You don't see any noticeable difference in the table I posted above ? BTW, the risk
@BornToFly is trying to manage, is not getting income in 2025. You are thinking of other risks (like lower cap appreciation). Different objectives.
No. I don't see much of a difference. Net net, -450C gets you +10 after 450 while -420 & 400/420 gets you +20 at 420 which diminishes as it goes further out from 420 down to $0 at 400/440. Between 440 and 450, the -450C begins to win more and more, up to +10 at 450. These are miniscule figures. And if it proves anything, it's that -450CC is better the higher the stock goes, which is the
very same risk you're trying to mitigate.
How is selling 420CC and buy 400/420 going to solve "not getting income in 2025" more effectively than selling 450CC if the stock goes to 500?
At 500, you will have an
$80 ITM CC and
$30 in cash while I will have a
$50 ITM CC with
$10 in cash. You have $20 more than me so you've achieved your objective, right? As long as we're both rolling our CC, who care how deep you are vs how deep I am, right? A lot of people think like you, as long as they get their cash they're happy, despite having their ITM CCs in a much worse position.
But watch this: what if I roll that -450CC I have down to -420C at that point? Suddenly I'll also have an $80 ITM CC,
same as you, and
$40 in cash ($10 from before and $30 from rolling 450 down to 420)
So at that point, whatever you decide to do with your -420CC, I can also do with my -420CC, but I will have $10 more than you for every share I own.
The ultimate objective should be to grow your account. If I can grow my account $10 per share more than you, I win. This is not about income or cap appreciation. Income is only truly income when you get it as an extra.
If you give up $30 in share value in exchange for $20 in cash, that's a losing trade, not income.