Comparison between buying a stock and selling a naked put
I sell a put for a strike price at the market. The stock rises $50 over the next couple months. I've gotten the premium, but lost the rest of the potential gain, yet had the downside risk the whole time.  There's no free lunch.  Edit - you can use a BS (Black-Scholes) calculator to create your own back testing. The calculator shows a 1% interest rate, 2% yield, and 15% volatility produce a put price almost identical to the pricing I see for S&P (the SPY ETF, specifically) $205 put. No answer here, including mine, gave any reference to a study. If one exists, it will almost certainly be on an index, not individual stocks. Note that Jack's answer referencing PUTX does exactly that. The SPY ETF and it put options. My suggestion here would, in theory, let you analyze this strategy for individual stock options as well.  For SPY - With SPY at 204.40, this is the Put you'd look at -  12 times the premium is $33.36 or 16% the current price. The next part of the exercise is to see how the monthly ups and downs impact this return. A drop to $201 wipes out that month's premium.  It happens that it now March 18th, and despite a bad start to the year, we are at break-even YTD. A peek back shows In Dec you picked up $2.87 premium, (1.4% the current price then) but in Jan, it closed for a loss of $12. Ouch. Now, if you started in January, you'd have picked up 2 month's premiums and today or Monday sell the 3rd. You'd have 2.8% profit so far, vs the S&P break even.  Last, for now, when selling a naked put, you have to put up margin money. Not sure how much, but I use percent of the value of underlying stock to calculate returns. That choice is debatable, it just keeps percents clean. Else you put up no money and have infinite return. "Yes, of course there have been studies on this.  This is no more than a question about whether the options are properly priced. (If properly priced, then your strategy will not make money on average before transaction costs and will lose once transaction costs are included.  If you could make money using your strategy, on average, then the market should - and generally will - make an adjustment in the option price to compensate.) The most famous studies on this were conducted by Black and Scholes and then by Merton. This work won the Nobel Prize in 1995. Although the Black-Scholes (or Black-Scholes-Merton) equation is so well known now that people may forget it, they didn't just sit down one day and write and equation that they thought was cool. They actually derived the equation based on market factors. Beyond this ""pioneering"" work, you've got at least two branches of study.  Academics have continued to study option pricing, including but not limited to revisions to the original Black-Scholes model, and hedge funds / large trading house have ""quants"" looking at this stuff all of the time.  The former, you could look up if you want. The latter will never see the light of day because it's proprietary. If you want specific references, I think that any textbook for a quantitative finance class would be a fine place to start.  I wouldn't be surprised if you actually find your strategy as part of a homework problem. This is not to say, by the way, that I don't think you can make money with this type of trade, but your strategy will need to include more information than you've outlined here.  Choosing which information and getting your hands on it in a timely manner will be the key." Why do all this work yourself? Pay a modest price to have a professional do this for you. Look at the tickers PUTX, PUTW. Option prices are computed by determining the cost of obtaining the option returns using a strategy that trades the underlying asset continuously.  It sounds like what you are describing is rapidly trading the option in order to obtain returns similar to those of the stock.  The equality goes both ways.   If the option is appropriately priced, then a strategy that replicates stock returns using the option will cost the same as buying the stock. Because you can't trade continuously, you won't actually be able to replicate the stock return, and it may seem like you are making arbitrage profit (puts may seem abnormally expensive), but you do so by bearing tail risk (i.e., selling puts loses more money than owning the associated stock if an unusually bad event occurs).
"First of all, the annual returns are an average, there are probably some years where their return was several thousand percent,  this can make a decade of 2% a year become an average of 20% . Second of all, accredited investors are allowed to do many things that the majority of the population cannot do. Although this is mostly tied to net worth, less than 3% of the US population is registered as accredited investors. Accredited Investors are allowed to participate in private offerings of securities that do not have to be registered with the SEC, although theoretically riskier, these can have greater returns. Indeed a lot of companies that go public these days only do so after the majority of the growth potential is done. For example, a company like Facebook in the 90s would have gone public when it was a million dollar company, instead Facebook went public when it was already a 100 billion dollar company. The people that were privileged enough to be ALLOWED to invest in Facebook while it was private, experienced 10000% returns, public stock market investors from Facebook's IPO have experienced a nearly 100% return, in comparison. Third, there are even more rules that are simply different between the ""underclass"" and the ""upperclass"". Especially when it comes to leverage, the rules on margin in the stock market and options markets are simply different between classes of investors. The more capital you have, the less you actually have to use to open a trade. Imagine a situation where a retail investor can invest in a stock by only putting down 25% of the value of the stock's shares. Someone with the net worth of an accredited investor could put down 5% of the value of the shares. So if the stock goes up, the person that already has money would earn a greater percentage than the peon thats actually investing to earn money at all. Fourth, Warren Buffett's fund and George Soros' funds aren't just in stocks. George Soros' claim to fame was taking big bets in the foreign exchange market. The leverage in that market is much greater than one can experience in the stock market. Fifth, Options. Anyone can open an options contract, but getting someone else to be on the other side of it is harder. Someone with clout can negotiate a 10 year options contract for pretty cheap and gain greatly if their stock or other asset appreciates in value much greater. There are cultural limitations that prompt some people to make a distinction between investing and gambling, but others are not bound by those limitations and can take any kind of bet they like." If the call is in the money and you believe the reason for the price jump was an overreaction with a pullback on the horizon or you anticipate downward movement for other reasons, I will roll (sometimes for a strike closer to at the money) as long as the trade results in a net credit!   You already have the statistical edge trading covered calls over everyone who purchased stock at the same point in time.  This is because covered calls reduce your cost basis and increase your probability of profit. For people reading this who are not interested in the math behind probability of profit(POP) for covered calls, you should be aware of why POP is higher for covered calls (CC).  With CCs you win when the stock price stays the same, you win when it goes down slightly, you win when the stock goes up.  You have two more ways to win than someone who just buys stock, therefore a higher probability of making a buck! Another option: If your stock is going to be called at a loss, or the strike you want to roll to results in a net debit, or  your cash funds are short of owning 100x shares and you are familiar with the stock, try writing a naked put for the price you want to buy at.  At experation, if the naked put is exercised, your basis is reduced by the premium of the put you sold, and you can write a covered call against the stock you now own.  If it expires worthless you keep the premium.  This is also another way to increase your POP. "Below is just a little information on short selling from my small unique book ""The small stock trader"":  Short selling is an advanced stock trading tool with unique risks and rewards. It is primarily a short-term trading strategy of a technical nature, mostly done by small stock traders, market makers, and hedge funds. Most small stock traders mainly use short selling as a short-term speculation tool when they feel the stock price is a bit overvalued. Most long-term short positions are taken by fundamental-oriented long/short equity hedge funds that have identified some major weaknesses in the company. There a few things you should consider before shorting stocks: Despite all the mystique and blame surrounding short selling, especially during bear markets, I personally think regular short selling, not naked short selling, has a more positive impact on the stock market, as: Lastly, small stock traders should not expect to make significant profits by short selling, as even most of the great stock traders (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen,) have hardly made significant money from their shorts. it is safe to say that odds are stacked against short sellers. Over the last century or so, Western large caps have returned an annual average of between 8 and 10 percent while the returns of small caps have been slightly higher.  I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of ""The small stock trader"")" "I don't know much about New Zealand, but here are just some general thoughts on things to consider. The big difference between buying a house and investing in stocks or the like is that it is fairly easy to invest in a diversified array of stocks (via a mutual fund), but if you buy a house, you are investing in a single piece of property, so everything depends on what happens with that specific property.  This in itself is a reason many people don't invest in real estate.  Shares of a given company or mutual fund are fungible: if you buy into a mutual fund, you know you're getting the same thing everyone else in the fund is getting.  But every piece of real estate is unique, so figuring out how much a property is worth is less of an exact science.  Also, buying real estate means you have to maintain it and manage it (or pay someone else to do so).  It's a lot more work to accurately assess the income potential of a property, and then maintain and manage the property over years, than it is to just buy some stocks and hold them.   Another difficulty is, if and when you do decide to sell the property, doing so again involves work.  With stocks you can pretty much sell them whenever you want (although you may take a loss).  With a house you have to find someone willing to buy it, which can take time. So a big factor to consider is the amount of effort you're prepared to put into your investment.  You mention that your parents could manage the property for you, but presumably you will still have to pay for maintenance and do some managing work yourself (at least discussing things with them and making decisions).  Also, if you own the property for a long time your parents will eventually become too old to take care of it, at which point you'll have to rethink the management aspect. So that's sort of the psychological side of things.  As for the financial, you don't mention selling the house at any point.  If you never sell it, the only gain you get from it is the rent it brings in.  So the main factor to consider when deciding whether to buy it as a rental is how much you can rent it for.  This is going to be largely determined by where it is located. So from the perspective of making an investment the big question --- which you don't address in the info you provided --- is: how much can you rent this house for, and how much will you be able to rent it for in the future?  There is no way to know this for sure, and the only way to get even a rough sense of it is to talk with someone who knows the local real estate market well (e.g., a broker, appraiser, or landlord).  If the property is in an ""up-and-coming"" area (i.e., more people are going to move there in the future), rents could skyrocket; if it's in a backwater, rents could remain stagnant indefinitely. Basically, if you're going to buy a piece of real estate as a long-term investment, you need to know a lot about that property in order to make any kind of comparison with another investment vehicle like a mutual fund.  If you already live in the area you may know some things already (like how much you might be able to rent it for).  Even so, though, you should try to get some advice from trustworthy people who know the local real estate situation." A few observations - A limit order can certainly work, as you've seen.  I've put in such an order far beyond the true value, and gotten back a realistic bid/ask within 10 minutes or so. That at least gave me an idea where to set my limit.  When this doesn't work, an exercise is always another way to go. You'll get the full intrinsic value, but no time value, by definition.  Per your request in comment - You own a put, strike price $100. The stock (or ETF) is trading at $50. You buy the stock and tell the broker to exercise the put, i.e. deliver the stock to the buyer of the put. "I can sell a PUT on it a bit out of the money, and I seemingly ""win"" either way: i.e. make money on selling the PUT, and either I get to pick up the stock cheaper if XYZ goes down, or the PUT expires worthless. In 2008, I see a bank stock (pick one) trading at $100. I buy that put from you, a $90 strike, and pay you $5 for the option. The bank blew up, and trades for a dollar. I then buy the $1 share and sell it to you for $90. You made $500 on the sale of the put, but lost $8900 when it went bad. You don't win either way, there is a chart you can construct (or a table) showing your profit or loss for every price of the underlying stock. When selling a put, you need to know what happens if the stock goes to zero since the odds of such an occurrence is non-trivial.  A LEAP is already an option. With the new coding scheme for options, I'm not sure there's really any distinction between a LEAP and standard option, the LEAP just starts with a long-till-expiration time. There are no options on LEAPS that I am aware of, as they are options already." hmmm. I think it's because in both cases, you must pay for it up front, before the positions are closed out. You own nothing except the right to buy the stock re: the call, and the obligation to buy the stock re: the short.  You buy a call, but must borrow the stock, for which you must put some margin collateral and there is a cost to borrow. You pay for that, of course.  I wouldn't call it lending though. "A covered call risks the disparity between the purchase price and the potential forced or ""called"" sale price less the premium received. So buy a stock for $10.00 believing it will drop you or not rise above $14.00 for a given period of days. You sell a call for a $1.00 agreeing to sell your stock for $14.00 and your wrong...the stock rises and at 14.00 or above during the option period  the person who paid you the $1.00 premium gets the stock for a net effective price of $15.00. You have a gain of 5$. Your hypothecated loss is unlimited in that the stock could go to $1mil a share. That loss is an opportunity loss you still had a modest profit in actual $. The naked call is a different beast. you get the 1.00 in commission to sell a stock you don't own but must pay for that right. so lets say you net .75 in commission per share after your sell the option. as long as the stock trades below $14.00 during the period of the option you sold your golden. It rises above the strike price you must now buy that stock at market to fill the order when the counter party choses to exercise the option which results in a REAL loss of 100% of the stocks market price less the .75 a share you made.   in the scenarios a 1000 shares that for up $30.00 a share over the strike price make you $5,000 in a covered call and lose you $29,250 in a naked call.Naked calls are speculative. Covered calls are strategic."