How it actually works? Selling a call on a stock I hold, but has done poor, might the market thinks may rise
"You seem to have it right. You will be selling what's known as a covered call. When you sell the call, you enter it as ""sell to open"" and the system should see that you own the stock. You need to be approved for options trading, not all accounts are.  As far as this particular trade goes - No, the stock doesn't necessarily get called away the day it's in the money, but it can be. If the stock closes just in the money around the time of expiration are you ok will selling it for the strike price? Remember, the option buyer is taking a small risk, the cost of this option, hoping the stock will go far above that price." "What you are proposing is called a ""covered call"" strategy.  It is a perfectly reasonable speculative play on how far the stock will move within a certain amount of time.  If your belief that the stock's volatility is such that it is unlikely to reach the strike price before the maturity is greater than the markets (which it seems it is), then go ahead and sell the call."
Unfortunately, that's a call only you can make and whichever route you choose comes with advantages and disadvantages.  If you manage your money directly, you may significantly reduce costs (assuming that you don't frequently trade index funds or you use a brokerage like RobinHood) and take advantage of market returns if the indexes perform well.  On the other hand, if the market experiences some bad years, a professional might (and this is a huge might) have more self-discipline and prevent a panic sell, or know how to allocate accordingly both before and after a rise or fall (keep in mind, investors often get too greedy for their own good, like they tend to panic at the wrong time).  As an example of why this might is important: one family member of mine trusted a professional to do this and they failed; they bought in a rising market and sold in a falling market. To avoid the above example, if you do go with the professional service, the best course of action is to look at their track record; if they're new, you might be better on your own.  Since I assume this one or more professionals at the company, testing to see what they've recommended over the years might help you evaluate if they're offering you a good choice. Finally, depending on how much money you have, you could always do what Scott Adams did: he took a portion of his own money and managed it himself and tested how well he did vs. how well his professional team did (if I recall, I believe he came out ahead of his professional team).  With two decades left, that may help guide you the rest of the way, even through retirement. You can get no load annuities through some no-load financial companies like Vanguard so to start with I'd see how what she is being offered compares with something that comes free of a sales load. I'd also question that fixed rate, seems pretty impossible to me, which makes me think there is some catch or 'gotcha' that we are not seeing that either brings down that rate, or makes it delusional (they are kidding themselves) or deceptive in some way.  In any case it's setting off my 'too good to be true' alarm at full volume, along with the 'shark attack' alarm as well. (I would strongly suspect the 'advisor' is advising the product that makes the most money for him, NOT what is in your mother's best interest)  A fixed annuity is an insurance product, not a security, because the insurance company must credit the annuity holder’s account with the specified interest rate for the contractually-stipulated time period, regardless of market fluctuations in actual interest rates. It is the insurance company that bears the investment risk, which it does by investing the annuity holder’s purchase proceeds in fixed-income instruments that the company hopes will provide sufficient return to fulfill its contractual representations to the holder.  THIS is why there is no prospectus (it's not a 'security' they are not required to provide one by SEC) because the risk is entirely with the company. Obviously as pointed out in the comments, the company could easily go out of business (especially of they sell a lot of these and can't find a way to get that kind of return on the invested money).  Now, ask yourself, if I was the insurance company, would I be comfortable guaranteeing that level of return over that much time if I intend to make a profit from it, pay sales comissions, and stay in business?   In terms of 'will they stay in business' I'd have a hard look at their ratings, and go compare where that is on the total range for AM Best (they are lowest 'secure' rating, next thing down is in the 'vulnerable' category) and Standard and Poors (4 places down from their best rating, next thing down is 'marginal' followed by 'poor')   You might also want to see if you can get any idea of historical ratings, is this company's ratings falling, or rising?   Personally, for the amount of money involved, I'd want a company with MUCH higher ratings than these guys..  THEN maybe someone could say 'no risk', but with those ratings?  an no, I don't think so! BTW I'd check over what this bozo (um sorry, that's not fair to clowns) is recommending she do with her own funds as well.  For example is he recommending she take something that is already tax sheltered such as an IRA and investing the stuff inside that in an annuity (kind of pointless to 'double shelter' the money, or lock it up for a period of time when she may be required to make withdrawals) make sure you don't see something there that is actually against what is in her best interest and is only done to make him a comission. "There are a number of ways to measure such things and they are generally called ""sentiment indicators"".  The ones that I have seen ""work"", in the sense that they show relatively high readings near market tops and relatively low readings near market bottoms.  The problem is that there are no thresholds that work consistently.  For example, at one market top a sentiment indicator may read 62.  At the next market top that same indicator might read 55.  So what threshold do you use next time?  Maybe the top will come at 53, or maybe it will not come until 65. There was a time when I could have listed examples for you with the names of the indicators and what they signaled and when.  But I gave up on such things years ago after seeing such wide variation.  I have been at this a long time (30+ years), and I have not found anything that works as well as we would like at identifying a top in real time.  The best I have found (although it does give false signals) is a drop in price coupled with a bearish divergence in breadth.  The latter is described in ""Stan Weinstein's Secrets For Profiting in Bull and Bear Markets"". Market bottoms are a little less difficult to identify in real time.  One thing I would suggest if you think that there is some way to get a significant edge in investing, is to look at the results of Mark Hulbert's monitoring of newsletters.  Virtually all of them rise and fall with the market and almost none are able to beat buy and hold of the Wilshire 5000 over the long term." The answers you'll receive are going to be largely subjective. I can't tell you which option would be best for you, but there are plenty of things to consider.  Do you know how to sell a home? If your market is hot enough, FSBO may make sense as you won't need the marketing power and expertise of an agent. In very hot markets, you'll end up with potential bidding wars if you price your house correctly. But that's where things start getting tricky. Do you know what your house is realistically worth in your market, or are you making assumptions based on Zillow (or similar)? Do you know what paper work is needed to complete a FSBO sale? Are you any good at negotiating? There are certainly plenty of resources out there for FSBO sellers to learn how to do it, but it can be overwhelming.  FSBO isn't really fee free. If the buyer has an agent, they'll want a percentage (3%) for setting up their part of the sale. Without experience in negotiation, you may be leaving a decent amount of money on the table. Also, in negotiations, an experienced agent may nickel & dime you with contingencies all the way up until closing. Then there's anything you might need to pay for marketing materials and time off from work (if needed) to have the house shown. However, if you're in a market where people are literally walking up to your door to ask if you'd consider selling and for how much (which just happened to a friend of mine), then it might actually be a pretty painless process.  Traditional agents charge a fee, but that fee goes towards marketing and their experience in sales and negotiations. They do the work of getting your property in front of the right people and setting up house showings. The work is done on your behalf, and you won't need to alter your personal work schedule anywhere near as much as you would with FSBO. They only get paid if the house sells. Limited service agents are a bit of an unknown to me, but it's more than likely the buyer will have an agent, so assume the higher fee. It also appears that the LSA gets paid at least $500 no matter what happens, so they're certainly not putting in any extra effort to help get your house sold. It appears that you're simply paying to get on their list of homes and get some marketing from them, but that's about it. I'd imagine you could get the same exposure as a well educated FSBO seller. The main thing you're missing is that while you bear all the costs of manipulating the market, you have no special ability to capture the profits yourself. You make money by buying low and selling high. But if you want to push the price up, you have to keep buying even though the price is getting high. So you are buying high. This gives everyone, including you, the opportunity to sell high and make money. But you will have no special ability to capture that -- others will see the price going up and will start selling within a tiny fraction of a second. You will have to keep buying all the shares they keep selling at the artificially inflated price. So as you keep trying to buy more and more to push the price up enough to make money, everyone else is selling their shares to you. You have to buy more and more shares at an inflated price as everyone else is selling while you are still buying. When you switch to selling, the price will drop instantly, since there's nobody to buy from you at the inflated price. The opportunity you created has already been taken -- by the very people you were trading with. Billions have been lost by people who thought this strategy would work. "Selling as well as buying a stock are part science and part art form.  I remember once selling a stock at its 52 week high too. That particular stock ""quadrupled"" in value over the next 52 weeks.  Mind you I made 50% ROI on the stock but my point is that none of us have a crystal ball on whether a particular stock will ever stop or start going up or stop or start going down. If someone had those answers they wouldn't be telling you they would be practicing them to make more money! Make up your mind what you want to make and stick by your decisions.  Bulls make money when stocks go up and Bears make money when they go down but pigs don't make money. -RobF" The order book looks fine, if it were a liquid market. However, a bid that matches with an ask will always be met on a first come first serve basis. There's no other way to do it.   Most traders don't like doing that because they want to try to get a lower price. HFT don't have to worry about meeting the ask because they're just going to pass that cost on to the guy on the hook.   By the time the HFT makes the buy they already know the guy wants to buy at 70.00  They did not know that at the time they placed the buy order. If the buy order from the HFT hasn't been cancelled it means they already found someone.  How? By testing the market with sell orders at the same time they were sending buy orders.  They keep a little bit of stock in reserve to perform these tests. "For sake of simplicity, say the Euro is trading at $1.25. You have leveraged control of $100,000 given the 100x leverage. If you are bullish on the Euro, you are long 80,000 euros. For every 1% it rises, you gain $1000. If it drops by the same 1%, you are wiped out, you lost your $1000. With the contracts I am familiar with, there is a minimum margin, and your account is ""marked to market"" each night. If your positive balance drops too low, you get the margin call. It's a zero sum game, for every dollar you make, there's a guy on the other side of the trade. Odds are he's doing this full time and is smarter than you."