Why buy a vertical spread if I could instead buy a naked call?
"Figured it out.  Vertical spreads significantly reduce the amount of ""buying power"" on the account needed vs. buying / selling pure calls / puts.  So even though the transaction fees may more double in some instances, it may be worth it in order to operate with pricier underlying instruments. Spreads are also considered ""defined risk"" trades where both the profit and loss are capped per how the spreads are setup.  This is compared to single calls / puts where either the upside or the downside can be unlimited.  So for times when the expected move is not as pronounced, a spread may be a better fit depending on environment and other factors." Question: are you saying that buying a call is better than buying a vertical spread regardless of fees, or only because of fees? If the former, you are saying that buying a call and selling a vertical spread will always be profitable, which effectively means you're going short an out-of-the-money call. While that's a good strategy, it doesn't guarantee profit, and will lose money exactly when the vertical spread is a better strategy than buying the call outright. The most direct answer to your question in comments: if the stock goes down, you lose less money with the vertical spread than you do with a simple call. In return for this lower risk, you give up gains if the stock goes above the higher calls strike price. Late to the party, but it's just improving your cost basis in a defined risk trade even further. If you want to put up less risk capital but want to test the waters, this can be one way to do it. Another could be buying cheap OTM butterflies or financing a further otm option with the basis reduction from the debit spread if you want to gamble a bit further and venture into 15-20 delta positions. Usually, I am doing debit spreads with a buying atm and selling a couple strikes further otm or at least at the most liquid strikes, but if it's a high flier, it can be disappointing, but a good trade. If you're more of a contrarian in where you buy your calls/puts, it's absolutely a good way to lessen your risk on a calculated bet.
1 reason is  Leverage.... If you are buying out of the money options you get much more bang for your buck if the stock moves in your favor.  The flipside is it is much more likely that you would lose all of your investment. "Am I getting it right that in India in terms of short selling in F&O market its what in the rest of the world is called naked short and you actually make promise to depositary that you will deliver that security you sold on settlement without actually owning the security or going through SLB mechanism? In Future and Options; there is no concept of short selling. You buy a future for a security / index. On the settlement day; the exchange determines the settlement price. The trade is closed in cash. i.e. Based on the settlement price, you [and the other party] will either get money [other party looses money] or you loose money [other party gets the money]. Similarly for Options; on expiry, the all ""In Money"" [or At Money] Options are settled in cash and you are credit with funds [the option writer is debited with funds]. If the option is ""out of money"" it expires and you loose the premium you paid to exercise the option." 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. It's an artifact of risk-neutral pricing, but the intuition is this:  A call option can be viewed as a levered equity position - meaning, you can get the same exposure by borrowing money and buying the stock.    Say you can buy some call options for $150 with a position delta of 1 (so it looks just like the stock).  You could also buy the stock outright for $1000 (by borrowing $850 at the risk-free rate and using your $150 cash).  If the risk-free rate rises, your cost of carry on the stock position increases.  In the case of the call option, the change in price can be viewed as the cost of *leverage* increasing. There is such a thing as a buy-write, which is buying a stock and writing a (covered) call simultaneously. But as far as I know brokers charge two commissions, one stock trade and one options trade so you're not going to save on commissions. The different levels are somewhat related to levels of risk. Writing a covered call is pretty low risk, in the sense that if I buy the stock but sell a call, I now have a lower cost for the stock, and however low the stock drops, I'm still slightly better off than the regular stock buyer. Covered call writing is often used to generate premium income from a stock portfolio, and less as a tool for speculation. Buying a call or put is simpler in execution, but the risk of losing the entire amount spent (I actually avoid the word invested here) due to leverage involved isn't just a possibility — it can be pretty likely depending on the strike price. Put writing and uncovered (naked) call writing can entail even higher risk relative to the premium received — consider extreme moves in the underlying to understand the potential losses involved. The more sophisticated trades are presumed to take a bit more experience and tolerance for risk and each broker has its own set of criteria to allow the client to trade at each level. If I sell a covered call, on stock I own 100%, there is no risk of a margin call. The stock goes to zero, I'm still not ask to send in more money. But, if bought on margin, margin rules apply.  A naked put would require you to be able to buy the stock if put to you. As the price of the stock drops, you still need to be able to buy it at the put strike price.  Mark to market is just an expression describing how your positions are considered each day. The strategy has intrinsic value, which may or may not be obstructed in practice by details mentioned in other answers (tax and other overheads, regulation, risk). John Bensin says that as a general principle, if a simple technical analysis is good then someone will have implemented it before you. That's fair, but we can do better than an existence proof for this particular case, we can point to who is doing approximately this. Market makers are already doing this with different numbers. They quote a buy price and a sell price on the same stock, so they are already buying low and selling high with a small margin. If your strategy works in practice, that means you can make low-risk money from short-term volatility that they're missing out on, by setting your margin at approximately the daily price variation instead of the current bid-offer spread. But market makers choose their own bid-offer spread, and they choose it because they think it's the best margin to make low-risk money in the long run. So you'd be relying that: I'm sorry, but your math is wrong.  You are not equally likely to make as much money by waiting for expiration. Share prices are moving constantly in both directions.  Very rarely does any stock go either straight up or straight down.  Consider a stock with a share price of $12 today.  Perhaps that stock is a bad buy, and in 1 month's time it will be down to $10.  But the market hasn't quite wised up to this yet, and over the next week it rallies up to $15. If you bought a European option (let's say an at-the-money call, expiring in 1 month, at $12 on our start date), then you lost.  Your option expired worthless. If you bought an American option, you could have exercised it when the share price was at $15 and made a nice profit. Keep in mind we are talking about exactly the same stock, with exactly the same history, over exactly the same time period.  The only difference is the option contract.  The American option could have made you money, if you exercised it at any time during the rally, but not the European option - you would have been forced to hold onto it for a month and finally let it expire worthless. (Of course that's not strictly true, since the European option itself can be sold while it is in the money - but eventually, somebody is going to end up holding the bag, nobody can exercise it until expiration.) The difference between an American and European option is the difference between getting N chances to get it right (N being the number of days 'til expiration) and getting just one chance.  It should be easy to see why you're more likely to profit with the former, even if you can't accurately predict price movement. Yes. There are levels of option trading permission. For example, I've never set myself up for naked put writing.  But, if you already have the call spread, buying back the shorted call will leave you with a long call. This wouldn't be an issue. As long as you have the cash/margin to buy back that higher strike call. In the scenario you describe, and really, in any scenario, by the nature of how option contracts work: a higher strike put will necessarily be more expensive than the lower strike put (everything else being equal). the lower strike call will necessarily be more expensive than the higher strike call (everything else being equal). In put options, the buyer has the right to sell stock for the strike price. So the higher the strike price, the more money the buyer of the put option can make by selling the shares of stock at a higher price. In call options, it's the exact opposite: buyers of the call option have the right to buy stock at the strike price. The lower the strike price, the better for the buyer: they have the right to buy stock for a lower amount of money. So it must be worth more. "The two dimensions are to open the trade (creating a position) and to buy or sell (becoming long or short the option). If you already own an option, you bought it to open and then you would sell it to close. If you don't own an option, you can either buy it to open, or sell it (short it) to open. If you are already short an option, you can buy it back to close. If you sell to open covered, the point is you're creating a ""covered call"" which means you own the stock, and then sell a call. Since you own the stock, the covered call has a lot of the risk of loss removed, though it also subtracts much of the reward possible from your stock." Looking at the SPY option chain you posted, all of the call options with a strike price of 199.50 or higher have a bid of N/A.  That's because the ask price for all of those options is 0.01, and the bid price has to be less than the ask price, but buyers are not allowed to bid 0.00.  It's not accurate to say that no one wants to buy those calls - anyone who wanted to buy one of those calls would just buy it at the ask price of 0.01. So why are people selling those calls for just 0.01?  The further out of the money you go as you get closer to expiration, the less likely the underlying stock or ETF (SPY in this case) will go over the strike price, and the less you can sell it for.  SPY closed yesterday at about 195, and it would have to go up almost 2.5% today for the 199.50 calls to be in the money, and a 2.5% move in one day is extremely unlikely. I would argue: Because the company only offers you this if it can make money from it. What you are basically doing is betting against the company. "A ""covered put"" of the form of being short, and buying at the strike price if the ""put ... is put"" (excercise), is off the table simply because you can't do shorts in the retirement account. Even if you feel you ""win"" the argument that you're hedged by being short, any broker can say, ""we simply forbid shorts"" and that's that. A ""covered put"" of the form of posting the cash, and spending it to buy at the strike price if the ""put ... is put"" (excercise), might be forbidden by brokerages because, frankly, how do you account for the ""dedicated"" cash? Is it locked down like margin is, or escrow, or what? I don't know offhand how I would address that in my very own firm. Thus, any broker could say, ""we forbid it"" and that's that. The other answers are very interesting in conjunction with this. JoeTaxpayer says, very paraphrased, 'just cuz it's legal doesn't mean we have to offer it.' Jaydles says (again, completely paraphrasing), 'complex stuff for a safe little retirement savings account;' 'difficult to administer' (as I said, how do you account for it); and 'tradition' So maybe look at Scott, per Thorn's answer, LOL. It appears that you can shop around on this issue."