I'm still trying to wrap my head around straddles, as opposed strangles and iron condors, which all have similar payout diagrams and strategies.
For example, you can create 7/29 IC 5x -850/750-610/5010 with a slight wider break even range for $13k credit and $36k at risk. Even though these have a lower and defined risk, we all know the headaches that BPS and BCS can cause.
Strangles seem more conservative, but much less credits.
I need to do a deep dive comparison on all 3, but straddles do sound intriguing!
The greatest difference is the risk profile.
With an iron condor you could:
- end up between short strikes, netting you the full premium;
- end up within the put leg strikes or call leg strikes, in which case you could either buy back or manage the position;
- end up at max loss for the put leg (bps) or call leg (bcs), which would turn the trade into a disaster. = i.e. a pure loss, not to be won back unless you manage the position by throwing good money after bad money (widening and rolling out, basically).
With a straddle/strangle (similar concepts, as they both rely on pure cc / csp) the risk is of an entirely different nature since the losing side of the trade won't kill your portfolio. Worst case you let that leg exercise/get assigned, netting you some shares or selling you some shares.
When theorycrafting this can result in a "loss" since the losing leg can end up DITM making the shares you were assigned less valuable or making you miss out on profit if the SP goes way over the shares you sold (when cc is exercised), but this "loss" can sort out itself with patience.
Also, you are ready for a new trade on the same collateral. Let's say I sell a -750cc / -750p straddle for 7/22 @120 (i.e. 12k) and I have $75000 cash and 100 shares backing that trade, the results (if I hold to expiration) could be:
- SP ends up very close to $750 (let's say within $25), best course of action is probably to buy back the position for peanuts, netting you ~75% profit on the trade.
- SP ends up down heavily -> you receive 100 shares @630 cost basis. -> you can sell a $650 straddle next
- SP ends up up heavily -> you sell 100 shares @870 cost basis. -> you can sell a straddle in that vicinity if you like.
Only if the SP goes below 630 or above 870 you have a theoretic loss:
- In the case of the put exercising and SP being below $630 you have an unrealized loss on the shares. Fixable with time (and you can sell cc's against this position)
- In the case of the call exercising and SP being above $870 you have missed out on gains on the sold shares, but overall your portfolio grew and you're ready to fight/trade another day.
So the greatest "risk" with a straddle lies IMO in the SP of the underlying crashing and never going back up, leaving you with worthless shares.
In the case of TSLA, I can assume we agree this is unlikely.
All the other outcomes are OK. Maybe not optimal, but certainly fine from a money-making standpoint.
So the difference between straddles/strangles on the one hand and IC's on the other hand is quite easy to grasp in my mind.
What I still need to research some more is when a straddle is more optimal and when a strangle is more optimal. With straddles you of course prefer a very stable SP as opposed to a strangle, but a straddle nets you way more premium at the start and since the options are ATM (that's the usual technique) the theta decay is faster than with strangles.
With strangles on the other hand you get more "value" out of assignment on one leg, should this occur. (cheaper shares acquired, or sold at greater profit) But if SP ends within the strangle legs, you get way less premium than the straddle would have gotten you.
So I guess straddles are optimal for when you expect SP to remain close to current SP. And strangles for when you kind of expect larger volatility.
(And I guess with strangles it's more common to leg into the trade as opposed to straddles. In the latter case you would have to sell ITM options twice).
I'll end my ramblings here and get some work done. GLTA