SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: yard_man who wrote (27321)4/10/1998 5:34:00 PM
From: Knighty Tin  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 132070
 
Barry, The easiest, least helpful response (my favorite kind -g-) is that portfolio insurance is futures based and put selling is options based. But there is much more to it than that. The idea in portfolio insurance, tweaked in many different ways by various brokerage firms, was that you would hold your portfolio of good stocks through hell or high water and if you thought the market was going to crash, sell S&P futures against those holdings. The problem was many sided. For one thing, nobody had enough futures sold when the market cracked. Secondly, the market fell so quickly that by the time you got futures sold, you were already well underwater. And, thirdly, everyone trying to sell futures at once took the futures to huge discounts to the cash index. That made portfolio managers reluctant to jump in to short futures and locking in large losses. In this case, the Wall Street product was properly named. Like life insurance, it costs you money if you have too much while you are alive. But, once you start dying, the premiums go up tremendously.

The fact is, portfolio insurance, if done in the right size all the time, offered great downside protection. It turned your stock portfolio into a money market fund that didn't yield as much as a money market fund. -g- Some deal for brokers, not such a good deal for clients. That being the case, holding full coverage all the time was not a reasonable alternative, so PMs relied on their brokers to call the market and then be able to execute trades rapidly should a decline start. And, as always, that simply cannot be done in the real world.

Selling puts is an incredibly bullish strategy, just the opposite of portfolio insurance. By selling a put, you are agreeing to buy a stock or index at a certain price any time over a certain period of time. You get all the risk of stock ownership, but only the premium if you are right and the stock goes up. This isn't always the worst strategy in the world. If you look at a stock and say, I'd buy it 10 pct. lower, and you can get a 5 pct. premium at a strike price that is 5 pct. lower, it might be ok to sell puts as an automatic buy on weakness strategy. It isn't my cup of tea for stocks, but I can see some good points. I love the strategy for T-Bonds and T-Notes, BTW. Different risk parameters.

If you hold the cash to buy the stock on which puts are sold, you have the risk of the stock price. But, if you do it on margin, and the margin can be wide, you are taking extra risk. That, IMHO, is a mug's game in almost any market environment that isn't straight up for all issues. In other words, all the time. -g- BTW, selling puts and holding the cash is EXACTLY the same strategy as holding stock and selling calls against it. It used to make me laugh when I worked for an insurance co. and the insurance commission told me that buying stock and selling calls was conservative while selling puts against cash was speculative. Options pros call a buy and write a "synthetic put sale." -g- The reason Wall Street has not corrected the misconceptions about buys and writes is that they get two commissions instead of just one for a put sale.

Anyway, what the writer described in his note was selling puts to buy calls. This is really a synthetic way of buying stocks. You get all the downside through the short put and all the upside through the long call, ex the premiums in both cases. So, this cause of the crash was just bulls buying too much stock at the top.

MB