You lose time value on the spead you have faster than the one you are rolling to does. So less credit to use in finding a replacement position.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Wiki Selling TSLA Options - Be the House
- Thread starter adiggs
- Start date
I can't remember your positions now. But you want to roll before getting ITM if possible, and the SP can drop more between now and Friday. If ITM, you need to roll the short leg while there is still time value or risk assignment before Friday, but High IV could protect you from early assignment as well.
Roth Conversion generates taxable ordinary income which could offset short-term capital gains which are treated as ordinary income. How it might offset long-term capital gains depends on your overall situation.
Wow, what a day! On the one hand, I'm glad I typed up that list of ways to manage positions, because I feel like I used about half of them today. On the other, I learned that I was too heavily in naked puts and BPS with 100-200 wide spreads (30% of my account in those was too much for this kind of move). Lots of practice rolling at least, and I expect I'll have dug myself out by Q4, lol; hopefully we're back to stability and 1100 in 2 weeks. Had to roll or close my ICs as well, down to 880, which hopefully we'll either never visit again, or be back above soon. My 150k of 25% ROIC BSP are all dead, but the BCS on the other side of them did well, and I'm totally ok with those losses. I mostly wish I had been heavier in cash, 50% instead of 35%, something like that. Also kind of shook by the losses in my naked puts; I know they'll recover, but sheesh. One thing I did learn is that a 100 wide spread is superior to a naked put in circumstances like today, even if it goes DITM. I was able to use the credit from the long leg to drastically improve my strike when rolling by increasing the size of the spread to 200 or even 300. Condolences to those who had major realized losses today. Live to fight another day, and fundamentals will eventually win out.
Also, I sort of wish I had posted what I wrote earlier about trying to explain how I see risk before the market today, but I was thinking I'd have plenty of time after 30 minutes of trading to refine it. Did not see today's action coming after Monday's rather meek response. Congrats to those who did well.
Here's a more detailed explanation of my view of risk, if anyone has the patience to read it
. Has anyone else here read the book "Antifragile" by Nassim Taleb? Prof Taleb is an options trader now turned Professor at NYU who called the 2008 crisis and made a boat load of money doing so. He's best known as the guy who wrote the book "The Black Swan" and is a frequent guest writer in national newspapers, etc.
His view of randomness is what's influencing my position, so I guess I should explain it. Could be that I'm wrong, after all, and I'd rather know if I am, especially now that this is almost my entire income.
The term "anti-fragile" is a neologism coined by Dr. Taleb, because there wasn't an actual word in the english language for the something that gets stronger when you hit it. If you ask someone what the opposite of fragile is, they'll say, strong or resilient or something like that. But that's not the opposite of fragile (which he defines as something that gets weaker from volatility); something strong just gets weaker at a slower rate when exposed to volatility, it doesn't get better. His book is about systems that benefit from volatility. The most intuitive example he gives is muscles; they benefit from volatility (exercise) and are harmed by a lack of it (atrophy). Of course, too much volatility will still break them, but just the right amount and they thrive.
What makes a system anti-fragile? Lots of frequent mistakes that are quickly corrected with lots of opportunities for those 99.999999% tail end of the bell curve outsided wins. Infrequent but huge wins make up for any losses, and frequent but small losses prevent any single event from killing the system. Another example he uses is the federal system. There are 50 states, each running 50 different experiments on how exactly to govern and learning from each other. And inside each state are dozens or hundreds of cities and towns, each running their own little experiments. This system has worked well because of the many independent units exposing the whole system to the random good fortune of some to come up with great ideas, and the bad fortune to make mistakes that everyone else can learn from. If your entire system is bound up in a single way of doing things (central planning or federal law taking over), one mistake can bring the whole thing down.
As options traders, I'm sure you'll all be interested in his chapters on antifragile systems for trading options. You'll be disappointed to learn that we're all (myself included) doing the exact inverse of what he recommends. To have a system that benefits from volatility, you need to be exposed to the tail end of the bell curve in a beneficial way. That would mean being long calls in many different small positions in many different stocks. We're only in TSLA. Also, we're all selling rather than buying options. By selling options, we have limited upside, and unless we're in spreads, unlimited risk. So selling options is generally exposing yourself to tail end of the bell curve risk instead of tail end reward, and limiting your exposure to reward (we can only ever make the premium). His recommendation is also to stay mostly in cash, which is stable and gives you optionality to react, at maybe 80% cash and 20% in options (I think he called it a barbell). I'm more like 35% cash and 65% invested. So his strategy is sort of like the one where you buy OTM SPY puts with 1% of your money every month; it seems stupid until it pays off big. Or like venture capital; the one unicorn is all you need.
Why does this work? Because human beings are terrible at predicting the frequency of black swans. We tend to expect tomorrow to be pretty much like today, and that we'll totally see a problem coming. But we seldom do. A Black Swan is an unknown unknown, and they happen much more frequently than we expect they will. Taleb's strategy works because when something is fragile, it's going to break. By definition. You can't know exactly when, and trying to guess is unlikely to work, but fragile things break. Your best bet is to avoid them. This is how he made a bundle in 2008; he knew the big banks were a ticking time bomb, but he couldn't tell when they would implode, so he just bought a bunch of cheap OTM puts on them every week until they did. This also reminds me of EM's argument against fossil fuels; they are an unsustainable resource, so by definition they will eventually run out. Why wait around for that to happen?
So what we're doing by his understanding is the definition of fragile; we take on all of the tail end risk, but cap any possible tail end rewards. Many of us are now in positions where limited upside is just fine, because the limited rewards are more than we could ever make doing anything else (except maybe a tech start up). Obviously I'm fine with that, as I've made a bundle selling options this year; enough to retire early. My concern is that Dr. Taleb is correct, and that we're all severely underestimating the probability of black swan events and anyone in a "safe" position may not be given the opportunity to exit it in a safe manner. His view is that something that is fragile is guaranteed to eventually break and should be avoided. That's why I'm sharing this, not to impinge anyone's trading style or to claim that mine is superior; I'm winging it (and learned a lot today). But I'd feel awful if we went through another black swan event that wiped someone here out and I didn't at least call attention to this way of thinking.
My compromise with chance and attempt to simulate anti-fragility is to make more frequent trades that have an ok chance of success rather than one big trade that has a terrific chance of success 99% of the time but a 1% chance of catastrophic failure, because I believe failure will eventually happen and I'll never see it coming. If I wanted to approximate his plan with my options selling, I'd probably be 95% cash/stock, and 5% risky BPS. My actual plan is sort of a tiered approach, and is still evolving. I'm about 35% in cash. I use 5% on high risk reward plays that I'm ok losing one week or so (my actual rate is 5 losing weeks in the last 6 months, assuming that this week is a loss, but the losing weeks were at or below one average week's gain on that strategy. This week will be an outlier at full loss.). Then 30% on ICs that should bring in 10% to 20% ROIC that will usually be ok, but may need management. Then 30% on naked or super wide (100-200) BPS, which are pretty much acting like shares until I pick up shares again. I really like shares because they're impervious to the sort of craziness that we saw today; no management necessary, just wait. I think that'll be better for me from a lifestyle standpoint, given my 10 year outlook on the company. After today's action, I wish I had been heavier in cash and lighter on "risky" positions like the ICs. On Friday, 950/925 as a lower leg seemed great, 250 points OTM, no way that's ever in danger. Today I'm rolling that leg down and out to 880/855 and am worried about it.
One other huge take away from that book for me was that suppressing volatility (as the Fed has been doing for the last 13 years) leads to bad outcomes, almost invariably. I think this is widely understood, at least from all of the comments I see from people expecting a market crash due to the Fed, but to see the math behind it was... disturbing. So I'm expecting a giant market crash maybe early next year. Hard to time those things of course.
If you're interested in a quick overview of Nassim Taleb, this was a good article:
www.newyorker.com
Also, I sort of wish I had posted what I wrote earlier about trying to explain how I see risk before the market today, but I was thinking I'd have plenty of time after 30 minutes of trading to refine it. Did not see today's action coming after Monday's rather meek response. Congrats to those who did well.
Here's a more detailed explanation of my view of risk, if anyone has the patience to read it
. Has anyone else here read the book "Antifragile" by Nassim Taleb? Prof Taleb is an options trader now turned Professor at NYU who called the 2008 crisis and made a boat load of money doing so. He's best known as the guy who wrote the book "The Black Swan" and is a frequent guest writer in national newspapers, etc.His view of randomness is what's influencing my position, so I guess I should explain it. Could be that I'm wrong, after all, and I'd rather know if I am, especially now that this is almost my entire income.
The term "anti-fragile" is a neologism coined by Dr. Taleb, because there wasn't an actual word in the english language for the something that gets stronger when you hit it. If you ask someone what the opposite of fragile is, they'll say, strong or resilient or something like that. But that's not the opposite of fragile (which he defines as something that gets weaker from volatility); something strong just gets weaker at a slower rate when exposed to volatility, it doesn't get better. His book is about systems that benefit from volatility. The most intuitive example he gives is muscles; they benefit from volatility (exercise) and are harmed by a lack of it (atrophy). Of course, too much volatility will still break them, but just the right amount and they thrive.
What makes a system anti-fragile? Lots of frequent mistakes that are quickly corrected with lots of opportunities for those 99.999999% tail end of the bell curve outsided wins. Infrequent but huge wins make up for any losses, and frequent but small losses prevent any single event from killing the system. Another example he uses is the federal system. There are 50 states, each running 50 different experiments on how exactly to govern and learning from each other. And inside each state are dozens or hundreds of cities and towns, each running their own little experiments. This system has worked well because of the many independent units exposing the whole system to the random good fortune of some to come up with great ideas, and the bad fortune to make mistakes that everyone else can learn from. If your entire system is bound up in a single way of doing things (central planning or federal law taking over), one mistake can bring the whole thing down.
As options traders, I'm sure you'll all be interested in his chapters on antifragile systems for trading options. You'll be disappointed to learn that we're all (myself included) doing the exact inverse of what he recommends. To have a system that benefits from volatility, you need to be exposed to the tail end of the bell curve in a beneficial way. That would mean being long calls in many different small positions in many different stocks. We're only in TSLA. Also, we're all selling rather than buying options. By selling options, we have limited upside, and unless we're in spreads, unlimited risk. So selling options is generally exposing yourself to tail end of the bell curve risk instead of tail end reward, and limiting your exposure to reward (we can only ever make the premium). His recommendation is also to stay mostly in cash, which is stable and gives you optionality to react, at maybe 80% cash and 20% in options (I think he called it a barbell). I'm more like 35% cash and 65% invested. So his strategy is sort of like the one where you buy OTM SPY puts with 1% of your money every month; it seems stupid until it pays off big. Or like venture capital; the one unicorn is all you need.
Why does this work? Because human beings are terrible at predicting the frequency of black swans. We tend to expect tomorrow to be pretty much like today, and that we'll totally see a problem coming. But we seldom do. A Black Swan is an unknown unknown, and they happen much more frequently than we expect they will. Taleb's strategy works because when something is fragile, it's going to break. By definition. You can't know exactly when, and trying to guess is unlikely to work, but fragile things break. Your best bet is to avoid them. This is how he made a bundle in 2008; he knew the big banks were a ticking time bomb, but he couldn't tell when they would implode, so he just bought a bunch of cheap OTM puts on them every week until they did. This also reminds me of EM's argument against fossil fuels; they are an unsustainable resource, so by definition they will eventually run out. Why wait around for that to happen?
So what we're doing by his understanding is the definition of fragile; we take on all of the tail end risk, but cap any possible tail end rewards. Many of us are now in positions where limited upside is just fine, because the limited rewards are more than we could ever make doing anything else (except maybe a tech start up). Obviously I'm fine with that, as I've made a bundle selling options this year; enough to retire early. My concern is that Dr. Taleb is correct, and that we're all severely underestimating the probability of black swan events and anyone in a "safe" position may not be given the opportunity to exit it in a safe manner. His view is that something that is fragile is guaranteed to eventually break and should be avoided. That's why I'm sharing this, not to impinge anyone's trading style or to claim that mine is superior; I'm winging it (and learned a lot today). But I'd feel awful if we went through another black swan event that wiped someone here out and I didn't at least call attention to this way of thinking.
My compromise with chance and attempt to simulate anti-fragility is to make more frequent trades that have an ok chance of success rather than one big trade that has a terrific chance of success 99% of the time but a 1% chance of catastrophic failure, because I believe failure will eventually happen and I'll never see it coming. If I wanted to approximate his plan with my options selling, I'd probably be 95% cash/stock, and 5% risky BPS. My actual plan is sort of a tiered approach, and is still evolving. I'm about 35% in cash. I use 5% on high risk reward plays that I'm ok losing one week or so (my actual rate is 5 losing weeks in the last 6 months, assuming that this week is a loss, but the losing weeks were at or below one average week's gain on that strategy. This week will be an outlier at full loss.). Then 30% on ICs that should bring in 10% to 20% ROIC that will usually be ok, but may need management. Then 30% on naked or super wide (100-200) BPS, which are pretty much acting like shares until I pick up shares again. I really like shares because they're impervious to the sort of craziness that we saw today; no management necessary, just wait. I think that'll be better for me from a lifestyle standpoint, given my 10 year outlook on the company. After today's action, I wish I had been heavier in cash and lighter on "risky" positions like the ICs. On Friday, 950/925 as a lower leg seemed great, 250 points OTM, no way that's ever in danger. Today I'm rolling that leg down and out to 880/855 and am worried about it.
One other huge take away from that book for me was that suppressing volatility (as the Fed has been doing for the last 13 years) leads to bad outcomes, almost invariably. I think this is widely understood, at least from all of the comments I see from people expecting a market crash due to the Fed, but to see the math behind it was... disturbing. So I'm expecting a giant market crash maybe early next year. Hard to time those things of course.
If you're interested in a quick overview of Nassim Taleb, this was a good article:
The Pandemic Isn’t a Black Swan but a Portent of a More Fragile Global System
Nassim Nicholas Taleb coined the term “black swan.” He is frustrated whenever it is used to describe the coronavirus crisis.
Last edited:
Rolled my 11/5 -p1010/+p810 down to 11/12 -p970/+p770 for 4.5 additional credit when SP was about 1020. This was my first roll down and out and was very happy with the result, thanks to adiggs and BornToFly for the 200 wide BPS education.
I was in the -p1010/+p810 due to a double dip, my first trade this week (-p870/+p670) was way OTM (delta 0.04) and quickly GTCd. Might have needed less Mylanta if I had stuck with a delta 0.06 for a better first dip premium.
Best nugget of the day for me, avoid double dipping.
I was in the -p1010/+p810 due to a double dip, my first trade this week (-p870/+p670) was way OTM (delta 0.04) and quickly GTCd. Might have needed less Mylanta if I had stuck with a delta 0.06 for a better first dip premium.
Thank you for taking the time to write that.Wow, what a day! On the one hand, I'm glad I typed up that list of ways to manage positions, because I feel like I used about half of them today. On the other, I learned that I was too heavily in naked puts and BPS with 100-200 wide spreads (30% of my account in those was too much for this kind of move). Lots of practice rolling at least, and I expect I'll have dug myself out by Q4, lol; hopefully we're back to stability and 1100 in 2 weeks. Had to roll or close my ICs as well, down to 880, which hopefully we'll either never visit again, or be back above soon. My 150k of 25% ROIC BSP are all dead, but the BCS on the other side of them did well, and I'm totally ok with those losses. I mostly wish I had been heavier in cash, 50% instead of 35%, something like that. Also kind of shook by the losses in my naked puts; I know they'll recover, but sheesh. One thing I did learn is that a 100 wide spread is superior to a naked put in circumstances like today, even if it goes DITM. I was able to use the credit from the long leg to drastically improve my strike when rolling by increasing the size of the spread to 200 or even 300. Condolences to those who had major realized losses today. Live to fight another day, and fundamentals will eventually win out.
Also, I sort of wish I had posted what I wrote earlier about trying to explain how I see risk before the market today, but I was thinking I'd have plenty of time after 30 minutes of trading to refine it. Did not see today's action coming after Monday's rather meek response. Congrats to those who did well.
Here's a more detailed explanation of my view of risk, if anyone has the patience to read it
His view of randomness is what's influencing my position, so I guess I should explain it. Could be that I'm wrong, after all, and I'd rather know if I am, especially now that this is almost my entire income.
The term "anti-fragile" is a neologism coined by Dr. Taleb, because there wasn't an actual word in the english language for the something that gets stronger when you hit it. If you ask someone what the opposite of fragile is, they'll say, strong or resilient or something like that. But that's not the opposite of fragile (which he defines as something that gets weaker from volatility); something strong just gets weaker at a slower rate when exposed to volatility, it doesn't get better. His book is about systems that benefit from volatility. The most intuitive example he gives is muscles; they benefit from volatility (exercise) and are harmed by a lack of it (atrophy). Of course, too much volatility will still break them, but just the right amount and they thrive.
What makes a system anti-fragile? Lots of frequent mistakes that are quickly corrected with lots of opportunities for those 99.999999% tail end of the bell curve outsided wins. Infrequent but huge wins make up for any losses, and frequent but small losses prevent any single event from killing the system. Another example he uses is the federal system. There are 50 states, each running 50 different experiments on how exactly to govern and learning from each other. And inside each state are dozens or hundreds of cities and towns, each running their own little experiments. This system has worked well because of the many independent units exposing the whole system to the random good fortune of some to come up with great ideas, and the bad fortune to make mistakes that everyone else can learn from. If your entire system is bound up in a single way of doing things (central planning or federal law taking over), one mistake can bring the whole thing down.
As options traders, I'm sure you'll all be interested in his chapters on antifragile systems for trading options. You'll be disappointed to learn that we're all (myself included) doing the exact inverse of what he recommends. To have a system that benefits from volatility, you need to be exposed to the tail end of the bell curve in a beneficial way. That would mean being long calls in many different small positions in many different stocks. We're only in TSLA. Also, we're all selling rather than buying options. By selling options, we have limited upside, and unless we're in spreads, unlimited risk. So selling options is generally exposing yourself to tail end of the bell curve risk instead of tail end reward, and limiting your exposure to reward (we can only ever make the premium). His recommendation is also to stay mostly in cash, which is stable and gives you optionality to react, at maybe 80% cash and 20% in options (I think he called it a barbell). I'm more like 35% cash and 65% invested. So his strategy is sort of like the one where you buy OTM SPY puts with 1% of your money every month; it seems stupid until it pays off big. Or like venture capital; the one unicorn is all you need.
Why does this work? Because human beings are terrible at predicting the frequency of black swans. We tend to expect tomorrow to be pretty much like today, and that we'll totally see a problem coming. But we seldom do. A Black Swan is an unknown unknown, and they happen much more frequently than we expect they will. Taleb's strategy works because when something is fragile, it's going to break. By definition. You can't know exactly when, and trying to guess is unlikely to work, but fragile things break. Your best bet is to avoid them. This is how he made a bundle in 2008; he knew the big banks were a ticking time bomb, but he couldn't tell when they would implode, so he just bought a bunch of cheap OTM puts on them every week until they did. This also reminds me of EM's argument against fossil fuels; they are an unsustainable resource, so by definition they will eventually run out. Why wait around for that to happen?
So what we're doing by his understanding is the definition of fragile; we take on all of the tail end risk, but cap any possible tail end rewards. Many of us are now in positions where limited upside is just fine, because the limited rewards are more than we could ever make doing anything else (except maybe a tech start up). Obviously I'm fine with that, as I've made a bundle selling options this year; enough to retire early. My concern is that Dr. Taleb is correct, and that we're all severely underestimating the probability of black swan events and anyone in a "safe" position may not be given the opportunity to exit it in a safe manner. His view is that something that is fragile is guaranteed to eventually break and should be avoided. That's why I'm sharing this, not to impinge anyone's trading style or to claim that mine is superior; I'm winging it (and learned a lot today). But I'd feel awful if we went through another black swan event that wiped someone here out and I didn't at least call attention to this way of thinking.
My compromise with chance and attempt to simulate anti-fragility is to make more frequent trades that have an ok chance of success rather than one big trade that has a terrific chance of success 99% of the time but a 1% chance of catastrophic failure, because I believe failure will eventually happen and I'll never see it coming. My actual plan is sort of a tiered approach, and is still evolving. I use 5% on high risk reward plays that I'm ok losing one week or so (my actual rate is 5 losing weeks in the last 6 months, assuming that this week is a loss, but the losing weeks were at or below one average week's gain on that strategy. This week will be an outlier at full loss.). Then 30% on ICs that should bring in 10% to 20% ROIC that will usually be ok, but may need management. Then 30% on naked or super wide (100-200) BPS, which are pretty much acting like shares until I pick up shares again. I really like shares because they're impervious to the sort of craziness that we saw today; no management necessary, just wait. I think that'll be better for me from a lifestyle standpoint, given my 10 year outlook on the company. After today's action, I wish I had been heavier in cash and lighter on "risky" positions like the ICs. On Friday, 950/925 as a lower leg seemed great, 250 points OTM, no way that's ever in danger. Today I'm rolling that leg down and out to 880/855 and am worried about it.
One other huge take away from that book for me was that suppressing volatility (as the Fed has been doing for the last 13 years) leads to bad outcomes, almost invariably. I think this is widely understood, at least from all of the comments I see from people expecting a market crash due to the Fed, but to see the math behind it was... disturbing. So I'm expecting a giant market crash maybe early next year. Hard to time those things of course.
If you're interested in a quick overview of Nassim Taleb, this was a good article:
The Pandemic Isn’t a Black Swan but a Portent of a More Fragile Global System
Nassim Nicholas Taleb coined the term “black swan.” He is frustrated whenever it is used to describe the coronavirus crisis.
The only thing I want to point out to a less experience person is that turning a $100 spread to a $300 spread helps with rolling, but you need 3X margin available in order to use that strategy. Many of us are flying too close to the sun with our margin to be able to suddenly deploy 3X the amount, and are trapped once we pick a spread size and the number of contracts to go with it.
ChefBoyardee
Member
Sharing some ITM rolling decisions in case it helps anyone:
The bad move:
Selling 10x 1140/1100 weekly put spreads on Monday
The adjustments:
- Converted to 10x 1050/1010 for this week and 10x 1000/950 for next week for 0 credit (not feeling great about the 1050’s but wanted to catch the rebound if we get one tomorrow)
- Sold some 800/750 P for next week and 1150/1160 C for this week to bring in some premium in case I need to roll at a debit
If it keeps dropping:
- Will attempt to double down at lower strikes one more time (with more margin and narrower spreads) with the goal of getting the strike as low as possible, ideally below 880
If it keeps dropping further
- I’ll roll them out in time far enough for the trend line to catch up, something like feb 2022
Thank god it was a small ish position to start with though, ITM put spreads are no joke
The bad move:
Selling 10x 1140/1100 weekly put spreads on Monday
The adjustments:
- Converted to 10x 1050/1010 for this week and 10x 1000/950 for next week for 0 credit (not feeling great about the 1050’s but wanted to catch the rebound if we get one tomorrow)
- Sold some 800/750 P for next week and 1150/1160 C for this week to bring in some premium in case I need to roll at a debit
If it keeps dropping:
- Will attempt to double down at lower strikes one more time (with more margin and narrower spreads) with the goal of getting the strike as low as possible, ideally below 880
If it keeps dropping further
- I’ll roll them out in time far enough for the trend line to catch up, something like feb 2022
Thank god it was a small ish position to start with though, ITM put spreads are no joke
I have some BPS -780/+680 and -750/+650 for this week, not sure if I should just roll to next week for same/lower strike to take some credit while IV is high at the moment?
After the news of Elon's selling, I was thinking Monday would be a blood bath and if luckily not, I would sell my shares if it hit 1200 on Monday (max was only around 1196). Then I was thinking to sell today during pre-market/open if it hits 1200. Well, turns out today is a blood bath and no way back. (to look back, I feel dumb not selling on Monday. When SP > 1200, Elon said there is no contract being signed with Hertz. And during weekend, Elon's tweet about selling shares and SP was also > 1200)
If there is a bounce on Wednesday, not sure if it's still wise to sell if it hit 1100.
After the news of Elon's selling, I was thinking Monday would be a blood bath and if luckily not, I would sell my shares if it hit 1200 on Monday (max was only around 1196). Then I was thinking to sell today during pre-market/open if it hits 1200. Well, turns out today is a blood bath and no way back. (to look back, I feel dumb not selling on Monday. When SP > 1200, Elon said there is no contract being signed with Hertz. And during weekend, Elon's tweet about selling shares and SP was also > 1200)
If there is a bounce on Wednesday, not sure if it's still wise to sell if it hit 1100.
Last edited:
It's so easy to predict the best time to sell when it's in the past, we all do it and then all scratch our heads as to why we didn't sell, it was obvious, no?
One of my learnings over the last year is to take profits, close positions earlier than you would, take the cash off the table, open a new position - this realises some gains and de-risks overall. You could argue I did this too early by selling 2000 shares at $770, back in September, but as I then bought 40x c600's, which went up in value way faster than the stock, which I then rolled into c1000's, again taking profits, but keeping the upside exposure
Of course I should have sold those c1000's last week for $800k gains, but was holding out for $1M, dumb-ass that I am!
Last edited:
I’m trying to understand what happens to my -900/+700 BPS in the last minutes of trading. On Monday, and again Tuesday, the value of the BPS dropped significantly in the last minutes before close.
Monday by nearly 50%, yesterday by about 20%.
For example, on Monday it was trading for >$1 going into the close, and closed at $0.5. At open, it immediately traded at >$1 again (and then shat the bed up to $4.9 or so for the day).
Toward the end of the day it was trading well over >$3, and then closed at $2.x (sorry, can’t see the print at the moment).
Edit: now I can see the print, back to $4.95 this morning.
What are the mechanisms for this? Any assistance to help me understand is much appreciated.
Monday by nearly 50%, yesterday by about 20%.
For example, on Monday it was trading for >$1 going into the close, and closed at $0.5. At open, it immediately traded at >$1 again (and then shat the bed up to $4.9 or so for the day).
Toward the end of the day it was trading well over >$3, and then closed at $2.x (sorry, can’t see the print at the moment).
Edit: now I can see the print, back to $4.95 this morning.
What are the mechanisms for this? Any assistance to help me understand is much appreciated.
Last edited:
This might be idiotic. I'm trying to roll these out in the future, I can give the share price an opportunity to bounce back for Q4 then maybe I can salvage this. I just need them to expire worthless.
My rationale is that they just go to max loss anyway, whether it's this week vs next year, though please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm thinking, the benefit of rolling it far out is that my losses are capped already.
I inputted these just now about 7 hours before the market opens. I don't know if the orders will go through or not but I guess it's all I got.
New position:
Rolling:
1)
11/19/21
BPS 20x 1095/1120
1/21/2022
BPS 20 x 1175/1150
Net credit 0.2.
2)
11/19/21
4 x BPS 1050/1080
4x BPS Jan 21, 2022 1050/1080
net credit 0.15
3)
11/12/21
3 x 1110/1080
2/18/2022
3 x 1150/1180
net debit: 3.75
I see my 11/12 are so deep in the money that I'd have to pay to keep rolling them out.
I figure I pay to keep rolling to February for $1200 now to play the odds rather than take a $6000 loss today.
My rationale is that they just go to max loss anyway, whether it's this week vs next year, though please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm thinking, the benefit of rolling it far out is that my losses are capped already.
I inputted these just now about 7 hours before the market opens. I don't know if the orders will go through or not but I guess it's all I got.
New position:
Rolling:
1)
11/19/21
BPS 20x 1095/1120
1/21/2022
BPS 20 x 1175/1150
Net credit 0.2.
2)
11/19/21
4 x BPS 1050/1080
4x BPS Jan 21, 2022 1050/1080
net credit 0.15
3)
11/12/21
3 x 1110/1080
2/18/2022
3 x 1150/1180
net debit: 3.75
I see my 11/12 are so deep in the money that I'd have to pay to keep rolling them out.
I figure I pay to keep rolling to February for $1200 now to play the odds rather than take a $6000 loss today.
Last edited:
I thought you guys may bookmark
www.ls-tc.de
It is one of the more frequented direct markets in Germany. Trading 7-22h daily (1am-4pm in new York) and also some hours on weekends - Saturday morning and Sunday evening iirc.
Live quotes and everything. And more volume than i.e. Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich, etc. So often indicative of the premarket in the US. As soon an us opens that will dominate - but it is another source of information in addition to i.e. ftx-tokens like TSLA/USDT or so on crypto exchanges.
At least it helps me a bit with planning.
If you want to trade it: the ticker for TSLA in EUR is TL0 and you can trade it on ibkr for example.
No options in Europe, though. But may be an escape for an early hedge if things go against you.
TESLA INC. DL -,001 Aktie | Aktienkurs | Chart | A1CX3T | US88160R1014
$meta_description instrument detailpage
www.ls-tc.de
It is one of the more frequented direct markets in Germany. Trading 7-22h daily (1am-4pm in new York) and also some hours on weekends - Saturday morning and Sunday evening iirc.
Live quotes and everything. And more volume than i.e. Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich, etc. So often indicative of the premarket in the US. As soon an us opens that will dominate - but it is another source of information in addition to i.e. ftx-tokens like TSLA/USDT or so on crypto exchanges.
At least it helps me a bit with planning.
If you want to trade it: the ticker for TSLA in EUR is TL0 and you can trade it on ibkr for example.
No options in Europe, though. But may be an escape for an early hedge if things go against you.
My bps -1065/+865 for 11/19 is a bit red now.. that was the result of rolling 11/12 -1100/+900 out and down for minimal credit.
I think I'll just let it run for now.. lots can happen in a week.
also my risky bps converted to Iron Fly (+p1150/-p1200/-c1200/+c1150) is now at max loss, but that's only $410.. If I can roll that to something that collects $4 without increasing risk I'll break even.. food for thought.
I think I'll just let it run for now.. lots can happen in a week.
also my risky bps converted to Iron Fly (+p1150/-p1200/-c1200/+c1150) is now at max loss, but that's only $410.. If I can roll that to something that collects $4 without increasing risk I'll break even.. food for thought.
Last edited:
I thought you guys may bookmark
TESLA INC. DL -,001 Aktie | Aktienkurs | Chart | A1CX3T | US88160R1014
$meta_description instrument detailpage
It is one of the more frequented direct markets in Germany. Trading 7-22h daily (1am-4pm in new York) and also some hours on weekends - Saturday morning
Lang & Schwarz is an old favorite! Also add Tradegate to your bookmarks....
I preferred the +2% Frankfurt premarket than the -2% premarket
It’s called the hindsight bias.
The one peculiar thing with hingsight bias is that once you know what happened you don’t remember the state of mind you were before knowing what you know. So everything seems more obvious once you know.
Last edited:
chiller
Member
I have a sold PUT that was ITM just to see how that behaved. Unfortunately, I did it just before the big drop.
It was a NOV 19 1200P, that I "panic-rolled" yesterday one week (to NOV 26) at a strike improvement. Unfortunately, the only strike I could do without paying was 1190. So I am now short one Nov 26 1190P that I'm planning to keep rolling until it can expire worthless.
What would my timing be for rolling it further out?
It was a NOV 19 1200P, that I "panic-rolled" yesterday one week (to NOV 26) at a strike improvement. Unfortunately, the only strike I could do without paying was 1190. So I am now short one Nov 26 1190P that I'm planning to keep rolling until it can expire worthless.
What would my timing be for rolling it further out?
Similar threads
