Why trade futures if you have options
Yes, from the point-of-view to the end speculator/investor in stocks, it is ludicrous to take on liabilities when you don't have to.  That's why single-stock options are far more liquid than single-stock futures. However, if you are a farmer with a huge mortgage depending upon the chaos of agricultural markets which are extremely volatile, a different structure might appeal to you.  You could long your inputs while shorting your outputs, locking in a profit.  That profit is probably lower than what one could expect over the long run without hedging, but it will surely be less volatile. Here's where the advantage of futures come in for that kind of structure: the margin on the longs and shorts can offset each other, forcing the farmer to have to put up much less of one's own money to hedge.  With options, this is not the case. Also, the gross margin between the inputs rarely fluctuate to an unmanageable degree, so if your shorts rise faster than your longs, you'll only have to post margin in the amount of the change in the net of the longs and shorts. This is why while options on commodities exist to satisfy speculators, futures are the most liquid. That question makes assumptions that don't hold in general As to why to deal with futures:  Well, there's just one contract per maturity date, not a whole chain of contracts (options come at different strike prices).  That in turn means that all the liquidity is in that one contract and not scattered across the chain. Then, moreover, it depends what underlying contracts you're talking about.  Often, especially when dealing with commodities, there is no option chain on the spot product but only options on the futures contracts. In summary, the question is somewhat bogus.  Options and futures evolved historically and independently, and were not meant to be substitutable by one another.  So their rights and obligations are just a historical by-product and not their defining feature.  I suggest you refine it to a specific asset class. "With options you pay for a premium which relates to the expected (so-called ""implied"" volatility). With futures, there is no assumption about the volatility of an underlying stock. In general, when trading options you trade the direction and future expected volatility of an underlying while futures are directional trades only."
"Derivatives derive their value from underlying assets.  This is expressed by the obligation of at least one counterparty to trade with the other counterparty in the future.  These can take on as many combinations as one can dream up as it is a matter of contract. For futures, where two parties are obligated to trade at a specific price at a specific date in the future (one buyer, one seller), if you ""short"" a future, you have entered into a contract to sell the underlying at the time specified.  If the price of the future moves against you (goes up), you will have to sell at a loss.  The bigger the move, the greater the loss.  You go ahead and pay this as well as a little extra to be sure that you satisfy what you owe due to the future.  This satisfaction is called margin. If there weren't margin, people could take huge losses on their derivative bets, not pay, and disrupt the markets.  Making sure that the money that will trade is already there makes the markets run smoothly. It's the same for shorting stocks where you borrow the stock, sell it, and wait.  You have to leave the money with the broker as well as deposit a little extra to be sure you can make good if the market moves to a large degree against you." If you hold a future plus enough cash collateral it is economically equivalent to owning the underlying asset or shorting the underlying asset. In general financial assets such as stock indices have a positive expected return - that's the main difference between investing and gambling. There's nothing that special about futures, they are just another contractual form of asset ownership.  Well, one difference is that regulations or brokerages allow individual investors more leverage with options and futures than with straight borrowing. But this is more a regulatory issue than a conceptual issue with the securities themselves. In theory regulators or brokers could require you to hold enough collateral to make a future equivalent to buying the underlying. There are two basic kinds of derivatives - forward contracts and options.   A forward is an agreement between two parties for one party to buy/sell some asset to the other at a price that they agree upon today at some date in the future. An option is an agreement that gives one party the right, but not the obligation, to buy/sell the asset at some date in the future.  Most derivatives that exist are a combination of these two things. For instance, a futures contract is a standardized forward contract that is traded on an exchange, and a swap is a portfolio (or chain) of forward contracts linked together. American/Bermudan options are just options that allow you to exercise on more than one day. I am very surprised no one mentioned the Stock Repair Option Strategy which has real benefits and is one of the mainstream Option Strategies. Quote: Who Should Consider Using the Stock Repair Strategy? In a nutshell, you are buying call options with current strike price (at-the-money) and sell call options with higher strike price (out-of-the-money), all with the same expiry dates.  The only reason to also sell call options here is to recover your premium paid for the other call options. If you are comfortable paying that premium, you just buy the call options without selling the others. In case your stock will rise moderately to a price between the two strike prices, your call option will rise together with your stock, so you will be faster to recover your money. This is the main reason it is called Repair. If you have sold any call options, as the price rises, you have to be careful when it reaches the strike price of the options sold, as from there on you will begin incurring losses. It is however exactly the lucky outcome you were hoping for, your stock is higher, and you can buy back those loss making options - then or shortly before. If you didn't sell any options and payed your premium, you don't need to worry at all at this stage. WARNING It should be noted that the Stock Repair Strategy offers no protection for your stock price further falling down. In that case all those options will expire worthless or you can sell back the ones your bought but likely not for much. In order to have the downside protection for your stock, there are other strategies, the simplest one being buying a Put Option at-the-money or slightly lower. That will effectively cut your possible losses to the Option Premium (which is the main use of that option).  Again, if you hate to pay that premium, you can offset it by selling other options that you either hope won't be exercised or take steps to protect you against those. Its different because, at least with both stock options and futures, the product is going to eventually get that money.  The difference is that you don't have to spend that money directly on that product right now, allowing you to invest far more then you can afford since you are going to cover that option or sell that contract long before you are ever going to be on hook for actually buying all those stocks or barrels of oil you were trading.  It's actually a good way for a middle class investor to become really wealthy, because if he is good all he needs is to save only about 10,000 to invest and he can invest like he's investing 100,000.  Obviously there's more risk too, but give and take i guess. Short answer: Liquidity. Well, you have to see it from an exchange's point of view.  Every contract they put up is a liability to them.  You have to allocate resources for the order book, the matching engine, the clearing, etc.  But only if the contract is actually trading they start earning (the big) money. Now for every new expiry they engage a long term commitment and it might take years for an option chain to be widely accepted (and hence before they're profitable).  Compare the volumes and open interests of big chains versus the weeklies and you'll find that weeklies can still be considered illiquid compared to their monthly cousins. Having said that, like many things, this is just a question of demand.  If there's a strong urge to trade July weeklies one day, there will be an option chain.  But, personally I think, as long as there are the summer doldrums there will be no rush to ask for Jul and Aug chains. I don't know why a financial investor or a retail trader would do this. But I can guess why a market maker in options would do this. Let us say you buy an option from an option market maker and the market maker sold the option to you. He made a small profit in the bid-ask spread but now he is holding a short position in the option with unlimited risk exposure. So to protect himself, he will take an offsetting position in the underlying and become delta neutral, so that his position is not affected by the moves in the underlying. In the end, he can do this because he is not in the market to make money by betting on direction, unlike the rest of us poor mortals. He is making money from the bid-ask spread. So to ensure that his profits are not eroded by an adverse move in the underlying, he will continuously seek to be delta neutral. But once again, this is for a market maker. For market takers like us, I still don't understand why we would need to delta hedge. "Futures are an agreement to buy or sell something in the future.  The futures ""price"" is the price at which you agree to make the trade.  This price does not indicate what will happen in the future so much as it indicates the cost of buying the item today and holding it until the future date.  Hence, for very liquid products such as stock index futures, the futures price is a very simple function of today's stock index value and current short-term interest rates.  If the stock exchange is closed but the futures exchange is open, then using the futures price and interest rates one can back out an implied ""fair value"" for the index, which is in essence the market's estimate of what the stock index value would be right now if the stock market were open.  Of course, as soon as the stock exchange opens, the futures price trades to within a narrow band of the actual index value, where the size of the band depends on transaction costs (bid-ask spread, commissions, etc.)." Well, if you are going long on a future option, you would not have to risk as much capital. I am interested in commodities, but I want to trade it more conservatively. But I do want to learn about them before I dive in, just so there are no surprises. I traded futures for a brief period in school using the BrokersXpress platform (now part of OptionsXpress, which is in turn now part of Charles Schwab). They had a virtual trading platform, and apparently still do, and it was excellent. Since my main account was enabled for futures, this carried over to the virtual account, so I could trade a whole range of futures, options, stocks, etc. I spoke with OptionsXpress, and you don't need to fund your acount to use the virtual trading platform. However, they will cancel your account after an arbitrary period of time if you don't log in every few days. According to their customer service, there is no inactivity fee on your main account if you don't fund it and make no trades. I also used Stock-Trak for a class and despite finding the occasional bug or website performance issue, it provided a good experience. I received a discount because I used it through an educational institution, and customer service was quite good (probably for the same reason), but I don't know if those same benefits would apply to an individual signing up for it.  I signed up for top10traders about seven years ago when I was in secondary school, and it's completely free. Unfortunately, you get what you pay for, and the interface was poorly designed and slow. Furthermore, at that time, there were no restrictions that limited the number of shares you could buy to the number of outstanding shares, so you could buy as many as you could afford, even if you exceeded the number that physically existed. While this isn't an issue for large companies, it meant you could earn a killing trading highly illiquid pink sheet stocks because you could purchase billions of shares of companies with only a few thousand shares actually outstanding. I don't know if these issues have been corrected or not, but at the time, I and several other users took advantage of these oversights to rack up hundreds of trillions of dollars in a matter of days, so if you want a realistic simulation, this isn't it.  Investopedia also has a stock simulator that I've heard positive things about, although I haven't used it personally. By buying the call option, you are getting the benefit of purchasing the underlying shares (that is, if the shares go up in value, you make money), but transferring the risk of the shares reducing in value. This is more apparent when you are using the option to offset an explicit risk that you hold. For example, if you have a short position, you are at unlimited risk of the position going up in value. You could decide you only want to take the risk that it might rise to $X. In that case, you could buy a call option with $X strike price. Then you have transferred the risk that the position goes over $X to the counterpart, since, even if the shares are trading at $X+$Y you can close out the short position by purchasing the shares at $X, while the option counterpart will lose $Y. "More perspective on whether buying the stock (""going long"") or options are better. My other answer gave tantalizing results for the option route, even though I made up the numbers; but indeed, if you know EXACTLY when a move is going to happen, assuming a ""non-thin"" and orderly option market on a stock, then a call (or put) will almost of necessity produce exaggerated returns. There are still many, many catches (e.g. what if the move happens 2 days from now and the option expires in 1) so a universal pronouncement cannot be made of which is better. Consider this, though - reputedly, a huge number of airline stock options were traded in the week before 9/11/2001. Perversely, the ""investors"" (presumably with the foreknowledge of the events that would happen in the next couple of days) could score tremendous profits because they knew EXACTLY when a big stock price movement would happen, and knew with some certainty just what direction it would go :( It's probably going to be very rare that you know exactly when a security will move a substantial amount (3% is substantial) and exactly when it will happen, unless you trade on inside knowledge (which might lead to a prison sentence). AAR, I hope this provides some perspective on the magnitude of results above, and recognizing that such a fantastic outcome is rather unlikely :) Then consider Jack's answer above (his and all of them are good). In the LONG run - unless one has a price prediction gift smarter than the market at large, or has special knowledge - his insurance remark is apt." 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. You would appear to be a swing trader, like myself. I have been trading futures and futures options for 29 years, and have both made and lost a lot of money in that time. My trades last hours, to days, to at most a few weeks. From my experience, the most important skills are: 1) Money management - keeping trade size small in relation to total capital. I typically risk 2-3% of my capital on a trade, so a loss is fairly immaterial. 2) Risk management - limit your loss on every trade, either by using stop orders, options, or a combination of these 2. 3) Emotional discipline - be prepared to exit a position, or reverse from long to short, or short to long,  on a moment's notice. The market doesn't care where you entered, or whether you make or lose money. Don't let your hunches or the news influence your decisions, but follow the market. 4) Methodology discipline - test your analysis / trade entry method to ensure that it is objective, and has a reasonably good probability of success, then stick with it. Variation will inevitably lead to indecision or emotional reactions. 5) Flexibility - consider trading anything which can make you a profit, but ensure that there is a lot of liquidity. I trade 30 different futures markets, as well as various option writing strategies in these markets.  Feel free to reach out if you want to discuss further. I have about 500 (yes, 500) trading e-books as well, on every trading subject you can think of. If your house was paid off, would you be comfortable borrowing from the equity to invest? This is essentially the same question.  Also, why not ask the opposite? How much more should you be borrowing (at a similar rate) for investments? Your answer to both questions will be clues to how you view the risk/reward of borrowing against your house in order to invest. My personal preference is not to invest with borrowed money. There may be a few percent of potential returns I am missing out on. That percent return has to be analyzed in the context of a full financial plan and future goals.