covered call writing account, you should consider ""rolling"" the option. This involves buying back the near-term option and selling the later date option of a similar or higher strike. Make sure to check to see if there is an upcoming earnings report in the latter month because you may want to avoid writing a call in that situation. I never write a call when there's an upcoming ER prior to expiration. Good luck. Alan"
"ETF Creation and Redemption Process notes the process: While ETF trading occurs on an exchange like stocks, the process by   which their shares are created is significantly different. Unless a   company decides to issue more shares, the supply of shares of an   individual stock trading in the marketplace is finite. When demand   increases for shares of an ETF, however, Authorized Participants (APs)   have the ability to create additional shares on demand. Through an ""in kind"" transfer mechanism, APs create ETF units in the   primary market by delivering a basket of securities to the fund equal   to the current holdings of the ETF. In return, they receive a large   block of ETF shares (typically 50,000), which are then available for   trading in the secondary market. This ETF creation and redemption   process helps keep ETF supply and demand in continual balance and   provides a ""hidden"" layer of liquidity not evident by looking at   trading volumes alone. This process also works in reverse. If an investor wants to sell a   large block of shares of an ETF, even if there seems to be limited   liquidity in the secondary market, APs can readily redeem a block of   ETF shares by gathering enough shares of the ETF to form a creation   unit and then exchanging the creation unit for the underlying   securities. Thus, the in-kind swap to the underlying securities is only done by APs so the outflow would be these individuals taking a large block of the ETF and swapping it for the underlying securities.  The APs would be taking advantage of the difference between what the ETF's trading value and the value of the underlying securities." "I thought the other answers had some good aspect but also some things that might not be completely correct, so I'll take a shot. As noted by others, there are three different types of entities in your question:  The ETF SPY, the index SPX, and options contracts. First, let's deal with the options contracts.  You can buy options on the ETF SPY or marked to the index SPX.  Either way, options are about the price of the ETF / index at some future date, so the local min and max of the ""underlying"" symbol generally will not coincide with the min and max of the options.  Of course, the closer the expiration date on the option, the more closely the option price tracks its underlying directly.  Beyond the difference in how they are priced, the options market has different liquidity, and so it may not be able to track quick moves in the underlying. (Although there's a reasonably robust market for option on SPY and SPX specifically.) Second, let's ask what forces really make SPY and SPX move together as much as they do.  It's one thing to say ""SPY is tied to SPX,"" but how?  There are several answers to this, but I'll argue that the most important factor is that there's a notion of ""authorized participants"" who are players in the market who can ""create"" shares of SPY at will.  They do this by accumulating stock in the constituent companies and turning them into the market maker.  There's also the corresponding notion of ""redemption"" by which an authorized participant will turn in a share of SPY to get stock in the constituent companies. (See http://www.spdrsmobile.com/content/how-etfs-are-created-and-redeemed and http://www.etf.com/etf-education-center/7540-what-is-the-etf-creationredemption-mechanism.html) Meanwhile, SPX is just computed from the prices of the constituent companies, so it's got no market forces directly on it.  It just reflects what the prices of the companies in the index are doing. (Of course those companies are subject to market forces.) Key point: Creation / redemption is the real driver for keeping the price aligned.  If it gets too far out of line, then it creates an arbitrage opportunity for an authorized participant.  If the price of SPY gets ""too high"" compared to SPX (and therefore the constituent stocks), an authorized participant can simultaneously sell short SPY shares and buy the constituent companies' stocks.  They can then use the redemption process to close their position at no risk.  And vice versa if SPY gets ""too low."" Now that we understand why they move together, why don't they move together perfectly.  To some extent information about fees, slight differences in composition between SPY and SPX over time, etc. do play.  The bigger reasons are probably that (a) there are not a lot of authorized participants, (b) there are a relatively large number of companies represented in SPY, so there's some actual cost and risk involved in trying to quickly buy/sell the full set to capture the theoretical arbitrage that I described, and (c) redemption / creation units only come in pretty big blocks, which complicates the issues under point b. You asked about dividends, so let me comment briefly on that too.  The dividend on SPY is (more or less) passing on the dividends from the constituent companies. (I think - not completely sure - that the market maker deducts its fees from this cash, so it's not a direct pass through.)  But each company pays on its own schedule and SPY does not make a payment every time, so it's holding a corresponding amount of cash between its dividend payments.  This is factored into the price through the creation / redemption process.  I don't know how big of a factor it is though." "SELL -10 VERTICAL $IYR 100 AUG 09 32/34 CALL @.80 LMT 1) we are talking about options, these are a derivative product whose price is based on 6 variables. 2) options allow you to create risk out of thin air, and those risks come with shapes, and the only limit is your imagination (and how much your margin/borrowing costs are). Whereas a simple asset like the shares for $IYR only has a linear risk profile. stock goes up, you make money, stock goes down, you lose money, and that risk graph looks linear. a ""vertical"" has a nonlinear risk profile 3) a vertical is a type of ""spread"" that requires holding options that expire at the same time, but at different strike prices. 3b) This particular KIND of vertical is called a bear call spread (BCS). Since you are bearish (this makes money if the stock goes down, or stays in a very specific range) but are using calls which are a bullish options product. 4) -10 means you are selling the vertical. +10 means you are buying the vertical. A ""long"" vertical is initiated by buying an option closer to the money, and selling an option at a higher strike price. This would be +X A ""short"" vertical is initiated by selling an option closer to the money and buying an option at a higher strike price. The quantity would be -X 5) 32/34 stands for the strike prices. so you would be selling 10 call options at the 32 strike price, and buying 10 call options at the 34 strike price, both options expire in August 6) LMT stands for limit order, and $.80 is the limit order price that is desired. OPENING a vertical spread requires knowledge of options as well as how to send orders. MANAGING a vertical requires even more finesse, as you can ""leg-in"" and ""leg-out"" of spreads, without sending the entire order to the exchange floor at once. There is much to learn." Assignment risk. In your example, if someone exercises OTM call, your account could be assigned. In that case, if you do nothing, you could lose more money than there is in the account. The broker won't do it for you because there is more than one way to handle the assignment. For example, you might choose to exercise the long call, or buy a different call and exercise that. Selling the long call may be enough to satisfy any resulting margin call. Yes, and there's a good reason they might. (I'm gonna use equity options for the example; FX options are my thing, but they typically trade European style). The catch is dividends.  Imagine you're long a deep-ITM call on a stock that's about to pay a dividend. If that dividend is larger than the time value remaining on the option, you'd prefer to exercise early - giving you the stock and the dividend payment - rather than hanging on to the time value of the option.  You can get a similar situation in FX options when you're long a deep-ITM American call on a positive-carry currency (say AUDJPY); you might find yourself so deep in the money, with so little time value left on the option, that you'd rather exercise the option and give up the remaining time value in return for the additional carry from getting the spot position early. Think of options as insurance. An insurance company makes money by selling the policies at a rate slightly higher than the average payout.  Most options expire worthless. This is because most options are purchased by hedge funds. To 'hedge' means taking out insurance in case your position goes against you. So the sellers of options obtain a price that covers their (averaged) losses plus provides them with a profit for their trouble.  An option has an amount that it declines in value each day (called theta). At the expiration date the option is worth zero (if it is out-of-the-money). So it is option writers that, typically, make money in the options market (as they are the sellers of insurance). If they didn't make money selling options they would not sell them.  For example, the February call option on SPY strike 200 traded at 8.81 on 12/30. Since then it has crumbled in value to 0.14. The option writer currently stands to make a huge profit.  So, just as with insurance, you (generally) never make money by buying insurance. But the sellers of insurance tend to make money as do the writers of options.  Edit: Theta @ Investopedia That is a weird one.  Typically one never needs to layout cash to exercise an option.  One would only choose to use option 1, if one is seeking to buy the options.  This would occur if an employee was leaving a company, would no longer be eligible for the ISO (and thereby forfeit any option grant), and does not want to exercise the options.   However, what is not weird is the way income tax works, you are taxed on your income in the US.   I assume you are talking about the US here. So if you exercise 10K shares, if under either option, you will be taxed on the profit from those share.   Profit = (actual price - strike price) * shares - fees hmmm. I think it's because in both cases, you must pay for it up front, before the positions are closed out. You own nothing except the right to buy the stock re: the call, and the obligation to buy the stock re: the short.  You buy a call, but must borrow the stock, for which you must put some margin collateral and there is a cost to borrow. You pay for that, of course.  I wouldn't call it lending though. "Cart's answer describes well one aspects of puts: protective puts; which means using puts as insurance against a decline in the price of shares that you own.  That's a popular use of puts.  But I think the wording of your question is angling for another strategy: Writing puts. Consider: Cart's strategy refers to the buyer of a put.  But, on the transaction's other side is a seller of the put – and ultimately somebody created or wrote that put contract in the first place!  That first seller of the put – that is, the seller that isn't just selling one they themselves bought – is the put writer. When you write a put, you are taking on the obligation to buy the other side's stock at the put exercise price if the stock price falls below that exercise price by the expiry date.  For taking on the obligation, you receive a premium, like how an insurance company charges a premium to insure against a loss. Example:  Imagine ABC Co. stock is trading at $25.00.  You write a put contract agreeing to buy 100 shares of ABC at $20.00 per share (the exercise price) by a given expiration date.  Say you receive $2.00/share premium from the put buyer.  You now have the obligation to purchase the shares from the put buyer in the event they are below $20.00 per share when the option expires – or, technically any time before then, if the buyer chooses to exercise the option early. Assuming no early assignment, one of two things will happen at the option expiration date: ABC trades at or above $20.00 per share. In this case, the put option will expire worthless in the hands of the put buyer.  You will have pocketed the $200 and be absolved from your obligation.  This case, where ABC trades above the exercise price, is the maximum profit potential. ABC trades below $20.00 per share.  In this case, the put option will be assigned and you'll need to fork over $2000 to the put buyer in exchange for his 100 ABC shares.  If those shares are worth less than $18.00 in the market, then you've suffered a loss to the extent they are below that price (times 100), because remember – you pocketed $200 premium in the first place.  If the shares are between $18.00 to $20.00, you're still profitable, but not to the full extent of the premium received. You can see that by having written a put it's possible to acquire ABC stock at a price lower than the market price – because you received some premium in the process of writing your put.  If you don't ""succeed"" in acquiring shares on your first write (because the shares didn't get below the exercise price), you can continue to write puts and collect premium until you do get assigned. I have read the book ""Money for Nothing (And Your Stocks for FREE!)"" by Canadian author Derek Foster.  Despite the flashy title, the book essentially describes Derek's strategy for writing puts against dividend-paying value stocks he would love to own.  Derek picks quality companies that pay a dividend, and uses put writing to get in at lower-than-market prices.  Four Pillars reviewed the book and interviewed Derek Foster: Money for Nothing: Book Review and Interview with Derek Foster. Writing puts entails risk.  If the stock price drops to zero then you'll end up paying the put exercise price to acquire worthless shares!  So your down-side can easily be multiples of the premium collected.  Don't do this until and unless you understand exactly how this works.  It's advanced. Note also that your broker isn't likely to permit you to write puts without having sufficient cash or margin in your account to cover the case where you are forced to buy the stock.  You're better off having cash to secure your put buys, otherwise you may be forced into leverage (borrowing) when assigned.  Additional Resources: The Montreal Exchange options guide (PDF) that Cart already linked to is an excellent free resource for learning about options.  Refer to page 39, ""Writing secured put options"", for the strategy above. Other major options exchanges and organizations also provide high-quality free learning material:" If you are in the money at expiration you are going to get assigned to the person on the other side of the contract. This is an extremely high probability. The only randomness comes from before expiration. Where you may be assigned because a holder exercised the option before expiration, this can unbalance some of your strategies. But in exchange, you get all the premium that was still left on the option when they exercised. An in the money option, at expiration, has no premium. The value of your in the money option is Current Stock price - Strike Price, for a call. And Strike price - Current Stock price, for a put. Thats why there is no free lunch in this scenario. So, this isn't always the case, but in the example provided the option is most likely in the money or near the money since the delta is nearly 1 - indicating that a $1 move in the underlying results in a $0.92 move in the option - this will happen when the expiration is very far out or the option is in the money. As expiration gets closer, movements in the underlying become more pronounced in the options because the probability of the stock price moving from its current position is lower.    As the probability of the stock price moving goes down, the delta of in the money options approaches 100, eventually reaching 100 at expiration. Another way to word this is that the premium on in the money options shrinks as expiration approaches and the intrinsic value of the option increases as percentage of total value so that movements in the underlying stock price become a greater influence on the option price - hence a greater delta. Again, if the option is out of the money, this is not the case. 1) Yes, both of your scenarios would lead to earning $10 on the transaction, at the strike date. If you purchased both of them (call it Scenario 3), you would make $20. 2) As to why this transaction may not be possible, consider the following: The Call and Put pricing you describe may not be available. What you have actually created is called 'arbitrage' - 2 identical assets can be bought and sold at different prices, leading to a zero-risk gain for the investor. In the real marketplace, if an option to buy asset X in January cost $90, would an option to sell asset X in January provide $110?  Without adding additional complexity about the features of asset x or the features of the options, buying a Call option is the same as selling a Put option [well, when selling a Put option you don't have the ability to choose whether the option is exercised, meaning buying options has value that selling options does not, but ignore that for a moment]. That means that you have arranged a marketplace where you would buy a Call option for only $90, but the seller of that same option would somehow receive $110.  For added clarity, consider the following: What if, in your example, the future price ended up being $200? Then, you could exercise your call option, buying a share for $90, selling it for $200, making $110 profit. You would not exercise your put option, making your total profit $110. Now consider: What if, in your example, the future price ended up being $10? You would buy for $10, exercise your put option and sell for $110, making a profit of $100. You would not exercise your call option, making your total profit $100. This highlights that if your initial assumptions existed, you would earn money (at least $20, and at most, unlimited based on a skyrocketing price compared to your $90 put option) regardless of the future price. Therefore such a scenario would not exist in the initial pricing of the options. Now perhaps there is an initial fee involved with the options, where the buyer or seller pays extra money up-front, regardless of the future price. That is a different scenario, and gets into the actual nature of options, where investors will arrange multiple simultaneous transactions in order to limit risk and retain reward within a certain band of future prices.  As pointed out by @Nick R, this fee would be very significant, for a call option which had a price set below the current price. Typically, options are sold 'out of the money' initially, which means that at the current share price (at the time the option is purchased), executing the option would lose you money. If you purchase an 'in the money' option, the transaction cost initially would by higher than any apparent gain you might have by immediately executing the option. For a more realistic Options example, assume that it costs $15 initially to buy either the Call option, or the Put option. In that case, after buying both options as listed in your scenarios you would earn a profit if the share price exceeded $120 [The $120 sale price less the $90 call option = $30, which is your total fee initially], or dropped below $80 [The $110 Put price less the $80 purchase price = $30]. This type of transaction implies that you expect the price to either swing up, or swing down, but not fall within the band between $80-$120. Perhaps you might do this if there was an upcoming election or other known event, which might be a failure or success, and you think the market has not properly accounted for either scenario in advance. I will leave further discussion on that topic [arranging options of different prices to create specific bands of profitability / loss] to another answer (or other questions which likely already exist on this site, or in fact, other resources), because it gets more complicated after that point, and is outside the root of your question. If you're into math, do this thought experiment: Consider the outcome X of a random walk process (a stock doesn't behave this way, but for understanding the question you asked, this is useful): On the first day, X=some integer X1. On each subsequent day, X goes up or down by 1 with probability 1/2. Let's think of buying a call option on X. A European option with a strike price of S that expires on day N, if held until that day and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y = min(X[N]-S, 0). This has an expected value E[Y] that you could actually calculate. (should be related to the binomial distribution, but my probability & statistics hat isn't working too well today) The market value V[k] of that option on day #k, where 1 < k < N, should be V[k] = E[Y]|X[k], which you can also actually calculate. On day #N, V[N] = Y. (the value is known) An American option, if held until day #k and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y[k] = min(X[k]-S, 0).  For the moment, forget about selling the option on the market. (so, the choices are either exercise it on some day #k, or letting it expire) Let's say it's day k=N-1.  If X[N-1] >= S+1 (in the money), then you have two choices: exercise today, or exercise tomorrow if profitable. The expected value is the same. (Both are equal to X[N-1]-S). So you might as well exercise it and make use of your money elsewhere. If X[N-1] <= S-1 (out of the money), the expected value is 0, whether you exercise today, when you know it's worthless, or if you wait until tomorrow, when the best case is if X[N-1]=S-1 and X[N] goes up to S, so the option is still worthless. But if X[N-1] = S (at the money), here's where it gets interesting. If you exercise today, it's worth 0. If wait until tomorrow, there's a 1/2 chance it's worth 0 (X[N]=S-1), and a 1/2 chance it's worth 1 (X[N]=S+1). Aha! So the expected value is 1/2. Therefore you should wait until tomorrow. Now let's say it's day k=N-2.  Similar situation, but more choices: If X[N-2] >= S+2, you can either sell it today, in which case you know the value = X[N-2]-S, or you can wait until tomorrow, when the expected value is also X[N-2]-S. Again, you might as well exercise it now. If X[N-2] <= S-2, you know the option is worthless. If X[N-2] = S-1, it's worth 0 today, whereas if you wait until tomorrow, it's either worth an expected value of 1/2 if it goes up (X[N-1]=S), or 0 if it goes down, for a net expected value of 1/4, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S, it's worth 0 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 1 if it goes up, or 0 if it goes down -> net expected value of 1/2, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S+1, it's worth 1 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 2 if it goes up, or 1/2 if it goes down (X[N-1]=S) -> net expected value of 1.25, so you should wait. If it's day k=N-3, and X[N-3] >= S+3 then E[Y] = X[N-3]-S and you should exercise it now; or if X[N-3] <= S-3 then E[Y]=0.  But if X[N-3] = S+2 then there's an expected value E[Y] of (3+1.25)/2 = 2.125 if you wait until tomorrow, vs. exercising it now with a value of 2; if X[N-3] = S+1 then E[Y] = (2+0.5)/2 = 1.25, vs. exercise value of 1; if X[N-3] = S then E[Y] = (1+0.5)/2 = 0.75 vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-1 then E[Y] = (0.5 + 0)/2 = 0.25, vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-2 then E[Y] = (0.25 + 0)/2 = 0.125, vs. exercise value of 0. (In all 5 cases, wait until tomorrow.) You can keep this up; the recursion formula is E[Y]|X[k]=S+d = {(E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d+1)/2 + (E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d-1) for N-k > d > -(N-k), when you should wait and see} or {0 for d <= -(N-k), when it doesn't matter and the option is worthless} or {d for d >= N-k, when you should exercise the option now}. The market value of the option on day #k should be the same as the expected value to someone who can either exercise it or wait. It should be possible to show that the expected value of an American option on X is greater than the expected value of a European option on X. The intuitive reason is that if the option is in the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be out of the money, the option should be exercised early  (or sold), something a European option doesn't allow, whereas if it is nearly at the money, the option should be held, whereas if it is out of the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be in the money, the option is definitely worthless. As far as real securities go, they're not random walks (or at least, the probabilities are time-varying and more complex), but there should be analogous situations. And if there's ever a high probability a stock will go down, it's time to exercise/sell an in-the-money American option, whereas you can't do that with a European option. edit: ...what do you know: the computation I gave above for the random walk isn't too different conceptually from the Binomial options pricing model. One broker told me that I have to simply read the ask size and the bid size, seeing what the market makers are offering. This implies that my order would have to match that price exactly, which is unfortunate because options contract spreads can be WIDE. Also, if my planned position size is larger than the best bid/best ask, then I should break up the order, which is also unfortunate because most brokers charge a lot for options orders. The put vs call assignment risk, is actually the reverse: in-the-money calls are more likely to be exercised early than puts. Exercising a call locks in profit for the option holder because they can buy the shares at below market price, and immediately sell them at the higher market price. If there are dividends due, the risk is even higher. By contrast, exercising an in-the-money put locks in a loss for the holder, so it's less common.