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 : How To Write Covered Calls - An Ongoing Real Case Study! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan Duchardt who wrote (13736)	6/27/2001 7:35:45 AM
From: Dominick	Respond to of 14162

Well Dan and Mathemagician, you both made it quite obvious to me my mistake in high school. I bypassed math and took the commercial course because that's where the girls were. A sad statistic indeed.

To: Dan Duchardt who wrote (13736)	6/27/2001 8:01:53 AM
From: jaytee	Respond to of 14162

Dan: Thanks for the correction. jaytee

To: Dan Duchardt who wrote (13736)	6/27/2001 10:42:10 AM
From: Mathemagician	Respond to of 14162

I read that as a statement that there is an exact mathematical formula for the limiting case of continuously compounded interest. There is, A = Pe^(rt). I think we are agreeing violently on the facts. However, it seems that you've apparently misinterpreted my original post -- or I was unclear, whichever you prefer. The text from that post in question is: That's a great rule of thumb that everyone should know. It's the easiest way to appreciate the power of compounding. The rule itself comes from the formula for computing the future value of an investment that is compounded continuously. Really, you're dividing ln(2) by the rate as a decimal. ln(2) is about .693, so .70 is used as a close approximation. Multiplying by 100 has the effect of changing the .7 to a 70 and the rate from a decimal to a "percent". Using 72 instead of 70 is like making a rough adjustment from continuously compounded interest to annually compounded interest. I'm not sure why you think I said that using 70 was more accurate than 72. If it were less accurate it wouldn't make much sense to make an adjustment. Either way, we have wandered way off-topic. PM me if you wish to continue this discussion. M

To: Dan Duchardt who wrote (13736)	6/30/2001 2:52:50 PM
From: Mike Gordon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 14162

Dan, (or others who view this message) Yesterday, on CNBC, Art Cashin made a comment that there was talk on the floor that options, as we know them today, were going to change to 'futures' type options. In other words, options on equities would be traded exactly like futures on wheat, oil, etc. My understanding on futures is the market maker and professionals have a definite advantage in trading at the expense of the individual investor. Does anyone on this thread have any further information? I hope this is talk only. Like many others, I earn a living writing cc's and short puts. Futures options would probably limit income and increase risk. Hopefully, someone has further information on this issue. Mike Gordon