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.

Technology Stocks : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (25886)	5/20/2004 8:34:03 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

I have to respectfully disagree. While your sceanario is correct, I work with a number of professional money managers who do buy puts in the situation I described. Concern on their part is (a) limiting losses after nice gains (b) buying the security of a certain portfolio return, at a specific moment in time, upon which their compensation is based. (c) leaving room for upside potential. So, if in April one sells ATM May/30 calls and the stock goes up, oh -oh. Got to buy back the calls or lose the shares. Losing the shares results in realized gains..but loss of all upside potential above 30. Buying back the contracts can be expensive. If the stock goes down, I suffer market loss and get to pocket only the premium. On my trigger date (say, end of quarter) the value of my portfolio has a higher risk of being less than it would be under the following strategy. Instead, if I want to ensure my portfolio locks in a quarterly return of, say, five percent, which guarantees my firm a management fee of xxxx, I can sell puts. the cost of the puts I immediately net against my gross return as of thata date to be sure my net return still hits the target for my fees. If the stock goes down, I am safe. If the stock goes up, well, I am safe again....and I more than offset the price of the purchased put with the unrealized gain in the shares. The second situation better realizes the desire of certain investors to have at least a minimum market value on a given date. Because of SNDK's "odd" reaction to good earnings, buying puts could make sense....because maybe the earnings will be REALLY good and the stock would soar instead of tank. Second sceanario is a cheaper way to play that possibility, I think. Both concepts work. Both have a place.

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (25886)	5/20/2004 11:14:22 PM
From: Steve 667	Respond to of 60323

Art, For what it's worth, the strategy would depend on whether one wanted to just get out of the stock and collect the premium for the use of the money for a couple of months, or keep the stock but pay an insurance premium in case the stock declined for unexpected announcements, or "manipulations", or short term aberrations. The idea of one preferred strategy (one size fits all), I think leaves something to be desired. That's my 2 cents. Anyone got change? Regards, Steve