home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: misc.invest
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!torn!nott!bnrgate!bcars267!bucknerb
- From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
- Subject: Re: Covered Calls: Less Risk - High Returns.
- Message-ID: <1993Jan22.192319.7404@bnr.ca>
- Sender: news@bnr.ca (usenet)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: bcars188
- Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
- References: <1993Jan21.213932.28063@mobil.com> <1993Jan21.220105.10765@cbnews.cb.att.com> <1993Jan22.183018.10953@mobil.com>
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:23:19 GMT
- Lines: 30
-
- In article <1993Jan22.183018.10953@mobil.com> etpeters@dal.mobil.com (E. T. Peterson(Eric)) writes:
- >(Arthur S. Kamlet) writes:
- >|> However writing
- >|> puts and shorting stock in combination presents about the highest
- >|> of risks.
- >
- >Also, the "covered put" situation (short the stock and short a put) is no
- >more risky than the "covered call" situation, except for the following
- >two points:
- >
- >1) stocks in general tend to rise rather than fall.
- >2) a stock can only fall to zero but can go up forever.
- >
- >Consider a covered call position: long the stock at $40 and sell the $45 call
- >Consider a covered put position: short the stock at $40 and sell the $35 put
- >
- >A rise in the stock of say $10 for the long position has exactly the same
- >effect as a drop in $10 has on the short position. Same result applies to
- >moves in the opposite direction. So why is the "covered put" the
- >"highest of risks" while the covered call is "the lowest risk"?
-
- You answered your own question with point 2. There is an
- unlimited downside risk in writing a put and shorting stock in
- combination.
-
- --
- at Bell-Northern Research
- voice: (613) 765-2739
- Canada Post: P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7
- I do not claim that BNR holds these views.
-