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: Ritch who wrote (7128)	5/1/2000 10:46:00 PM
From: uel_Dave	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 8096

Hi Ritch, I am curious, can you provide a link for the historical prices of options. TIA, David PS: I was born north of your state, in Manitoba, just 60 miles north of Winnipeg, at Gimli ( Former Air Force Base )

To: Ritch who wrote (7128)	5/2/2000 12:04:00 AM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 8096

>> Did you look up the option to make sure the numbers were accurate? Since you didn't, I figured I would. The 52 week high for this option was 42 3/8. The 52 week low was 1 1/16. Not quite the numbers you quoted. The spread of your numbers, $.50 to $50, is 100X. The actual spread is only 40X. Quite a difference. You are jumping to conclusions, Ritch. The high and low you reference are based on actual trades, not on the low bid. It's very possible that the bid hit 1/2 on option in question but there were no takers. >> No one says that there is no risk to DIM options, but just that there is a lot less risk to DIM options than to OTM options. If someone is thinking in terms of absolute dollars at risk, you are dead wrong. >> Sorry if I have seemed argumentative with you That's the impression I have. You should be penalized 15 yards for piling on. >> but I feel you have misstated some things about options that needed to be corrected. As have you, sir. Prosperous investing, uf

To: Ritch who wrote (7128)	5/2/2000 8:11:00 AM
From: Seldom_Blue	Respond to of 8096

You posted someone's offhand estimate as a fact just because you heard it on a thread. Did you look up the option to make sure the numbers were accurate? Since you didn't, I figured I would. The 52 week high for this option was 42 3/8. The 52 week low was 1 1/16. I am very sure that my numbers: GMST May57.5 high around 50, low .50 are accurate. Stock high was at 107 7/16. That makes the intrinsic value at one time to be almost exactly 50. I know low was .50. That was the day I wrote the post when GMST dipped to 34. Where did you find the historical quotes? Perhaps you are using sales price and closing price. I was using quoted prices, at which there may not be any contracts. I disagree with Rocketman on his points. But the example he used (mine) was not wrong. Seldom Blue

To: Ritch who wrote (7128)	5/2/2000 8:13:00 AM
From: RocketMan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8096

40x instead of 100x, oh ok, that makes all the difference in the world. A loss of 100x is terrible, but a loss of 40x is acceptable. I see. And, of course, 100x loss is totally unknown in options. About going back and checking options quotes for anyone who posts here, I happen to take them at their word, and they said $50 to 50 cents. I don't appreciate being taken to task for making up numbers. If you are going to do this, you had better search the thread first. If the poster made an honest mistake, so be it, but that is different than making up numbers. As far as the rest of your comments, read my lips. I do not care what strategy you choose, and there are gobs of valid options strategies. Some of them are gambling, even if you are in denial about that. Gambling is not a bad thing, I do it myself. But not all strategies are for me, in fact I only use options as hedges to protect my common, as cheap plays on stock moves, and for OTM leaps on solid stocks. That is valid for me, OK?