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 for Newbies -(Help Me Obi-Wan-Kenobe) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Howard R. Hansen who wrote (2078)	6/11/2001 11:50:19 AM
From: Mathemagician	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2241

I hope we are talking about the same thing. By a naked put I mean writing a put in an account in which there is insufficient cash in the account to buy an assigned stock. By a covered put I mean writing a put in an account in which there always will be sufficient cash to buy an assigned stock during the life of the put. Hence when you say "Why not maintain the required equity in cash?" you are saying you want to use the account to write covered puts. Yes, some brokers will let you do this in a non-margin account. But the only way a broker will let you write a put in an account in which there is insufficient cash in the account to buy an assigned stock is in a margin account. This is the same as saying you must use a margin account to write naked puts. Good point. There is some inconsistency about whether having enough cash "counts" -- even within the same book. For example, the STC series 7 manual states both of the following: "A put is considered covered if the writer is short the underlying securtiy or has cash in the account equal to the total exercise price." "The writer of a put option who is also short the underlying stock is considered covered." Maybe it's because most options traders don't make a habit of keeping that much cash in their accounts, but in my experience the latter case is assumed in conversation. :) M

To: Howard R. Hansen who wrote (2078)	6/11/2001 4:44:01 PM
From: LKO	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2241

By a naked put I mean writing a put in an account in which there is insufficient cash in the account to buy an assigned stock. By a covered put I mean writing a put in an account in which there always will be sufficient cash to buy an assigned stock during the life of the put. That is not how the world has defined "naked puts" regardless of common sense. (Naked is always secured by cash or margin). A covered put (as has been pointed out before on this thread) is secured by the underlying stock already sold short. In general, the naked put (secured with cash) is the equivalent of a covered call, but the brokerages have it classified it as a higher risk operation probably it implies things a possibility of going from cash to equity (instead of equity to cash as in covered calls). However, I find that reasoning dubious because of the great variation in risk of various equities. It is good to know some brokerages are sane enough to allow naked puts (presumably when secured with cash) even in IRA accounts.