How do you calculate the rate of return (ROR) when buying and selling put options?
"RoR for options you bought is fairly easy: (Current Value-Initial Cost)/Initial Cost gives you the actual return. If you want the rate of return, you need to annualize that number: You divide the return you got above by the number of days the investment was in place, and then multiply that number by the number of days in a year. (365 if you're using calendar days, about 255 if you're using trading days.) RoR for options you sold is much more complex: The problem is that RoR is basically calculating the size of your return relative to the capital it tied up to earn it.   That's simple when you bought something; the capital tied up is the money you put up.   It's more complex on a position like a short option, where the specific transaction in question generates cash when it's put on.    The correct way to deal with this is to A) Bundle your strategy (options, stock and collateral) into one RoR where appropriate, and B) include any needed collateral to support the short option in the calculation. So, if you sell a ""cash-secured"" put, where you have to post the money that you'd need to take delivery of the shares if they were put to you, the initial cost is the total amount you'd need to put the trade on:   in this case, it's the cash amount, less the premium you collected for selling the put.  That's just one example.    But the approach holds more broadly:  if you're using covered calls, your original cost is the cost of the stock less the premium generated by the sale of the call." What Jaydles said. I think of each strategy in terms of Capital at Risk (CaR). It's a good thing to know when considering any position. And then conveniently, the return is always profit / CaR. With covered calls it's pretty easy. Pay $1000 for stock, receive $80 in premium, net CaR is $920.  If you own the stock and write calls many times (that expire worthless, or you that you buy back), there are two measurements to consider. First, treat every covered call as a buy-write. Even if you already own the stock, disregard the real cost basis, and calculate from the moment you write the call, using the stock price at that time. The second measure is more complicated, but involves using something like the XIRR function in a spreadsheet. This tracks the series as a whole, even accounting for times where there is no written call outstanding. For the written put, even though your broker may only require 30% collateral in a margin account, mentally treat them as cash-secured. Strike less premium is your true CaR. If the stock goes to zero by expiration, that's what you're on the hook for. You could just compute based on the 30% collateral required, but in my view that confuses cash/collateral needs with true risk. Note: a written put is exactly identical to a covered call at the same strike. If you tend to favor puts over CCs, ask yourself why. Just like a loaded gun, leverage isn't inherently bad, but you sure want to know when you're using it. Rate of return is (Current value - initial value) divided by initial value. Buy $10,000 worth of put options and sell them for $15,000, and your rate of return is 0.5, or 50%.
"Should I invest the money I don't need immediately and only withdraw it next year when I need it for living expenses or should I simply leave it in my current account? This might come as a bit of a surprise, but your money is already invested. We talk of investment vehicles. An investment vehicle is basically a place where you can put money and have it either earn a return, or be able to get it back later, or both. (The neither case is generally called ""spending"".) There are also investment classes which are things like cash, stocks, bonds, precious metals, etc.: different things that you can buy within an investment vehicle. You currently have the money in a bank account. Bank accounts currently earn very low interest rates, but they are also very liquid and very secure (in the sense of being certain that you will get the principal back). Now, when you talk about ""investing the money"", you are probably thinking of moving it from where it is currently sitting earning next to no return, to somewhere it can earn a somewhat higher return. And that's fine, but you should keep in mind that you aren't really investing it in that case, only moving it. The key to deciding about an asset allocation (how much of your money to put into what investment classes) is your investment horizon. The investment horizon is simply for how long you plan on letting the money remain where you put it. For money that you do not expect to touch for more than five years, common advice is to put it in the stock market. This is simply because in the long term, historically, the stock market has outperformed most other investment classes when looking at return versus risk (volatility). However, money that you expect to need sooner than that is often recommended against putting it in the stock market. The reason for this is that the stock market is volatile -- the value of your investment can fluctuate, and there's always the risk that it will be down when you need the money. If you don't need the money within several years, you can ride that out; but if you need the money within the next year, you might not have time to ride out the dip in the stock market! So, for money that you are going to need soon, you should be looking for less volatile investment classes. Bonds are generally less volatile than stocks, with government bonds generally being less volatile than corporate bonds. Bank accounts are even less volatile, coming in at practically zero volatility, but also have much lower expected rates of return. For the money that you need within a year, I would recommend against any volatile investment class. In other words, you might take whichever part you don't need within a year and put in bonds (except for what you don't foresee needing within the next half decade or more, which you can put in stocks), then put the remainder in a simple high-yield deposit-insured savings account. It won't earn much, but you will be basically guaranteed that the money will still be there when you want it in a year. For the money you put into bonds and stocks, find low-cost index mutual funds or exchange-traded funds to do so. You cannot predict the future rate of return of any investment, but you can predict the cost of the investment with a high degree of accuracy. Hence, for any given investment class, strive to minimize cost, as doing so is likely to lead to better return on investment over time. It's extremely rare to find higher-cost alternatives that are actually worth it in the long term." "Whatever you do, you need to be saving a lot more to have a good chance at retirement at a reasonable age. With a combined salary of $150,000, I'd recommend: In total, that's $47,000/year in tax advantaged accounts, plus whatever you put into taxable accounts. Your $150,000 yearly income, less $90,000/year in savings is still an income of $60,000. People live comfortably and raise families on a lot less. Consider how fortunate you are. You could retire in 10 years, if you wanted, by increasing your savings and decreasing your expenses. Seriously, I'm speaking from first-hand experience. If you stay on your present course (saving $2,000/mo), at a 7% real return, you'll need about 37 years to accumulate $3,800,000 (in today's dollars), which is enough to: Even if those student loans are forgiven, that only knocks off about 2 years. If you are in your late 30s now, there's a decent chance you'll be dead before you retire. As for buying a house or not, this depends a lot on your personal circumstance and how the rental market in your city compares. In your decision, don't forget to consider: Renting is not necessarily throwing money away any more than buying a house is. If you take out a mortgage, you'll be ""throwing away"" a lot of money anyway. Look for a ""loan amortization calculator"" to see how much goes to interest versus principal. For a $500,000 loan at a 3.5% rate, you will be paying approximately $1400 per month in interest versus only $800 towards the principal. When you deduct insurance, taxes, maintenance, etc from that $800, you may find you are still throwing away most of your monthly payment on interest and expenses you wouldn't have if you rented. The money you do ""save"", after interest and expenses, isn't really saved. Housing markets go up and down, but on average, over the long term, they go up just enough to keep up with inflation, meaning a 0% real return. If renting means less cash out of pocket per month, you can put that extra cash towards investments that yield a much higher return. Sure, you may need to continue making rental payments in perpetuity, but you can save enough extra money to pay for the rental in investment income. Again, it depends considerably on how the housing and rental markets compare where you live. Popular cities (San Francisco, New York, Paris, etc.) tend to favor renting. Unpopular cities (Detroit, St. Louis) and rural areas tend to favor buying. Further reading: Mr. Money Mustache: Rent vs. Buy: If You Have to Ask, You Should Probably Rent" "The question ""do they?"" is a fair one, but the answer, ""we can only observe the past, and that's what they did,"" may not be so satisfying to you.  It's safe to say that any longer term view of any market will show far less volatility than a short one. It only takes a glance at the return of the 2000's  2009 27.11   2008 -37.22  2007      5.46  2006  15.74 2005  4.79   2004 10.82   2003  28.72  2002    -22.27  2001 -11.98 2000     -9.11 (for the S&P) to see that in an awful decade containing -37% and -22% that the full decade was ""only"" down 9% in total or just less than 1% per year compounded. I'm not predicting any particular returns forward, just noting this is how the math works.  DCA performs well through such a decade, better than in a rising one. You are offered the opportunity to buy into a market selling below the long term trend.  Added note in response to Enno's answer below - On rereading the linked article, I see where the author cites Zvi Bodie who clearly made a logical error. He concludes that since a 20 month S&P put costs triple what a 2.3 mo put costs, that there's more risk the market falls over the longer period, not less. American options can be sold or exercised at any time. If a 2 year option were cheaper than a 2 month option, no one would buy the shorter term. It's pretty simple that the Options Pricing Models take time into account and their value, put or call, increases along with the time till expiration.  On a lighter note, when I take the S&P data for 1871-2012 (I know, no S&P back then, but it's Schiller's data) I get average 40 year returns of 44X, similar to the author's conclusion, $1K growing to $44K. But, the Standard deviation is 28. So the high end of +1 STDEV is $72K, not the author's $166K. Although, the low end 44-28=16 comes close to his $14K figure. $16K is a 7.18% long term return which today doesn't look bad. When the article was written, the author was looking at a 6% short term risk free rate." What kind of financial analysis would make you comfortable about this decision? The HELOC and ARM are the biggest red flags to me in your current situation.  While I don't expect interest rates to skyrocket in the near future, they introduce an interest rate risk that is easy to get rid of.  Getting rid of the HELOC and converting to a fixed mortgage would be my first priority. If you also want to upgrade to a new home at the same time (meaning buy a new home contingent on the sale of your first, paying off the HELOC and mortgage), that's fine, but make sure that you can comfortably afford the payment on a fixed-rate mortgage with at least 20% down. I would not take additional cash out of your equity just to save it.  You're going to pay more in interest that you're going to get in savings.   From there things get trickier.   While many people would keep the first property on a mortgage and rent it out, I am not willing to be a landlord for a part-time job, especially when the interest on the mortgage gouges my return on the rent.  PLus leverage increases the risks as well - all it takes is to go one or two months without rent and you can find yourself unable to make a mortgage payment, wrecking your credit and possibly risking foreclosure. So my options in order of precedence would be: At what point does it make sense to become a landlord? The complicated answer is when the benefits (rent, appreciation) relative to the costs (maintenance, interest, taxes, etc.) and risks (lost rent, bad renters, home value variance) give you a better return that you could find in investments of similar risk.  The simple answer is when you can pay cash for it.  That takes interest and lost rent out of the equation.   Again, some are willing to take those risks and pay 20% down on rental property.  Some are able to make it work.  Some of those go broke or lose their properties.   when calculating the 20% down of a new property, does that need to be liquid funds, or can that be based on the value of the home you are selling You can make the purchase of the new home contingent on the sale of the first if you need to get the equity out of it to make the 20%.  Do NOT refinance the first just to pull out the equity to make a down payment.  It's not worth the fees of a refinance. You should use the Gordon Growth model, but you are using the wrong rate.  required return = rf + market premium x Beta  rm = 0,12, premium = 0,08 --&gt; rf = 0,04 thus rr = 0.04 + 0.08 * 1.5 = 0.16  then you get $15/(0.16-0.05) = $136,36 Im creating a 5-year projection on Profit and loss, cash flow and balance sheet and i\m suppose to use the LIBOR (5 year forward curve) as interest rate on debt.  This is the information i am given and it in USD.  Thanks for the link.  I guess its the USD LIBOR today, in one year, in two years, three years, four years and five years Here's a simple example for a put, from both sides. Assume XYZ stock trades at $200 right now.  Let's say John writes a $190 out of the money put on XYZ stock and sells this put to Abby for the premium, which is say $5. Assume the strike date, or date of settlement, is 6 months from now.  Thus Abby is long one put option and John is short one put option (the writer of the option is short the option). On settlement date, let's assume two different scenarios: (1) If the price of the stock decreases by $50, then the put that Abby bought is 'in the money'. Abby's profit can be calculated as being strike price 190 - current stock price 150 - premium paid 5 = $35 So not including any transaction fees, that is a $35 dollar return on a $5 investment. (2) If the price of the stock increases by $50, then the put that Abby bought is worthless and her loss was 100%, or her entire $5 premium.  For John, he made $5 in 6 months (in reality you need collateral and good credit to be able to write sizable option positions). Let's suppose your friend gave your $100 and you invested all of it (plus your own money, $500) into one stock. Therefore, the total investment becomes $100 + $500 = $600. After few months, when you want to sell the stock or give back the money to your friend, check the percentage of profit/loss. So, let's assume you get 10% return on total investment of $600.  Now, you have two choices. Either you exit the stock entirely, OR you just sell his portion. If you want to exit, sell everything and go home with $600 + 10% of 600 = $660. Out of $660, give you friend his initial capital + 10% of initial capital. Therefore, your friend will get $100 + 10% of $100 = $110. If you choose the later, to sell his portion, then you'll need to work everything opposite. Take his initial capital and add 10% of initial capital to it; which is $100 + 10% of $100 = $110. Sell the stocks that would be worth equivalent to that money and that's it. Similarly, you can apply the same logic if you broke his $100 into parts. Do the maths.