Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Options -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: taxman who wrote (6052)	4/6/2000 11:53:00 AM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 8096

We just have (at least) two different schools of thought on this thread. No one is wrong, per se. Paul and edamo have a system that works on harvesting the nickels and dimes in the short term. This pays off very handsomely for them (or so it ought to). You and I are LTB&H investors who see the positive side of avoiding short term transactions as much as we can. We are not as aggressive, nor are we willing to expose ourselves to uncertain risk. When we buy a call, we know absolutely what our maximum downside is. The same can be said for the put seller, but how many put sellers really prepare for their worst-case scenario? If the market were to really crash, our calls would be worthless (or very close to it at best). That is the extent of our liability, and we do not have to sell the calls or deliver on any kind of margin call as a result of our investment in calls. A short put on the other hand, with all other marginable assets in the tank, has a huge and potentially insurmountable price tag. The claim is made that repair is possible. Perhaps it is. I'm just not willing to see my pile go up in smoke over some nickels and dimes gained on a month to month basis. It works for them, and I am happy for them. For those investors inclined to that risk profile, these guys have a great deal of knowledge to share. We have knowledge to share with those who prefer our more conservative (and apparently more capital intensive) approach. There is room for both perspectives. Regards, LoF