Brother, I am referring to the nonsense in the title. Would you rather be short the synthetic struck say, 30D away or short a naked call? I cannot make an argument for upside short backspreads (1x2) vs. simply trading a fly.
Isn't that just a regular covered call, with an additional naked call? The margin requirement is going to be large...why not just replace the naked call with a CS put for all the good its doing?
omg. Yes, it's a covered call with an add'l short call, which is a short call and short synthetic put = synthetic short straddle. The idea that you're trading a bull delta short straddle with shares so that you can effect a roll. In SN they trade a larger credit than the ATM straddle. In index (within 20D) the upside straddle will trade slightly under the neutral straddle. It's less margin than holding the shares. Just stop. I cannot block you but I will not respond further to any more of your posts.
Come on D... there's no way that a naked call is less margin than holding shares . The naked call is the single most margin intensive position you can open. I think you meant a long put synthetic straddle. https://www.optiontradingpedia.com/synthetic_straddle.htm That would make more sense because you can get downside protection... by selling the extra naked call, what are you benefiting? Margin issues aside, you would want the premium to outperform the puts but why not just buy the puts? Or if it's just a premium play then sell the puts.
Are you dyslexic? A short straddle reqs less margin than long shares. BKNG long 100 shares under RegT: ~$170K Short 1 straddle March 2024: ~$70K Short 1 3400C: ~$70K. I had to back out some positions and calc it in RegT. Seriously, I am done with you. Why would I make assertions w/o proof? Just fuck off. Thanks.
How can a position with unlimited risk require less margin than a position with defined risk? I don't want to do the math but lets say that you are correct....margin aside what is the benefit of the naked call? Yes it lowers your b/e on the downside but adds unlimited risk to the upside.
According to this a synthetic straddle is formed from being long stock, long puts, or short stock, long calls...not long stock, short calls.
You're truly a fcking idiot. Long 100 shares, short 2 calls = short synthetic straddle. Short 100 shares, short 2 put = short synthetic straddle. You're in a long synthetic straddle. Please fck off.
I think you are confusing it with a ratio spread. There is no advantage to selling a naked call on top of a covered call. EXAMPLE Long 100 shares XYZ stock Short 2 XYZ 65 calls Long 1 XYZ 70 call
Yeah, I am confusing you with something sentient. Go fuck yourself. https://www.macroption.com/short-call-synthetic-straddle/ Example For example, we can replicate a 65-strike short straddle (65-strike short call and 65-strike short put) by replacing its short put component with long stock and another 65-strike short call: Buy 100 shares of underlying stock. Sell 2 contracts of 65-strike call options. If we are long 100 shares of the underlying stock and one option contract represents 100 shares (as for US traded stock options), we need to sell two call option contracts (which represent 200 shares). The option position size is double relative to the underlying size, as there is one short call from the original (non-synthetic) short straddle and another short call from the synthetic short put