With all the talk about LEAPs, I started to realize I am under leveraged for a upward move. But with LEAP prices being so capital intensive, I wanted to look at alternatives with unlimited upside potential. That's when synthetic long positions caught my eye. Basically, you buy a call and sell a put at the same strike and expiration. They have the same risk/reward profile as stock, at a fraction of the cost of stock or LEAPs. The downside is the margin requirement, as well as more risk that the LEAP (but equal to stock).
I looked at the closest strike to the current ATM, $730 at the Mar 2023 expiration and compared stock, the LEAP, and the synthetic long positions. (Note, if you increased the strikes to $750, this would be a net credit). My prediction at expiry in Mar 2023 is $1,406 (conservative)
View attachment 706034
If one had excess unused margin, and had a bullish thesis, this seems like a good option. I am I missing something here? Does anyone have thoughts on the pros/cons of the synthetic long vs the LEAP?
Well... comparing the Synthetic Long and LEAP... you're using about an extra $50K of margin. If you sold 5 weekly $100 put spreads with that margin, for a pretty conservative $2 premium each (could easily be more if the stock is doubling in that time frame) it adds to $1000 a week from the margin, so over a year and a half (assuming you can execute) it would add up to more than any of the entries on your chart -- especially if you use the proceeds along the way. While you could potentially sell covered calls against the call in the synthetic long, that seems like a much trickier game if the stock price is doubling in the same time frame; I don't know how to estimate those proceeds. But any of this involves a lot of time spent managing weekly options, versus the more fire-and-forget methods you discussed.
All of which is to say, locking away a lot of margin to me is not a no-brainer, but might make sense if you don't want to actively work with it.