Plain Vanilla Options Trades.

Status
Not open for further replies.
As a mark of respect to Socrates, I will limit my posting on this thread to the very minimum - as my mind is still a little corrupt, and I want to be around to see the final stats when he is finished his trading.

I may, however, start a new thread over in the section where it has "absolutely nothing to do with trading", and I may, just start posting some of my own new Options trades, for those that are interested that is.

Regards,
 
Why don't you trade quietely? Why does is it matter so much? So much so that you post amazing rants and insults all the time? I find it amusing and very curious that you guys feel the need to vent over a public bulletin board to such an extent. Why?
CYOF said:
As a mark of respect to Socrates, I will limit my posting on this thread to the very minimum - as my mind is still a little corrupt, and I want to be around to see the final stats when he is finished his trading.

I may, however, start a new thread over in the section where it has "absolutely nothing to do with trading", and I may, just start posting some of my own new Options trades, for those that are interested that is.

Regards,
 
Splitlink said:
Everybody knows what that means! How could you, possibly, be so lacking in the knowledge of English grammar?

Well Split, I am a little Paddy, and English grammar is not a subject that we concentrate on that much, we are more into "cupla focal", so as to speak ;)
 
FXSCALPER2 said:
Why don't you trade quietely? Why does is it matter so much? So much so that you post amazing rants and insults all the time? I find it amusing and very curious that you guys feel the need to vent over a public bulletin board to such an extent. Why?

Ahhmmmm, have you not seen my post called The Socratic Dialogue :rolleyes:
 
CYOF said:
As a mark of respect to Socrates, I will limit my posting on this thread to the very minimum - as my mind is still a little corrupt, and I want to be around to see the final stats when he is finished his trading.

I may, however, start a new thread over in the section where it has "absolutely nothing to do with trading", and I may, just start posting some of my own new Options trades, for those that are interested that is.

Regards,

The Socratic Dialogue is already working today :idea:

Why do we need stats?

Do we need stats, or do we need Facts?

Hmm, maybe this will be of value after all :idea:

Proof means evidence :idea:

Evidence has to be proved by real facts :idea:

Socrates is doing just that by proving the buyer has lost a bundle so far, and he has made a bundle. The proof will continue! as he continues to take the cash from the buyers! :idea:

Remember, he is the receiver and not the buyer :idea:

The buyer is the giver, and so far the proof is that the receiver is winning and the buyers are losing.

Sorry i cant make it more clearer than the evidence is showing.

The main question is:

What shoes would you rather be in?

The Buyer or the Seller, aka the Writer?

Hmmm, very good thoughts indeed, maybe the corruption is dissolving :D
 
CYOF said:
Good morning Jon,

How are you today, well I hope.

Firstly, I will try, but no guarantee, as my mind is becoming corrupt, but I am working on rectifying it.

Secondly, please remove my green dots as requested, thank you.

Thirdly, Profitaker, over on The Options Edge thread, told me to GFY, and what is more, he said that if I did not know what it meant, then go and ask Socrates, for he has told Socrates the same thing many times.

Now, can you please tell me what this means, for I do not know?

And, if this is something very rude, more rude that CAPITALS, why is that Profitaker was not banned for such vulgarity - if it is vulgar of course, for I still do not know what it means?

So, please do explain?

Thank You Jon,

Hi Jon,

I am not sure if this will be of interest to you, but you might like to see what others are thinking?



Regards,
 
Last edited:
Splitlink said:
Everybody knows what that means! How could you, possibly, be so lacking in the knowledge of English grammar?
The member in question is not lacking in the knowledge of English Grammar, he is lacking in knowledge of possibly coarse vernacular, and these are two very different deficiencies that ought not to be confused.

It therefore does not necessarily mean that if you yourself for example, are well versed in the subtelties of the vernacular, therefore everybody else must be.

I have no idea what it means and would like profitaker to explain himself publicly.

If it contravenes site guidelines then I would be in favour of the appropriate action being taken.
 
A Dashing Blade said:
Tell you what Bulldozer/CYOF/Struchio . . . why don't you start the debate off by telling us what your choice is and why.

No?

Thought not. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Actually, I'll answer it for you.

Your answer is the "finite gain but unlimited loss" choice. Correct?

Now, this answer relies on the fact that European style options cannot be exercised early.

Thus, in the event that a written put/call goes from being out-of-the-money to become in-the-money, it will always be able to be rolled back into a longer dated strike.

As a deep itm put's total premium contains little actual time value (perhaps 5 or 10 points?) and given that (say) somewhere in the high tens of time value was originally taken in (70-80?), the ability to always roll back effectively only defers the crystallisation of the original written premium.

It may take three or four rolls back for the (final) written put to expire worthless, but this should happen eventually given that stock markets in developed countries rise over the long term.

Thus the only way a writer of european options will blow him/herslf out of the water when they cannot maintain the margin requirement

So far, so good, we're still in "Writing Options 101" territory.

Let's get back to that margin requirement.

In London, brokers (and locals) use what are known as "Clearing Firms". These are companies that, among other things, do all the intermediate paperwork between the broker executing a trade on behalf of the client and the counterparty to the trade, and ensures that the brokers aggregate margin is maintained (ie the clearers "client" is the broker not the broker's client) to the exchange.

Now, in the small print of all three counterparty agreements (Exchange/Clearer, Clearer/Broker and Broker/Client) will be a clause stating that margin requiremnts can be changed at any time.

In reality, this means that, when the market experiences a sudden, sharp, usually overnight gap, margin requirements can rise and indeed the methodology of working out margin requirements can change.

Remember the bit about clearers only being concerned about a brokers aggregate margin requirement?

What this means is that should a broker be unable to maintain it's overall margin (which has to be in place by close of business that day remember) the clearer has the right to close out any and all option positions to bring the margin in line. The same goes for the Broker/Client arrangement and, I believe, the same goes for the Exchange/Clearer relationship.

As an example, say the market tanks out, and the margin on a clients written put position balloons from (say) £20,000 to (say) £750,000. Legally, the broker has to have cleared funds in it's account with the clearer. I don't care how big the client is, not many private clients (if any) are that liquid. Would you, as the broker, be comfortable funding this position relying on the clients word that the money will be there eventually? Will your view change if market craps out the next day and the margin balloons even more?

So, bearing in mind that unfunded margin actually means that it's funded by the next entity up the food chain with that entity having the legal power to close positions, you should be able to see why the theory is not confirmed by the practise.


E&OE, pretty sure I've got all the realationships described accurately but happy to be corrected
 
SOCRATES said:
The member in question is not lacking in the knowledge of English Grammar, he is lacking in knowledge of possibly coarse vernacular, and these are two very different deficiencies that ought not to be confused.

It therefore does not necessarily mean that if you yourself for example, are well versed in the subtelties of the vernacular, therefore everybody else must be.

I have no idea what it means and would like profitaker to explain himself publicly.

If it contravenes site guidelines then I would be in favour of the appropriate action being taken.

:LOL: That I don't use it, is one thing. But to know enough to know what not to use, is another. And you worked for Everard?

Split
 
SOCRATES said:
A quick scalp ? Why not ?

Order in to buy back 3 X 6125 puts @ 75 or thereabouts

and

Order to buy back 3 X 6175 puts @88 or thereabouts.

Waiting...
After this morning's number crunch, I have decided to run this one for a further two days, therefore the order to buy back is temporarily cancelled.
 
A Dashing Blade said:
E&OE, pretty sure I've got all the realationships described accurately but happy to be corrected

At least you got one part right above:cheesy:

And, I do not answer when my post is deleted by the moderators, but you know what I asked, so you can still answer my question if you like :rolleyes:
 
SOCRATES said:
The member in question is not lacking in the knowledge of English Grammar, he is lacking in knowledge of possibly coarse vernacular, and these are two very different deficiencies that ought not to be confused.

It therefore does not necessarily mean that if you yourself for example, are well versed in the subtelties of the vernacular, therefore everybody else must be.

I have no idea what it means and would like profitaker to explain himself publicly.

If it contravenes site guidelines then I would be in favour of the appropriate action being taken.

Good morning Trader Socrates,

Maybe we should stop explaining things in detail, and give others a chance to do same?

Regards,
 
Splitlink said:
:LOL: That I don't use it, is one thing. But to know enough to know what not to use, is another. And you worked for Everard?

Split
No, I went to sea as a deck officer many years ago, and served on middle sea routes with Hudson Steamship.

Sailors do not use abbreviations relatng to Givers (writers of options) as they know nothing about these matters at all.

And I don't know whether there are any past crew members reading this today, but if they are I would like to record it was an honour and a priviledge to sail with them, and fellow deck officers and engineers too.
 
Last edited:
CYOF said:
And, I do not answer when my post is deleted by the moderators, but you know what I asked, so you can still answer my question if you like :rolleyes:

Sorry Bull, didn't see your reply so don't know what you asked.
Perhaps you could rephrase it in a wy such that it won't get deleted?
 
Where Are The Rules Now !

CYOF said:
Good morning Trader Socrates,

Maybe we should stop explaining things in detail, and give others a chance to do same?

Regards,

As Mr Zupcon is the expert here on rules, maybe we should ask him what rules section was broken?

I see he is peeping, but I'm not surprised he did not come out with the rules page as he did previously :rolleyes:

Makes you Think, No :idea:

And where is Profitaker to tell us all what he meant by saying GFY - for one thing I do know, and that is, that it certainly is not an Irish word.
 
SOCRATES said:
[
. . . . Givers (writers of options)
. . .

Suspect you mean Takers (Give For The Call and Take For The Call etc being used for the old stock exchange options we used to do on non traded optionalble equities non?)
 
Socrates,

I have a little story that I done during my Holidays, based on another live experience with my good old faithful, and I would like to ask you shall I post it here, or over in the Psychology section.

It can be moved to the Psychology section later, but I think it is relevant to this thread for the moment.

What do you think?

Regards,
 
A Dashing Blade said:
Suspect you mean Takers (Give For The Call and Take For The Call etc being used for the old stock exchange options we used to do on non traded optionalble equities non?)
No, Givers = Writers.

Takers = Buyers.

Nowadays everything has been changed round like for example "Arbitrage" today has a totally different implication to what it had years ago, similarly "Contango" has a different implication and "Jobbers" has been replaced by "Market Makers" and so on.

But the pie is still the pie :cheesy:
 
CYOF said:
As Mr Zupcon is the expert here on rules, maybe we should ask him what rules section was broken?

I see he is peeping, but I'm not surprised he did not come out with the rules page as he did previously :rolleyes:

Makes you Think, No :idea:

And where is Profitaker to tell us all what he meant by saying GFY - for one thing I do know, and that is, that it certainly is not an Irish word.

I thought it means Good For You.

Is anyone keeping an eye of those June 6425 call's I paid 12 with a notional 50 Lot's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top