Am I doing the math for this covered call/long put strategy correctly? What risks do I run with this strategy?
You own the stock at $29.42 At $40, the stocks is called at $26. You can't add the call premium, as it's already accounted for. The trade is biased towards being bearish on the stock. (I edited and added the graph the evening I answered)  Not the pretiest graph, but you get the idea. With that $29.42 cost, you are in the money till about $30, then go negative until the most you lose is $3.42. FYI: GM has an earnings announcement on April 24th. I think you were trying to create a safe trade by profiting if GM's price fell within a  probable range.  The chart of the Iron Condor captures just about a standard deviation of movement.  So as long as GM is between 31.28 - 37.22 in 34 days you keep the max profit of $110.  Note this trade is a net credit, when placing it you get $110 less fees.  Also by selling the deep in the money call I take it you were trying to make the most of your capital. The chart below shows a standard covered call compared to short put vertical.  Note the short put vertical simulates the covered call position and it is a net credit trade as well.  When you drop the order you get $111 less fees.
"Spend your first 50 euros on research materials. Warren Buffett got started as a boy by reading every book in the Library of Congress on investing and stock market analysis. You can research the company filings for Canadian companies at http://www.sedar.com, U.S companies at http://www.edgar.com, and European companies at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house. Find conflicting arguments and strategies and decide for yourself which ones are right. The Motley Fool http://www.fool.ca offers articles on good stocks to add to your portfolio and why, as well as why not. They provide a balanced judgement instead of just hype. They also sell advice through their newsletter. In Canada the Globe & Mail runs a daily column on screening stocks. Every day they present a different stock-picking strategy and the filters used to reach their end list. They then show how much that portfolio would have increased or decreased as well as talking about some of the good & bad points of the stocks in the list. It's interesting to see over time a very few stocks show up on multiple lists for different strategies. These ones in my opinion are the stocks to be investing in. While the Globe's stock picks focus on Canadian and US exchanges, you might find the strategies worthwhile. You can subscribe to the digital version at http://www.theglobeandmail.com  Once you have your analytical tools ready, pick any bank or stock house that offers a free practice account. Use that account and their screening tools to try out your strategies and see if you can make money picking stocks.  My personal stock-picking strategy is to look for companies with: - a long uninterrupted history of paying dividends, - that are regularly increased, - and do not exceed the net profit per share of the company - and whose share price has a long history of increasing These are called unicorn companies, because there are so very few of them.  Another great read is, ""Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?"" by Hendrik Bessembinder. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447 In this paper the author looks at the entire history of the U.S. stock universe and finds that less than 4% of stocks are responsible for 100% of the wealth creation in the U.S. stock market. He discusses his strategies for picking the winners, but it also suggests that if you don't want to do any research, you could pick pretty much any stock at random, short it, and wait. I avoid mutual funds because they are a winner only for the fellas selling them. A great description on why the mutual fund industry is skewed against the investor can be found in a book called ""The RRSP Secret"" by Greg Habstritt. ""Unshakeable"" by Tony Robbins also discusses why mutual funds are not the best way to invest in stocks. The investor puts up 100% of the money, takes 100% of the risk, and gets at best 30% of the return. Rich people don't invest like that." "I would say that you should keep in mind one simple idea.  Leverage was the principal reason for the 2008 financial meltdown.  For a great explanation on this, I would HIGHLY recommend Michael Lewis' book, ""The Big Short,"" which does an excellent job in spelling out the case against being highly leveraged. As Dale M. pointed out, losses are greatly magnified by your degree of leverage. That being said, there's nothing wrong with being highly leveraged as a short-term strategy, and I want to emphasize the ""short-term"" part.  If, for instance, an opportunity arises where you aren't presently liquid enough to cover then you could use leverage to at least stay in the game until your cash situation improves enough to de-leverage the investment.  This can be a common strategy in equities, where you simply substitute the term ""leverage"" for the term ""margin"".  Margin positions can be scary, because a rapid downturn in the market can cause margin calls that you're unable to cover, and that's disastrous. Interestingly, it was the 2008 financial crisis which lead to the undoing of Bernie Madoff.  Many of his clients were highly leveraged in the markets, and when everything began to unravel, they turned to him to cash out what they thought they had with him to cover their margin calls, only to then discover there was no money.  Not being able to meet the redemptions of his clients forced Madoff to come clean about his scheme, and the rest is history. The banks themselves were over-leveraged, sometimes at a rate of 50-1, and any little hiccup in the payment stream from borrowers caused massive losses in the portfolios which were magnified by this leveraging.  This is why you should view leverage with great caution.  It is very, very tempting, but also fraught with extreme peril if you don't know what you're getting into or don't have the wherewithal to manage it if anything should go wrong. In real estate, I could use the leverage of my present cash reserves to buy a bigger property with the intent of de-leveraging once something else I have on the market sells.  But that's only a wise play if I am certain I can unwind the leveraged position reasonably soon. Seriously, know what you're doing before you try anything like this!  Too many people have been shipwrecked by not understanding the pitfalls of leverage, simply because they're too enamored by the profits they think they can make.  Be careful, my friend." CFDs should not be used as a buy and hold strategy (which is risky enough doing with shares directly). However, with proper money and risk management and the proper use of stop losses, a medium term strategy is very plausible.  I was using CFDs in the past over a short time period of usually between a couple of days to a couple is weeks, trying to catch small swings with very tight stops. I kept getting wipsawed due to my stops being too tight so had too many small loses for my few bigger wins. And yes I lost some money, almost $5k in one year. I have recently started a more medium term strategy with wider stops trying to catch trending stocks. I have only recently started this strategy and so far have 2 loses and 3 wins. Just remember that you do get charged a financing fee for holding long position overnight, buy for short position you actually get paid the funding fee for overnight positions. My broker charges the official interest rate + 2.5% for long positions and pays the official rate - 2.5% for short positions. So yes CFDs can be used for the longer term as long as you are implementing proper money and risk management and use stop losses. Just be aware of the implications of using margin and all the costs involved. "The best strategy for RSU's, specifically, is to sell them as they vest. Usually, vesting is not all in one day, but rather spread over a period of time, which assures that you won't sell in one extremely unfortunate day when the stock dipped. For regular investments, there are two strategies I personally would follow: Sell when you need. If you need to cash out - cash out. Rebalance - if you need to rebalance your portfolio (i.e.: not cash out, but reallocate investments or move investment from one company to another) - do it periodically on schedule. For example, every 13 months (in the US, where the long term cap. gains tax rates kick in after 1 year of holding) - rebalance. You wouldn't care about specific price drops on that day, because they also affect the new investments. Speculative strategies trying to ""sell high buy low"" usually bring to the opposite results: you end up selling low and buying high. But if you want to try and do that - you'll have to get way more technical than just ""dollar cost averaging"" or similar strategies. Most people don't have neither time nor the knowledge for that, and even those who do rarely can beat the market (and never can, in the long run)." "If they return to their earlier prices Assuming I don't make too many poor choices That's your problem right there: you have no guarantee that stocks, will in fact return to their earlier prices rather than go down some more after the time you buy them. Your strategy only looks good and easy  in hindsight when you know the exact point in time when stocks stopped going down and started going up. But to implement it, you need to predict that time, and that's impossible. I would adopt a guideline of ""sell when you've made X%, even if it looks like it might go higher."" Congratulations, you've come up with the concept of technical analysis. Now go and read the hundreds of books that have been written about it, then think about why the people who wrote them waste time doing so rather than getting rich by using that knowledge." Buying the underlying asset will not completely hedge you, only what lies above 155 dollars (strike + price of option) - you still have the risk of losing everything but 5. You have a maximum earnings-potential of 55 dollars (strike of 150 - investment of 100 + option of 5) but you have a risk of losing 95$ (investment of 100 - option of 5). Say chance of winning everything or losing everything is 50-50, your expected outcome is 0.5 x -95 + 0.5 x 55 = -20$. Is this a great investment? Sure you don't know your odds - otherwise it would be a sure thing. You shouldn't sell the call option if you do not expect prices to go up - but in that case - why not just buy the underlying alone? Speculating in options is a dangerous game with infinite earnings-potential but also infinite loss potential. (Consider selling a call option and not buying the underlying and the price goes from 100 to 1.000.000.000). "The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or ""going short.""  When you use money to buy shares, it is called ""going long."" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything.  Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share.  You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000.  You are both long and short in the stock for $2000.  At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds.  You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share.  Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000.  However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares.  Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest.  Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share.  Your long shares have lost $1000 in value.  However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares.  However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything.  Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time.  However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame.  The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting.  Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time.  You are only attempting to hedge your bets.  And it doesn't work.  A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position.  And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future.  This, however, doesn't really change things much.  Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term.  Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess.  And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain.  You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop.  You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon.  Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short.  However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position.    And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up.  You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain." "SELL -10 VERTICAL $IYR 100 AUG 09 32/34 CALL @.80 LMT 1) we are talking about options, these are a derivative product whose price is based on 6 variables. 2) options allow you to create risk out of thin air, and those risks come with shapes, and the only limit is your imagination (and how much your margin/borrowing costs are). Whereas a simple asset like the shares for $IYR only has a linear risk profile. stock goes up, you make money, stock goes down, you lose money, and that risk graph looks linear. a ""vertical"" has a nonlinear risk profile 3) a vertical is a type of ""spread"" that requires holding options that expire at the same time, but at different strike prices. 3b) This particular KIND of vertical is called a bear call spread (BCS). Since you are bearish (this makes money if the stock goes down, or stays in a very specific range) but are using calls which are a bullish options product. 4) -10 means you are selling the vertical. +10 means you are buying the vertical. A ""long"" vertical is initiated by buying an option closer to the money, and selling an option at a higher strike price. This would be +X A ""short"" vertical is initiated by selling an option closer to the money and buying an option at a higher strike price. The quantity would be -X 5) 32/34 stands for the strike prices. so you would be selling 10 call options at the 32 strike price, and buying 10 call options at the 34 strike price, both options expire in August 6) LMT stands for limit order, and $.80 is the limit order price that is desired. OPENING a vertical spread requires knowledge of options as well as how to send orders. MANAGING a vertical requires even more finesse, as you can ""leg-in"" and ""leg-out"" of spreads, without sending the entire order to the exchange floor at once. There is much to learn."