How are option contracts enforced?
"By their agreements with the central counterparty - in the US, the exchange or the Options Clearing Corporation, which interposes itself between the counterparties of each trade and guarantees that they settle. From the CCP article: A clearing house stands between two clearing firms (also known as member firms or participants). Its purpose is to reduce the risk a member firm failing to honor its trade settlement obligations. A CCP reduces the settlement risks by netting offsetting transactions between multiple counterparties, by requiring collateral deposits (also called ""margin deposits""), by providing independent valuation of trades and collateral, by monitoring the credit worthiness of the member firms, and in many cases, by providing a guarantee fund that can be used to cover losses that exceed a defaulting member's collateral on deposit. Exercisers on most contracts are matched against random writers during the assignment process, and if the writer doesn't deliver/buy the stock, the OCC does so using its funds and goes after the defaulting party."
"The answer is in your question: derivatives are contracts so are enforced in the same way as any other contract.  If the counterparty refuses to pay immediately they will, in the first instance be billed by any intermediary (Prime Broker etc.) that facilitated the contract. If they still refuse to pay the contract may stipulate that a broker can ""net off"" any outstanding payments against it or pay out using deposited cash or posted margins. The contract will usually include the broker as an interested party and so they can, but don't need to, report a default (such that this is) to credit agencies (in some jurisdictions they are required to by law). Any parties to the trade and the courts may use a debt collection agency to collect payments or seize assets to cover payment. If there is no broker or the counterparty still has not paid the bill then the parties involved (the party to the trade and any intermediaries) can sue for breach of contract. If they win (which would be expected) the counterparty will be made to pay by the legal system including, but not limited to, seizure of assets, enforced bankruptcy, and prison terms for any contempts of court rulings. All of this holds for governments who refuse to pay derivatives losses (as Argentina did in the early 20th century) but in that case it may escalate as far as war. It has never done so for derivatives contracts as far as I know but other breaches of contract between countries have resulted in armed conflict. As well as the ""hard"" results of failing to pay there are soft implications including a guaranteed fall in credit ratings that will result in parties refusing to do business with the counterparty and a separate loss of reputation that will reduce business even further. Potential employees and funders will be unwilling to become involved with such a party and suppliers will be unwilling to supply on credit. The end result in almost every way would be bankruptcy and prison sentences for the party or their senior employees. Most jurisdictions allow for board members at companies in material breach of contract to be banned from running any company for a set period as well. edit: netting off cash flows netting off is a process whereby all of a party's cash flows, positive and negative, are used to pay each other off so that only the net change is reflected in account balances, for example: company 1 cash flows netting off the total outgoings are 3M + 500k = 3.5M and total incomings are 1.2M + 1.1M + 1.2M = 3.5M so the incoming cash flows can be used to pay the outgoing cash flows leaving a net payment into company1's account of 0." No. Such companies don't exist. Derivative instruments have evolved over a period and there is a market place, stock exchange with members / broker with obligations etc clearly laid out and enforceable. If I understand correctly say the house is at 300 K. You would like a option to sell it to someone for 300 K after 6 months. Lets say you are ready to pay a premium of 10K for this option. After 6 months, if the market price is 400 K you would not exercise the option and if the market price of your house is 200 K you would exercise the option and ask the option writer to buy your house for 300 K. There are quite a few challenges, i.e. who will moderate this transaction. How do we arrive that house is valued at 300K. There could be actions taken by you to damage the property and hence its reduction in value, etc. i.e. A stock exchange like market place for house is not there and it may or may not develop in future. Are there any known laws explicitly allowing or preventing this   behavior? It's not the laws, it's what's in the note - the mortgage contract. I read my mortgage contracts very carefully to ensure that there's no prepayment penalty and that extra funds are applied to the principal. However, it doesn't have to be like that, and in older mortgages - many times it's not like that. Banks don't have to allow things that are not explicitly agreed upon in the contract. To the best of my knowledge there's no law requiring banks to allow what your friend wants. "Interactive Brokers offers global securities trading. Notice that the security types are: cash, stock (STK), futures (FUT), options (OPT), futures options   (FOP), warrants (WAR), bonds, contracts for differences (CFD), or   Dutch warrants (IOPT) There is a distinction between options (OPT), warrants (WAR), options on futures (FOP) and finally, Dutch Warrants (IOPT). IOPT is intuitively similar to an ""index option"". (For index option valuation equations, iopt=1 for a call, and iopt= -1 for a put. I don't know if Interactive Brokers uses that convention).  What is the difference between a ""Dutch Warrant"" and an option or warrant? Dutch warrants aren't analogous to Dutch auctions e.g. in the U.S.Treasury bond market. For North America, Interactive Brokers only lists commissions for traditional warrants and options, that is, warrants and options that have a single stock as the underlying security. For Asia and Europe, Interactive Brokers lists both the  ""regular"" options (and warrants) as well as ""equity index options"", see commission schedule. Dutch warrants are actually more like options than warrants, and that may be why Interactive Brokers refers to them as IOPTS (index options). Here's some background from a research article about Dutch warrants (which was NOT easy to find): In the Netherlands, ING Bank introduced call and put warrants on the   FT-SE 100, the CAC 40 and the German DAX indexes. These are some differences between [Dutch] index warrants and exchange traded index options: That last point is the most important, as it makes the pricing and valuation less subject to arbitrage. Last part of the question: Where do you find Structured Products on Interactive Brokers website? Look on the Products page (rather than the Commissions page, which does't mention Structured Products at all). There is a Structured Products tab with details." Option tiers are broker specific, according mostly to their business model and presumably within the bounds of FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability). The tier system can be as complex as E*Trade or as simple as none with Interactive Brokers. The suitability is determined presumably by compliance presumably by the legal history of the rule. The exact reasoning is political, effected by the relevant party composition of the legislature and executive. The full legal history will have the judiciary's interpretations of legislation and policy. Cash and margin rules are dictated primarily by the Federal Reserve and more precisely by FINRA and the SEC.  This is the only distinction made by IB. "This is the sad state of US stock markets and Regulation T. Yes, while options have cleared & settled for t+1 (trade +1 day) for years and now actually clear ""instantly"" on some exchanges, stocks still clear & settle in t+3.  There really is no excuse for it. If you are in a margin account, regulations permit the trading of unsettled funds without affecting margin requirements, so your funds in effect are available immediately after trading but aren't considered margin loans.  Some strict brokers will even restrict the amount of uncleared margin funds you can trade with (Scottrade used to be hyper safe and was the only online discount broker that did this years ago); others will allow you to withdraw a large percentage of your funds immediately (I think E*Trade lets you withdraw up to 90% of unsettled funds immediately). If you are in a cash account, you are authorized to buy with unsettled funds, but you can't sell purchases made on unsettled funds until such funds clear, or you'll be barred for 90 days from trading as your letter threatened; besides, most brokers don't allow this.  You certainly aren't allowed to withdraw unsettled funds (by your broker) in such an account as it would technically constitute a loan for which you aren't even liable since you've agreed to no loan contract, a margin agreement.  I can't be sure if that actually violates Reg T, but when I am, I'll edit. While it is true that all marketable options are cleared through one central entity, the Options Clearing Corporation, with stocks, clearing & settling still occurs between brokers, netting their transactions between each other electronically. All financial products could clear & settle immediately imo, and I'd rather not start a firestorm by giving my opinion why not. Don't even get me started on the bond market... As to the actual process, it's called ""clearing & settling"". The general process (which can generally be applied to all financial instruments from cash deposits to derivatives trading) is: The reason why all of the old financial companies were grouped on Wall St. is because they'd have runners physically carting all of the certificates from building to building.  Then, they discovered netting so slowed down the process to balance the accounts and only cart the net amounts of certificates they owed each other.  This is how we get the term ""bankers hours"" where financial firms would close to the public early to account for the days trading.  While this is all really done instantly behind your back at your broker, they've conveniently kept the short hours." "An option is a financial instrument instrument that gives you the right, but not the obligation, to do some transaction in the future at a given price. An employee stock option is a kind of ""call option"" -- it gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy the stock at a certain price (the ""exercise price"", usually set as the price of the stock when the option was granted). The idea is that you would ""exercise"" the option (buy the stock at the given price as provided by the option), if the value of the stock is higher than the exercise price, and not if it is lower. The option is gifted to you. But that does not mean you get any stock. If and when you choose to exercise the option, you would buy the stock with your own money. At what time you can exercise the option (and how many shares you can exercise at a given time) will be specified in the agreement. Usually, you can only exercise a particular share after it has ""vested"" (according to some vesting schedule), and you lose the ability to exercise after you no longer work for the company (plus perhaps a grace period), or after the option expires." No, if you can afford to enforce more rules, you alone pay for that enforcement *only on your own property*. Nobody else pays for your enforcement of rules that only you want enforced.  Customer regulation keeps companies accountable. When you can stop buying from a company who screws over customers, that's accountability. Remember, integrity and honesty is the lifeblood of any company who wants to stay in business for longer than a short period. Those who provide the most value to customers, including the best quality for their money, get the most customers. Limit books are managed by exchanges. If an order is not immediately filled, it is sent to the book.  From there, orders are generally executed on price-time-priority.  The one major exception is the precedence hide-not-slide orders have over earlier placed visible slidden limit orders since unslidden orders are treated like a modification/cancellation. To an exchange, a modification is the same as a cancellation since it charges no fees for placing or canceling orders, only for trades.  The timestamp is reset, and price-time-priority is applied in the same way, so if a modified order isn't immediately filled, it is sent back to the book to be filled in order of price-time-priority. Its important that you carefully read the agreement, if you accept the job. The options agreement will usually specify the vesting schedule, the strike price, and the number of options you will have.  When you start vesting options, you can choose to buy stock at the strike price. When you do exercise the options, your employer will likely withhold state and federal income tax. The strike price will hopefully be well below the market price.  Unlike stock, when your employment ends, you usually are not able to hold on to your options. There's typically a small window of time in which you can exercise your options. You should read this part of the agreement carefully and plan accordingly. This is perfect for the ELI5 posts that always come up on this topic.  Great article.  I'd be interested in seeing a little more on the regulatory aspects of derivative contracts.  Derivatives are complex because the associated risks are complex.  When banks, insurers, and other entities large enough to have a Chief Risk Officer enter into these contracts, the assumption is that they know what they're doing, so to my knowledge, they're generally lightly regulated.  Additionally, those that understand derivatives enough to regulate them are unlikely to work for the comparatively low wages that they'd get in government. That said, I'd be interested in seeing something discussing the challenges in regulating something like this.  Even before 2008, there were some pretty big failures involving derivatives where risk was not adequately managed that probably wouldn't have been avoided with stronger regulation. 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. "Not having seen the movie, I don't know what you mean by ""fraudulent options buys."" But there are two possibilities: 1) Someone placed buy orders on the account without authorization. In which case it comes down to a protracted lawsuit to determine whether the broker exercised due diligence, or whether Bruce foolishly gave someone his password. 2) The options themselves were fraudulent. In which case the OCC is responsible for making everyone whole." "Following comments to your question here, you posted a separate question about why SPY, SPX, and the options contract don't move perfectly together.  That's here Why don't SPY, SPX, and the e-mini s&p 500 track perfectly with each other? I provided an answer to that question and will build on it to answer what I think you're asking on this question.  Specifically, I explained what it means that these are ""all based on the S&P.""  Each is a different entity, and different market forces keep them aligned.  I think talking about ""technicals"" on options contracts is going to be too confusing since they are really a very different beast based on forward pricing models, so, for this question, I'll focus on only SPY and SPX. As in my other answer, it's only through specific market forces (the creation / redemption mechanism that I described in my other answer), that they track at all.  There's nothing automatic about this and it has nothing to do with some issuer of SPY actually holding stock in the companies that comprise the SPX index. (That's not to say that the company does or doesn't hold, just that this doesn't drive the prices.)  What ever technical signals you're tracking, will reflect all of the market forces at play.  For SPX (the index), that means some aggregate behavior of the component companies, computed in a ""mathematically pure"" way.  For SPY (the ETF), that means (a) the behavior of SPX and (b) the behavior of the ETF as it trades on the market, and (c) the action of the authorized participants.  These are simply different things. Which one is ""right""?  That depends on what you want to do.  In theory you might be able to do some analysis of technical signals on SPY and SPX and, for example, use that to make money on the way that they fail to track each other.  If you figure out how to do that, though, don't post it here.  Send it to me directly. :)" You bought the right – but not the obligation – to buy a certain number of shares at $15 from  whomsoever sold you the option, and you paid a premium for it.  You can choose whether you want to buy the shares at $15 during the period agreed upon. If you call for the shares, the other guy has to sell the shares to you for $15 each, even if the market price is higher. You can then turn around and promptly resell the purchased shares at the higher market price. If the market price never rises above $15 at any time while the option is open, you still have the right to buy the shares for $15 if you choose to do so. Most rational people would let the option expire without exercising it, but this is not a legal requirement.  Doing things like buying shares at $15 when the market price is below $15 is perfectly legal; just not very savvy.  You cannot cancel the option in the sense of going to the seller of the option and demanding your premium money back because you don't  intend to exercise the option because the market price is below $15.  Of course, if the market price is above $15 and you tell the seller to cancel the contract, they will be happy to do so, since it lets them off the hook. They may or may not give you the premium back in this case.