TDA does NOT. I just showed in my previous post that IB requires EXACTLY the same amount of cash requirement. In fact ALL BROKERS require the same cash requirement for cashsecured puts because that's what a cashsecured put is. No broker would require less.
yes, but a broker can require more which is the point the OP has successfully made. Your circled words has been repeated numerous times and no one had disputed them. The op correctly has pointed out that the premium received reduces the existing cash in the account needed to support an unsecured call position. Existing cash +premium received, which is cash, must equal the strike price. That is industry practice which OP said TDA exceeds on trade date.
@TheDawn, stop posting a wrong ShortPut type: ypu are posting the requirements for a Naked Short Put, but the discussion is about CashSecuredPut.
@zdreg, I thank you for your neutral objectivity. But as you already might have discovered yourself, these two types, @TheDawn and @vanzandt, are not that honest as they use lies and wrong information in their argumentation... They don't take it so exactly with the truth. They will spam the thread with their lies: ie. attempting to overtake the discussion by trash quantity over quality... I know the tactics of such types very well from other discussions...
I deal in reality. People post wrong information. It happens to even the most knowledgeable because they can not know everything or their perception of reality is not 100%. My post above describes the situation as it is. Objective people will then accept the reality.Those with a stake in an incorrect reality will deny the truth. It is not uncommon.
But the broker didn't. It required exactly the amount needed to cover its risk. You are now just trolling because you just don't want to admit that you are wrong even when people have pointed it out to you to your face. This is what you do in every single thread.
OP is wrong. Yes but the premium is only received AFTER the trade has settled. The cash requirement is BEFORE the trade happens. Before the trade happened, only the strike price is known so the broker needs to make sure that you have enough cash in the account to support the maximum possible risk on the put which is the entire strike price regardless of the premium. It's not an issue of broker requiring more; it's a matter of the broker covering its a$$.
How can that be correct because Tasty Trade allows you to apply the premium to the initial margin requirement -- strike minus premium -- so must be broker-dependent. Right? If so, then the OP's example of strike: 4 and premium 3.80 would mean that, at Tasty Trade, he would, in fact, only need $20 in his cash account to execute that trade. Right? So OP is complaining that TDA now requires (or always has required?) cash equal to the full strike to execute his trades. Seems to be a legit complaint, but since it's broker's prerogative, and since OP needs access to TDA's free API, he'll just have to deal with it.