SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : The Critical Investing Workshop
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Voltaire who wrote (5301)2/27/2000 11:22:00 AM
From: alias  Read Replies (1) of 35685
 
V,

Now we're really getting somewhere.

(For those on the porch who got to this point by skimming and want to know what the hell is going on see my last few posts and V's responses for context.)

The QCOM option you suggested for consideration for Mr. Rat for April income would be to sell 4 contracts (400) shares of QCOM (currently priced at $134) at strike price of $135 paying $15 1/2 for a total of $6200 cash.

By taking the above and looking at the call prices on todays Schwab I see, for instance, strike prices of $145 paying $12 (would yield $4800) and a strike price of $150 pang $10 for a potential yield of $4000.

Assumption: by selling calls at $145 or $150 Mr. Rat would have less income but greater "safety" (if that really is a concern)in having his shares called away. Higher strike price=less income.

I hate to have to resort to such simple analysis but foundations are pretty matters but, as you know, the most important element in building anything. Nothing simpler looking than a $5000 concrete footer but screw that up and the million dollar home built on top is in a heap of trouble.

Anyway, other than the $135 strike price yielding greater income was there any other reason/consideration involved in suggesting the $135? Several questions on this board have addressed the issue of "at the money" versus "deep in the money", etc considerations.

Alias
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News