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: Joe Waynick who wrote (2097)	6/13/2001 2:18:27 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2241

Joe, Thanks to Greg Hull, I became aware of your post about "Benjamin and Jerold." After reading your post, I also called the company and was told (not by Ben) that it does not allow the purchase of naked LEAPS in an IRA. Because I was under the threat of an approaching deadline, I didn't have the time to pursue the contradictory information. An hour later, I called again. The same person remembered me and repeated for me that naked options aren't allowed. I explained your post referencing your conversation with Benjamin, so she put him on the phone. Benjamin remembered his conversation with you and thanked me for informing him that one of his employees is misinformed. I read the substantive, pertinent part of your post verbatim to him and he was very clear that you got it right. I would like to add that part of my problem has been trying to find a brokerage firm that will allow trading of options despite that I have no income. I am retired, thanks to my investing success. I have eight years living expenses set aside in cash. I have relatively little income. Benjamin was very clear that his firm requires no level of income as a criterion for authorization to buy and sell options. His opinion is that the wirehouses are using the federal government as the scape goat to blame them for preventing the individual investor from purchasing options in their IRAs, when in fact the only reason it's prevented is by their choice; the federal government has exercised virtually no authority in the matter. Reflecting on my personal situation, he said that the firms that use income as a criterion "are penalizing [me] for [my] success." He's right. It has been a long time since I have spoken with anyone in the securities business who is so articulate, cordial, respectful of individual shareholder rights, concerned for their safety, and informed. I got that impression from an extended conversation that went well beyond the original intent of my phone call. I look forward to receiving my application forms and thank you for your informative, accurate post. --Mike Buckley

To: Joe Waynick who wrote (2097)	6/15/2001 9:15:39 PM
From: Howard R. Hansen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2241

sell naked puts (backed by 100% cash on the underlying security, If a put is backed by 100% cash it is not a naked put. I know you don't agree with this statement but I believe you will find other people who disagree with your definition of a naked put. In the link supplied by LKO The Philadelphia Option Exchange supplied the following definition for an uncovered put. "A put writer is considered to be uncovered if he does not have a corresponding short stock position or has not deposited cash equal to the exercise value of the put." Because of this difference in the definition of the meaning of a naked put I can easily see why Benjamin said you could sell naked puts in an IRA account and a sales rep with Benjamin & Jerold told Mike Buckley he couldn't sell naked puts in an IRA account. I hope your investigation into the suitability of trusting Benjamin & Jerold with your IRA account is rewarding. Howard