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 : Roger's 1997 Short Picks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan Lisman who wrote (7627)	12/1/1997 11:48:00 AM
From: Steve Robinett	Respond to of 9285

Dan, As I understand CR's post, the problem was how to short a stock when no shares were available to short, AMZN in the example. A synthetic short using options--writing a given call and buying a put--accomplishes the same thing as an ordinary short. The return is identical to a short position less the option bid-ask. The obvious limitation is that options expire whereas a patient short can wait without worrying about expiration, suggesting the farthest out options should be used for a synthetic short. Otherwise, it's the same as a short. If the stock tanks, the trade is essentially free, the call paid for the put. A straight put is synthetically identical to a combination of shorting a stock and buying a call for protection against an unexpected upside move. Though giving loss protection against an adverse move, a put actually costs something. Obviously, the put only participates in a down move to the extent of its delta, say, $.48 to the dollar for a nearby at-the-money put, but it's obviously possible to buy a few more put contracts than you would have shorted underlying shares and adjust the position to get the same dollar return as a straight short for a given move in the underlying issue. The choice of tactic, as you point out, has to do with one's risk tolerance. Best, Steve