RIMM Double Reverse Calendars

Discussion in 'Options' started by bebpasco, Jun 17, 2009.

  1. Yeah I hope you guys made some real cash with your positions!! RIMM's relatively flat open from yesterday means a profit near the peak of the 'W' shaped 90/65 long/short june/july positions!!

    IB also shows RIMM's IV at 53%, great prediction bebpasco!
     
    #21     Jun 19, 2009
  2. I papertraded a 85/65 position yesterday, here's the risk profile today.
     
    #22     Jun 19, 2009
  3. Good trade, bebpasco. You might get the Jul vol down more as the day goes on.

    Very educational. Thanks for the good thread.
     
    #23     Jun 19, 2009
  4. The threads either disappear or are closed. What number are we on now? III, IV, V?
     
    #24     Jun 19, 2009
  5. bebpasco

    bebpasco

    Tough to give results in a spread format because of the long Jun 80Cs and the extra Jul puts. Closed out the position with avg IV (p&c) in the 53.5% range. Profit of $2,412 less comm. Left 10% on the table because IV has dropped currently to an avg of 52%.

    The basic 75 put calendar was a better play --- even with the drop in Jul IV to the low 50s. The problem with the long calendar is the risk profile if there was a substantial move, either way, in the stock. It all depends on your comfort zone.
     
    #25     Jun 19, 2009
  6. Good going on the vol-drop, nice play. Yeah, the long 75P calendar was better on a return-basis, but I needed a print of 75 on spot to hit the 62% gain, and it had to be done in the first 15 minutes to sell that imploding vol. I should have traded your OTM short calendars as well.
     
    #26     Jun 19, 2009
  7. spindr0

    spindr0

    It's a given that the kicker is likely to be a waste of money because it's expiring imminently. Normally, I'd use an OTM strike as a kicker unless like in this position, the legs are seriously OTM to start with. I used the 85c as the kicker because the premium for the 80c bot several 85's and the net "W" could be balanced for a lower cost. Good trade!
     
    #27     Jun 19, 2009
  8. spindr0

    spindr0

    Kedwards,

    As a general rule, if your risk graph has the "W" positioned so that the bottoms are dipping minimally into negative territory, it's likely that your post EA IV is too low.

    The input details of your attached graph aren't clear enough to make out. Did you use 50 as input for the post EA IV?
     
    #28     Jun 19, 2009
  9. bebpasco

    bebpasco


    Didn't save my risk graph with the Jun 85C so I've forgotten the difference between it and the using Jun 80C as the additional gamma hedge. However, I'm not going to argue with the person who taught me the "kicker" concept. lol! I also picked the 80C because I had a bias to the upside on the stock after earnings. If the stock had moved into the low 80s on Friday, I could have recovered some of the hedge expense.
     
    #29     Jun 19, 2009
  10. Hey spindr0,

    well the position in that picture was using the current IV at the time, which was around 53%. I changed the Volatility Adjustment back to 0% (yesterday I had it -10% so I could see what the profit picture would look like if bebpasco's prediction was correct) so that it would just float with whatever ToS's IV calculation was. Hope that makes sense?

    Maybe the location of the bottom of the W's is because of bad entry? What I did was enter the position on IB's Simulated Trading, and then I just inputted my average fill prices into ToS so I could see the risk profile.


    The attached picture, the white line is the current IV (54.19%) and the green line is if IV went down another 5% to 49.19%. I think the original position was somewhere around $350,000 margin.
     
    #30     Jun 19, 2009