why selling an option because the “stock will never get there” is amateur vol thinking
In stepping through an oil put trade, I wrote:
As a junior trader I remember selling calls because “it’ll never get there”. I promise you there are many people who think like that. They don’t understand vol trading.
A reader asked:
What’s wrong with selling OOM call options if vol is too rich? If it’s priced as a 1/100 event and it’s closer to 1/1000…that’s a good sale.
For example, it talks about people being in the top 5% of income or wealth being disappointed and you'd be better off having going in with lower expectations.
When I think the harsh but true reality is being in top 5% when you measure against the whole population just...
isn't that special.
When I was a kid rich was like Robin Leach stuff. It felt totally unattainable. And you know what it, it is. Rich as defined by its day is unattainable.
Of course someone will say "actually it is attainable" and my argument is...
Yesterday I unlocked a paid post that might have broad appeal
a deeper understanding of vertical spreads
thread version...
In part 1, we tackled a common problem without the use of an option model:
Assume SPY volatility is 16% and we want to hedge using a 1-year put.
2 questions emerge
✔️What strike is 1 standard deviation down?
✔️What’s the cost of that put?
Let's start by estimating the 1 s.d. OTM put value.
Steps:
1. Estimate 1 s.d. OTM strike. 2. Estimate ATM straddle to find the value of the ATM put. 3. Estimate ATM/1 SD put spread. 4. ATM put - put spread = 1 s.d. OTM put
A thread zooming in on a section of today's moontower...how arbitrage pricing creates opportunities for directional investors
it starts with a reader question about a common source of confusion -- why cheaper OTM calls (ie lower call skew) leads to more expensive call spreads and a higher probability of the stock going up
my response:
distribution is like a sculpture — the volatility skew moves some clay from the right tail to the left tail, and shifts the whole sculpture rightwards a smidge.
Thinking a bit about how certain fields and crafts and the extent to which the intensity of the enabling technology acts as a career or skill shock absorber...to be more concrete I was thinking about writing vs other fields...
STEM fields even if you stay in the theoretical force you to learn programming. If you make movies, music, photography there's an aspect of technical + technology that comes with the territory even if it's not the focus
(writing can be a technical craft of course it's just that the enabling tools are not themselves technology intense)
Facility with technology (the longest lever and highly defining theme of modernity impacting absolutely everything) has been key to adapting...