Options price vs implied volatility - who drives who?
"Currently, when ""implied volatility"" is spoken, the Black-Scholes-Merton model is implied.  This model has been shown to be deficient, thus the Variance Gamma Model should be used. However, as nearly no one uses VG, it can be assumed that BS is still being implied. The BS formula has multiple variables.  Some are external to the underlying in question.  The rest are internal. When all but one variable is known or assumed, the last variable can be calculated, so if one has the price of the underlying and all else except the volatility, the volatility can be calculated thus implied. If one selects an implied volatility, and all variables except the underlying price is known, the underlying price can be calculated. For the present, one uses the current price of the underlying to calculate the implied volatility.  For future option prices, one assumes an implied volatility at a later date to calculate a possible price. For prices not at the money, the BS model is extremely imprecise.  The VG model can better determine a potential future price."
Find a mechanic in the area that will, for a fee, do a pre-approval inspection.  Then when you call the seller to inquire you can ask them to let you take the vehicle there as part of your test drive. I'm not sure how many RV mechanics there are that don't work for a dealership, and those that do may be less inclined to assist you in purchasing from a private party.  You could also have a friend or family member who is a mechanic or good with vehicles come along.  Also, the seller may not want to bother with the extra hassle, and if it really is a good deal, they likely won't need to.   Of course, the other option is to just test drive it and trust your gut.  This doesn't sound like a huge risk at 2K.  Even if it breaks down right away and can't be repaired for a reasonable price, you could scrap the vehicle and hopefully make up a significant portion of the purchase price. A change in implied volatility tells us something about what investors are thinking (or fearing) about the volatility going forward for the life of the associated option contracts (which may be short or long-lived).  IV does a good job of summarizing the information available to investors, which includes information about the past and the present. However, whether these investor views actually translate into what happens in the future is a topic of debate in the finance literature--investors do not generally know the future--there are conflicting results available.  There have been papers that show that implied volatility has predictive power in some situations, time periods, and horizons (though it is also biased) and other papers that show that it does not have statistically significant predictive power at all. The consensus last time I checked was that implied volatility is no worse than historical volatility (including methods that use trends in historical volatility to forecast where it is going) at predicting future volatility.  Whether it is significantly better and whether either reliably predicts the future is something that is not agreed on.  I take this lack of consensus as evidence that if it does predict future volatility, it does so poorly. Somewhat dated FAJ survey on the subject First, it depends on your broker.  Full service firms will tear you a new one, discount brokers may charge ~nothing.  You'll have to check with your broker on assignment fees. Theoretically, this is the case of the opposite of my answer in this question: Are underlying assets supposed to be sold/bought immediately after being bought/sold in call/put option? Your trading strategy/reasoning for your covered call notwithstanding, in your case, as an option writer covering in the money calls, you want to hold and pray that your option expires worthless.  As I said in the other answer, there is always a theoretical premium of option price + exercise price to underlying prices, no matter how slight, right up until expiration, so on that basis, it doesn't pay to close out the option. However, there's a reality that I didn't mention in the other answer: if it's a deep in the money option, you can actually put a bid < stock price - exercise price - trade fee and hope for the best since the market makers rarely bid above stock price - exercise price for illiquid options, but it's unlikely that you'll beat the market makers + hft.  They're systems are too fast. I know the philly exchange allows you to put in implied volatility orders, but they're expensive, and I couldn't tell you if a broker/exchange allows for dynamic orders with the equation I specified above, but it may be worth a shot to check out; however, it's unlikely that such a low order would ever be filled since you'll at best be lined up with the market makers, and it would require a big player dumping all its' holdings at once to get to your order. If you're doing a traditional, true-blue covered call, there's absolutely nothing wrong being assigned except for the tax implications.  When your counterparty calls away your underlyings, it is a sell for tax purposes. If you're not covering with the underlying but with a more complex spread, things could get hairy for you real quick if someone were to exercise on you, but that's always a risk.  If your broker is extremely strict, they may close the rest of your spread for you at the offer.  In illiquid markets, that would be a huge percentage loss considering the wide bid/ask spreads. "When you buy a put option, you're buying the right to sell stock at the ""strike"" price. To understand why you have to pay separately for that, consider the other side of the transaction. If I agree to trade stock for money at above market rates, I need to make up the difference somewhere or face bankruptcy.  That risk of loss is what the option price is about. You might assume that means the market expects the price of AMD to fall to 8.01 from it's current price of 8.06 by the option expiration date. But that would also mean call options below the market price is worthless. But that's not quite true; people who price options need to factor in volatility, since things change with time. The price MIGHT fall, and traders need to account for that risk. So 1.99 roughly represents the probability of AMD rising to 10. There's probably some technical analysis one can do to the chain, but I don't see any abnormality of AMD here." Think of options as insurance. An insurance company makes money by selling the policies at a rate slightly higher than the average payout.  Most options expire worthless. This is because most options are purchased by hedge funds. To 'hedge' means taking out insurance in case your position goes against you. So the sellers of options obtain a price that covers their (averaged) losses plus provides them with a profit for their trouble.  An option has an amount that it declines in value each day (called theta). At the expiration date the option is worth zero (if it is out-of-the-money). So it is option writers that, typically, make money in the options market (as they are the sellers of insurance). If they didn't make money selling options they would not sell them.  For example, the February call option on SPY strike 200 traded at 8.81 on 12/30. Since then it has crumbled in value to 0.14. The option writer currently stands to make a huge profit.  So, just as with insurance, you (generally) never make money by buying insurance. But the sellers of insurance tend to make money as do the writers of options.  Edit: Theta @ Investopedia "A minor tangent. One can claim the S&P has a mean return of say 10%, and standard deviation of say 14% or so, but when you run with that, you find that the actual returns aren't such a great fit to the standard bell curve. Market anomalies producing the ""100-year flood"" far more often than predicted over even a 20 year period. This just means that the model doesn't reflect reality at the tails, even if the +/- 2 standard deviations look pretty. This goes for the Black-Sholes (I almost abbreviated it to initials, then thought better, I actually like the model) as well. The distinction between American and European is small enough that the precision of the model is wider than the difference of these two option styles. I believe if you look at the model and actual pricing, you can determine the volatility of a given stock by using prices around the strike price, but when you then model the well out of money options, you often find the market creating its own valuation." While the issuer of the security such as a stock or bond not the short is responsible for the credit risk, the issuer and the short of a derivative is one. In all cases, it is more than likely that a trader is owed securities by an agent such as a broker or exchange or clearinghouse. Legally, only the Options Clearing Corporation clears openly traded options.  With stocks and bonds, brokerages can clear with each other if approved. While a trader is expected to fund margin, the legal responsibility is shared by all in the agent chain.  Clearinghouses are liable to exchanges.  Exchanges are liable to members.  Traders are liable to brokerages.  Both ways and so on. Clearinghouses are usually ultimately liable for counterparty risk to the long counterparty, and the short counterparty is ultimately liable to the clearinghouse. Clearinghouses are not responsible for the credit risk of stocks and bonds because the issuers are not short those securities on the exchange, thus no margin is required.  Credit risk for stocks and bonds is mitigated away from the clearing process. "The correct answer to this question is:  the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case.  Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral.  Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered.  If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money.  Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D.  D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit.  D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually ""lost"" all the money when purchasing the stock.  After all, all the money went directly from C to B.  In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it.  But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else ""pay"" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value.  C is thus now sitting on a loss.  The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B.  However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to?  The person again is; who bought their stock.  The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls."