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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mark Peterson CPA who wrote (91027)	1/24/1999 11:57:00 AM
From: Kayaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

Know another guy who sold 100 of the AMZN Feb 150 puts. Hell, the stock was pushing 200 and he figured if he had to buy the stock at 160, I can see why some folks are tempted with many of the internet stocks. The volatility has pushed the premiums so far up, it's tempting to sell puts on some of them. But I agree with you, it can be expensive when they crash. Even on Dell, if we had a situation like last Oct 8, where Dell dropped to 41, I'd be crying when assigned on Feb 70 puts. Thanks for your note --Bob

To: Mark Peterson CPA who wrote (91027)	1/24/1999 1:46:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

Mark, I think you're comparing apples and oranges. If you sell the naked put as a surrogate for a limit order you must be ahead because you received a premium for the option. The issue is not, as you seem to think, what you could have bought the stock for, but rather, what you would have bought the stock for using a limit order. I strongly agree with your comments about hedging however. With the exception of the situation outlined by Bob, playing a naked options game is pure gambling IMO. TTFN, CTC