Using Call Options to Hedge Silver Wheaton Bet

Rick’s Picks occasionally serves up “softball” trades geared to relative novices who have never fooled around with stock options, let alone made money with them. The goal each time is to help subscribers make enough to pay for a year’s subscription to the service ($350, or click here for a free trial). Last week, we bid fair to put them on a winning track with a trade in Silver Wheaton designed to risk no more than literal pocket change. We did so in two steps: 1) buying June 40 call options for 1.17 when the underlying stock fell to within pennies of a correction target at 34.53 we’d identified earlier; then, 2) two days later, with the stock in a powerful rally, short-selling June 42 calls against the ones we’d bought for the same price.  The net result was a vertical bull spread that cannot lose money no matter what the underlying stock does but which will produce a gain of as much as $200 per spread if Silver Wheaton is trading above $40 come mid-June.

Not bad odds, right?  It’s like getting 15-to-1 on a horse to finish in-the-money, but also getting a money-back guarantee if the nag fails to place or show. Notice, however, that a profit on this trade is still contingent on a moderate rally between now and mid-June from a current price of around $36. If Silver Wheaton should fail to move above $40 over the next 90 days, however, the trade would ultimately produce neither a profit nor a loss – would in fact expire with a value of zero, or exactly what we “paid” for it. In the interim, unless SLW falls dramatically, we can always sell the vertical spread for more than zero. (It settled on Friday at 0.45 cents, yielding a theoretical gain on the position thus far of $90). This gambit should give you an idea of how very difficult it is to profit from “directional” option trades where one simply gets long or short based on a bullish or bearish hunch. With this trade, we are making a bullish bet on Silver Wheaton, but with no penalty if we are wrong – the only way to go, as far as we’re concerned.

40 Years, No Winners

We’ve been trading stock options for nearly 40 years, 12 of them as a market maker on the Pacific Exchange, and have never met a single person who has profited over time from buying puts or calls. In fact, the game is rigged so that only net sellers of puts and calls are likely to win consistently. We say “rigged” because margin requirements effectively prohibit the retail customers from selling “naked” puts and calls like the pros. The very term “naked” selling is invariably used by the news media – ignorantly – to suggest that it is a tactic of the reckless and foolhardy. To the contrary, naked sellers have much better odds of winning than the rubes on other side of the trades who buy puts and calls. In fact, statistically speaking, the latter are almost guaranteed to lose. And while some retail customers think they are beating the odds by doing covered writes, which entails selling call options against stock they own, that is a very tough game too, since a large move up or down in the underlying stock can wipe out a year’s worth of cumulative “yield” in mere hours.

To be sure, sellers of straddles, ratio spreads and other premium-rich combinations of puts and calls are all but guaranteed to experience a day when their positions explode to devastating effect. The best traders will survive to fight another day. As for the rest of us, it is better to take the long way around, doing trades in a series of steps, each of which is geared toward further reducing risk. If you have never had a winning trade with options or are skeptical that it can even be done, click here and give us a free try.

***

(If you’d like to have these commentaries delivered free each day to your e-mail box, click here.)

  • Jeff March 13, 2012, 12:43 am

    Fallingman, thanks for taking the time to respond. My post was nothing more than stating the obvious. Trading really is about one’s comfort level. Myself, I generally choose “deep-in-the-money” options. If one has the margin ability the other conservative route would have been sell the 35-40 puts when SLW hit your target….. Congrats on your stellar trading record.

  • Jeff March 12, 2012, 8:44 pm

    Rick, I use this technique a lot. You are right that even with a no lose trade your profits can evaporate….But all this assumption goes against your primary statement, that being, call buyers almost always lose. So, with that in mind, one must admit that you would have to be “lucky” in the first place to see your position rise enough to place the second trade. Lucky, in the sense that as you say, call buyers almost always lose. It’s always easy looking back at a trade. If SLW had instead continued dropping we’d have a different story.

    • fallingman March 12, 2012, 10:18 pm

      Even though you’ve addressed this to Rick…if I might offer a couple of comments.

      Of course, you’re right. Anytime you enter a trade and put money at risk, it can go against you and yes, it’s easy to look at a successful trade in hindsight and hold it up as an example. No one can argue with those points. The “options buyers almost always lose” argument does paradoxically pertain to everyone, including the successful spread trader who, of necessity, holds a long side on a spread or a would-be spread.

      The difference in strategy and results obtained lies in mindset (on a couple of scores), the nature of volatilty, and the power of technical analysis.

      Mindset: The person who sells premium, as in our example, is someone who is, by definition, content to bag singles and doubles vs. swinging for homeruns. That’s huge.

      Sh/e is not so confident as to believe the stock will necessarily go up a lot. Some upward movement, in the relatively near term will do. That’s the other aspect of mindset. This isn’t a buy, hold, and hope strategy that characterizes the approach taken by most option buyers. The thinking is completely different. This is a “get in, see if you can catch the likely move and quickly cover your butt when you do” mindset. All you’re doing is taking advantage of volatility vs. necessarily pinning your hopes to a lasting, longer term directional move. The mindsets couldn’t be more different.

      &&&&&&

      Great post, fallingman. We are on the same page, except that I have always been too much of a tightwad to buy options selling for more than $2. There is more leverage in my “cheapies,” but in order to exploit it consistently, and to get an edge, I have to be more “right” than those who leg spreads using in-the-moneys. RA

      And trying to play the natural market swings is where the technical analysis comes in. You enter only when the odds are tilted in your favor on a stock that’s a real winner in terms of fundamentals and price behavior.

      In my experience, this isn’t that hard to do. I’ve done something like 180-200 plain vanilla debit spread trades and leg-in no-risk spread trades and I’ve had only one outright loser. Sometimes, I had to adjust positions and roll out to buy time, etc, so it’s not as clean as it sounds, but it’s certainly worked for me. And believe me, that’s not to toot my horn, I’ve made so many really stupid and crippling mistakes in the investment arena, it’d make you cringe, but on this front, when I’m taking this approach, I always seem to do well. It is a GREAT strategy.

      In the interests of full disclosure, I do, however, tend to be more conservative, buying in the money strikes. This increases win percentage and lowers the return. And if you’re gonna cop a nice, complete risk-offsetting trade like the one above, you have to start out by taking on more risk, and thus, your point applies more directly.

      In contrast, I usually plod away with straight up debit spread trades that don’t rely so much on timing, or, more in line with today’s example, I’m content to leg into the spread at less than 100% risk offset.

      I’m sure I’m not telling you anything you don’t know Jeff, but I thought it might be worthwhile for other folks to get inside the subject a little in case they want to do some trades following this approach.

      Bottom line: You can adjust the risk/reward to suit your tolerance, level of ability, and the amount of time you have to monitor, but thinking in terms of selling premium and minimizing risk is the key in the options game.

      Hope this is of some use.

    • Rick Ackerman March 13, 2012, 1:05 am

      Buying June 40 calls — the first leg of our spread — with the stock pennies from a key low involved, not luck, but the use of a Hidden Pivot target that had been identified days earlier. After we bought the calls and they almost instantly went our way, I advised the following, based on 40 years of trading experience. While I appear to throw caution to the wind, the advice is conservative in that it risked relatively little:

      We bought four June 40 calls for 1.27 just now when the stock plunged to within a penny of the 34.53 Hidden Pivot I’d flagged as a worst-case low. In fact, there is now a new worse-case possibility at 34.07, but we won’t worry about it until we see how the bounce from the 34.53 pivot plays out. Even if the stock were to fall to 34.07, I estimate that the calls we own will shed only about 17 cents of value, so let’s plan on holding them come hell or high water.”

  • fallingman March 12, 2012, 5:17 pm

    Selling options…yes. What a sweet trade in the example. Kudos. Potential gain with no risk. What’s not to like? The seeming complexity?

    I don’t know about you Rick, but, in my experience, very few of the people I yammer on to about being sellers of options seem to be able to grasp the basic premise, much less the sheer beauty of the game. Oh well. If too many wanted to sell and fewer wanted to buy, where would we be? The fun and the money would be gone.

    I’m just glad there are so many traders out there who can’t resist the allure of the high risk directional trade. I enable them to gamble. They lose their money to me. All very nice.

    WELCOME to the casino chumps.

  • Mark Uzick March 12, 2012, 5:37 am

    Rick, if the options are both in the money, what would happen if one chose to allow the options to be exercised or simply forgot about the expiration date or became indisposed? Would he be required to have $8000 cash or margin credit in his account to exercise the 40 options; and if he didn’t, how does his broker deal with this? Is he screwed; will they liquidate his account to buy the 40s in order to satisfy the 42s? or is it all settled “on paper”?

  • mava March 12, 2012, 4:44 am

    Rick, I know nothing of trading. This is because I think that everything is rigged. But, the way you present your trade here, you are making me curious.

    Risking to say something unbelievably foolish, here is my question:

    What if Silver Wheaton rises to $41 in June, and then one day later falls to $33? Wouldn’t you then have to call in to buy however many shares for $40, expecting to sell them for $42 just a day later, but instead have them on your hands with $700 loss per spread (not sure what this means, – “spread”??), until the stock recovers, if it ever does?

    • Rick Ackerman March 12, 2012, 4:54 am

      If SLW were to rise to $41 in June, but do so a week or two before the June 15 option expiration, we’d likely trade out of the $2 spread by selling it for $150-$175. Practically speaking, it will be difficult to squeeze the last ounce of potential profit (i.e., $2, or $200) from the spread even if the stock is trading for $42.00-42.50 on expiration day. That’s because the June 42s we are short could not be covered for zero, but rather for perhaps 0.15-0.50 cents, depending on the hour of the day. The June 40s that we are long, meanwhile, would be deep enough in-the-money to be carrying no time premium at all.

      The worst blunder we could conceivably make on expiration day would still subject us to a loss of probably no more than $15 per spread. Under this scenario, with the stock trading around 42 on expiration morning, we might attempt to leg out of the spread by first covering at-the-money June 42 calls for 0.15 apiece; then see the stock plunge $3 moments later, rendering our June 40 calls worthless.