I do know that it was currencies but I don't know the specifics and thus am not really comfortable commenting further on the subject. Hanabi418, I'm guessing someone will get to your ticket today but if you PM me with the number, I'll see if someone can look at it tomorrow (I say tomorrow as I am based in Hong Kong and given the hour, am signing out for the night).
Try engaging your brain instead of parroting what you think others might consider. If you're short a put your risk is limited, therefore it absolutely CAN be covered with cash alone. Whether or not someone or some entity considers it covered doesn't change the reality that it is.
It's rhetorical. Def has stated there were other positions which forced the liquidation. This thread should be deleted.
You are arguing semantics. Unfortunately, businesses are forced to use legal terms by the official definion of those terms, as defined by the regulators. Your concept is correct, but your use of industry verbiage is not. The industry requires enough cash in an account holding short options to cover the haircut/margin requirement. You are simply saying that with enough cash, you could cover any potential future haircut requirement, which in concept is quite true. That does not change the fact that cash vs short put is not, by definition, considered to be a covered position. A covered options position does not require extra cash, past the purchase price, to hold.
This would only be true if the options are cash settled. Since SPY expires into the underlying ETF, the only difference in the P/L for an assigned put (or long stock) vs short put would carrying costs.
Actually YOU'RE the one arguing semantics. I didn't misuse industry verbiage, I simply pointed out the real world reality that cash can absolutely cover short puts, no matter what the definitions are.