Is a naked put really that risky
"So, yes, you may be having the inevitable epiphany where you realize that options can synthetically replicate the same risk profile of owning stock outright. Allowing you to manipulate risk and circumvent margin requirement differences amongst asset classes. Naked short puts are analogous to a covered call, but may have different (lesser) margin requirements. This allows you to increase your risk, and the broker has to account for that. The broker's clientele might not understand all the risks associated with that much leverage and so may simply consider it risky ""for your protection"""
"It's talked about quite often among more experienced investors. They were/ are used extensively by hedge funds.  Keep in mind that if your option expires when not ""in the money"" you lose the premium you paid for the purchase of the option. That's where the risk comes in.  I've grown really interested in options over the last couple months. Check out McMillan's Guide to Options. It's generally thought of as the quintessential beginners guide to understanding options.  Good luck!" Purchasing an option to sell the stock is probably the safest bet. This gives you reasonable leverage, and your risk is limited to the cost of the option. Say the stock currently sells for $100 per share. You think it will drop to $80 per share in the next two weeks and the market thinks the price will be stable. Now, consider an option to sell one share of that stock for $95 any time within the next two weeks. The market would consider that option nearly worthless, since in all likelihood, you would lose out by exercising it (since you could just sell the share on the market for a price expected to be higher than that). You might be able to acquire that option for $5. Now, say you're right and within two weeks, the price drops to $80. Now you can purchase a share for $80, exercise the option to sell it for $95, and pocket $15. That would make you a $10 profit on a $5 investment. If you're wrong, you just let the option lapse and are out $5. No problem. In reality, you would buy a number of such options. And you wouldn't actually buy a share and exercise the option, you would just sell the option back to its issuer for $15. 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. "It is not clear to me why you believe you can lose more than you put in, without margin. It is difficult and the chances are virtually nil. However, I can think of a few ways. Lets say you are an American, and deposit $1000. Now lets say you think the Indian rupee is going to devalue relative to the Euro. So that means you want to go long EURINR. Going long EURINR, without margin, is still different than converting your INRs into Euros. Assume USDINR = 72. Whats actually happening is your broker is taking out a 72,000 rupee loan, and using it to buy Euros, with your $1000 acting as collateral. You will need to pay interest on this loan (about 7% annualized if I remember correctly). You will earn interest on the Euros you hold in the meantime (for simplicity lets say its 1%). The difference between interest you earn and interest you pay is called the cost of carry, or commonly referred to as 'swap'. So your annualized cost of carry is $60 ($10-$70). Lets say you have this position open for 1 year, and the exchange rate doesnt move. Your total equity is $940. Now lets say an asteroid destroys all of Europe, your Euros instantly become worthless. You now must repay the rupee loan to close the trade, the cost of which is $1000 but you only have $940 in your account. You have lost more than you deposited, using ""no margin"". I would actually say that all buying and selling of currency pairs is inherently using margin, because they all involve a short sale. I do note that depending on your broker, you can convert to another currency. But thats not what forex traders do most of the time." When you buy a stock, the worst case scenario is that it drops to 0.  Therefore, the most you can lose when buying a stock is 100% of your investment. When you short a stock, however, there's no limit on how high the stock can go.  If you short a stock at 10, and it goes up to 30, then you've lost 200% on your investment.  Therefore shorting stocks is riskier than buying stocks, since you can lose more than 100% of your investment when shorting. because the price might go up, but it will never be as big of a change as a regular price drop i suppose... That is not true.  Stocks can sometimes go up significantly (50-100% or more) in a very short amount of time on a positive news release (such as an earnings or a buyout announcement).  A famous example occurred in 2008, when Volkswagen stock quintupled (went up 400%) in less than 2 days on some corporate news: Porsche, for some reason, wants to control Volkswagen, and by building up its stake has driven up the price. Hedge funds, figuring the share price would fall as soon as Porsche got control and stopped buying, sold a lot of VW shares short. Then last weekend, Porsche disclosed that it owned 42.6 percent of the stock and had acquired options for another 31.5 percent. It said it wanted to go to 75 percent. The result: instant short-squeeze. The German state of Lower Saxony owns a 20 percent stake in VW, which it said it would not sell. That left precious few shares available for anyone else. The shorts scrambled to cover, and the price leaped from about €200, or about $265, to above €1,000. To add to this, that risk is really only a problem if you don't have the cash flow to service the debt. If the surplus dips but your ultimately profitable on whatever trade you made, you're okay. If you default, you're not okay.  Volitility relative to loan term effectively. "You have already indicted in another question, titled Which risk did I take winning this much?, that you did not understand (1) Why a previous trade made you as much money as it did; nor (2) How much you could have lost if things went a different way. You were, in that other question, talking about taking short position, without understanding (apparently) that a short position can create losses exceeding the value of your initial investment. Can one make money doing day trading? Yes, an educated investor may be able to prudently invest in short term positions making knowledgeable judgments about risk, and still make money. Can you make money doing day trading? Well, maybe. You have in the past, in what you described in a previous post as ""winning"". So even in your own eyes, you were effectively gambling, and got lucky. Perhaps the more relevant questions you can ask yourself are: Can you lose money doing day trading? And, most importantly, Are you more likely to lose money day trading, or consistently make money by taking on reasonable and educated risks?" "A derivative contract can be an option, and you can take a short (sell) position , much the same way you would in a stock. When BUYING options you risk only the money you put in. However when selling naked(you don't have the securities or cash to cover all potential losses) options, you are borrowing. Brokers force you to maintain a required amount of cash called, a maintenance requirement. When selling naked calls - theoretically you are able to lose an INFINITE amount of money, so in order to sell this type of options you have to maintain a certain level of cash in your account. If you fail to maintain this level you will enter into whats often referred to as a ""margin-call"". And yes they will call your phone and tell you :). Your broker has the right to liquidate your positions in order to meet requirements. PS: From experience my broker has never liquidated any of my holdings, but then again I've never been in a margin call for longer then a few days and never with a severe amount. The margin requirement for investors is regulated and brokers follow these regulations." "There are (at least) two problems with the argument suggested in the OP. First, the ability to cover the cost, doesn't mean willingness, ease, or no major side effects of doing so. Second is the mitigation of ""upside risk"". It might be true that the most usual loss is small and manageable, but 10% of incidents could be considerably larger and 1% may be very much larger - without limit.  Your own attitude to risk and loss will determine how much these are seen as unlikely+ignore, or worst case situation+avoid." Well, let me take your question for baremetal, and aknowledge you did not asked about the difference between daytrading and investing which is obviously leverage. I would not consider daytrading more risky as long as you keep leverageout of the equation.  Daytrading can be turbolent and confusing, where things unfold in a very short amount of time, (let trade nfp payroll or some breaking event, yay), eventually the risk is more overseeable in long term trading, as soon as you put leverage into the equation things look vary different, indeed. You can do some very crafty hedging with the variety of options.  For instance, deep out of the money options are affected more by changes of market volatility, knowing this you can get long or short vega very easily, as opposed to necessarily betting on changes in the underlying asset. 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. Conceptually, yes, you need to worry about it.  As a practical matter, it's less likely to be exercised until expiry or shortly prior. The way to think about paying a European option is: [Odds of paying out] = [odds that strike is in the money at expiry] Whereas the American option can be thought of as: [Odds of paying out] = [odds that strike price is in the money at expiry] + ( [odds that strike price is in the money prior to expiry] * [odds that other party will exercise early] ). This is just a heuristic, not a formal financial tool.  But the point is that you need to consider the odds that it will go into the money early, for how long (maybe over multiple periods), and how likely the counterparty is to exercise early. Important considerations for whether they will exercise early are the strategy of the other side (long, straddle, quick turnaround), the length of time the option is in the money early, and the anticipated future movement. A quick buck strategy might exercise immediately before the stock turns around.  But that could leave further gains on the table, so it's usually best to wait unless the expectation is that the stock will quickly reverse its movement.  This sort of counter-market strategy is generally unlikely from someone who bought the option at a certain strike, and is equivalent to betting against their original purchase of the option.  So most of these people will wait because they expect the possibility of a bigger payoff. A long strategy is usually in no hurry to exercise, and in fact they would prefer to wait until the end to hold the time value of the option (the choice to get out of the option, if it goes back to being unprofitable).  So it usually makes little sense for these people to exercise early.  The same goes for a straddle, if someone is buying an option for insurance or to economically exit a position. So you're really just concerned that people will exercise early and forgo the time value of the American option.  That may include people who really want to close a position, take their money, and move on.  In some cases, it may include people who have become overextended or need liquidity, so they close positions.  But for the most part, it's less likely to happen until the expiration approaches because it leaves potential value on the table.  The time value of an option dwindles at the end because the implicit option becomes less likely, especially if the option is fairly deep in the money (the implicit option is then fairly deep out of the money). So early exercise becomes more meaningful concern as the expiration approaches.  Otherwise, it's usually less worrisome but more than a nonzero proposition. "You are likely making an assumption that the ""Short call"" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or ""write"") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example." Understanding the BS equation is not needed. What is needed is an understanding of the bell curve.   You seem to understand volatility. 68% of the time an event will fall inside one standard deviation. 16% of the time it will be higher, 16%, lower.  Now, if my $100 stock has a STD of $10, there's a 16% chance it will trade above $110. But if the STD is $5, the chance is 2.3% per the chart below. The higher volatility makes the option more valuable as there's a highr chance of it being 'in the money.' My answer is an over simplification, per your request.