There is no "getting into trouble" it can easily be proved they are equivilants again NONE of that has to do with litigation. You're interpretation on who is a greater victim has no bearing on the law.
Because it is less risky and that even if the stock does not reach the strike price and the options buyer does not exercise the option, the premium is still earned. The investor's stock holdings are earning money even when the price is stable or decreasing, so long as there are options buyers who wish to purchase options on the stock.
Because you keep getting dividends, which you can spend, and your position doesn't go down as much when the market tanks.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...ed+call+vs+short+put&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Covered call vs. naked put dilemma The real difference between the covered calls and the naked puts is the different risk-management style. Specifically we must consider the assignment (including early assignment) management and managing the gap-down risk.
Oh pulllease! The author of that drivel is the type who when you ask for the time, he tries to teach you how to build a watch.