lol, you're making a fool out of yourself. you don't know what a naked put is. a cash secured short put can still be naked. covering a short put means selling the underlying -- it has NOTHING to do with the amount of cash you have. you can have 1 trillion dollars in your account and sell one SPY put and it's still considered naked. only when you short SPY does it become covered. yes you can have a naked put in a cash account (if the broker permits it). it seems like you're the one who needs to read up on options.
Not to change the subject but, Stefan you can have cash secured naked puts in cash accounts like IRA accounts if you have a large enough account. I dont know if this is true at IB, but you definitely can do this with other brokers.
This is definitely not correct. See http://individuals.interactivebrokers.com/en/p.php?f=tradingConfiguration, and then look under Account Types, and then under Cash, where it is made very clear that IB cash accounts are subject to liquidation for margin violations.
You idiot. Covered and naked are two opposite things. You can cover a short put with a short position or with cash. At the point it's covered by either the position or cash, I wouldn't call it naked anymore. It would be called a covered put (in the case of the stock position) and cash secured put or cash covered put (in the case of cash covering the short put) I think it's sloppy and contradictory to say "I have a cash-covered-naked-put" in the same sentence. It's an oxymoron. Look that up please. I don't care who uses the term, it's mindless. When I say a put is "naked", I mean that there isn't enough short stock or cash to "cover" the short put completely. That's the usual sense of the word "naked". All we're talking about here is terminology now. It's ridiculous and getting stale.
Why does ET have to turn every thread into a shitshow, this subject started with some useful info that can benefit anyone who just started using IB, troll or not. Now it has degenerated into pages of useless penis comparison. Can you people just shut the fuck up and either let the thread die while still on topic or if OP decide to come back and post. So anyone looking for some details dont have to wade through 10 pages of your shit.
PM the OP to dish out some news. We're all here to see what happens. Some of us want to see a lawsuit, others want to defend IB at all costs, I'm here to be entertained. Everything is just idle talk until then.
Stefan_777, it was you who introduced this terminological dispute. We have been discussing it because your entire argument depends on whether your terminological argument is correct. Perhaps this will settle the matter for you, from IB's website at http://individuals.interactivebrokers.com/en/p.php?f=tradingConfiguration, then click "Account Types", and then click "Cash": So this provides further confirmation that IB does permit naked puts in a cash account. It also shows that even IB disagrees with your terminology.
Mindless like I said. They can call it naked put that happens to be covered in full by cash if they want. I don't care, you just won't see me using contradictory terms. Earlier, you wanted to use the term Naked Put as an excuse that they liquidated a supposed cash account. Well thanks for providing the quote, because it says the cash for this "naked put" has to be available and is restricted, so there's no reason to ever liquidate. There, you've defeated yourself. Thank you.
you basically have several people here and links to IB telling you that you're wrong, and you still think you're right because you cling to your own personal defintion of certain terms. you cannot cover a short put with cash, end of story. the broker considers it naked until you short the underlying. if you don't like it, tough. that is how the industry considers covering a put. sounds like you're the only idiot here
Here you go fuckhead, here's what the industry has to say. Learn to write too. Looks like you took English class through an instant messager. I'm sure I can dig out more definitions from financial dictionaries, but this only took a two second search. Try it sometime.