Value of tokens bought at an older price
"You will make a profit in nominal dollars (or nominal units of whatever currency you used to buy the token).  Whether you'll make a profit in real dollars depends on inflation, and in practice whether it would be possible to sell your existing tokens to someone else for the new price. Suppose when the price was 50 U (50 ""units"", since you didn't specify a currency), you bought one token.  Today you can either spend 52 U for a token, and get a liter of milk, or you can spend your existing token (for which you paid 50 U) and get a liter of milk.  It looks like you are making a profit of 2 U by spending your token. However, whether that profit is real or illusory depends on what else you could do with the token.  For instance, suppose that, since the price of a token is now 52 U, you will have no trouble finding someone who wants to buy your token from you for 52 U.  If you sell your token for 52 U, you'll still only be able to buy 1 L of milk.  So if you measure your wealth in milk, you have made no profit: in the past you had a token representing 1 L of milk, and today you still have a token representing 1 L of milk. Suppose now that in the past, when a token cost 50 U, a hamburger also cost 50 U.  Suppose further that a hamburger now costs 52 U.  So you can sell your token for 52 U, but that 52 U will still only buy you one hamburger.  So, again, if you measure your wealth in hamburgers, your have made no profit.  In the past, you could have sold your token and bought a hamburger; today, you can still sell your token and buy a hamburger, and you'll have nothing left over, so you have gained nothing. If, on the other hand, the price of a hamburger today is still 50 U, then you call sell your token for 52 U, buy a hamburger for 50 U, and still have 2 U left over.  You have made a profit. What this all goes to show is that, in practice, the idea of ""profit"" depends on the overall economy, and whether you could exchange the currency units you have in your possession for a greater quantity of goods than you could in the past.  Whether this is possible depends on the relative changes in price of various goods.  In other words, if you get your money by selling Product A, and later you buy Product B, you may or may not make a profit depending on how the prices of the two products moved relative to one another. Also, in your hypothetical setup, the ""currency"" (the token) is directly linked to the value of a single good, so you can always at least get 1 L of milk for your token.  Most real currency is not bound to specific goods like your milk token, so it is possible for your currency to lose value in an absolute sense.  For instance, suppose you sell a book for $5.  The $5 is not a ""book token"" and you cannot rely on being able to exchange it for a book in the future; in the future, all books may cost $10, and the prices of all goods may rise similarly, so your currency will actually be worth less no matter how you try to use it.  This could happen with the milk token if the milkman announces that henceforth 1 L of milk will cost 2 tokens; your existing token suddenly loses half its value. In sum, it is easy to calculate whether you made a profit in currency units.  What is harder is to calculate whether you made a profit in ""real terms"" (often referred to as ""real dollars"" or ""inflation-adjusted dollars"", or the equivalent in your favorite currency).  The reason this is hard is because the idea of ""real dollars"" is fundamentally linked to the possibility of exchanging currency for goods (and services), and so it depends what goods you're buying.  Inflation statistics published by governments and the like use a ""basket"" of goods to approximate the overall price movements in the economy as a whole."
Differences in liquidity explain why American-style options are generally worth more than their European-style counterparts. As far as I can tell, no one mentioned liquidity in their answer to this question, they just introduced needlessly complex math and logic while ignoring basic economic principles. That's not to say the previous answers are all wrong - they just deal with periphery factors instead of the central cause.  Liquidity is a key determinant of pricing/valuation in financial markets. Liquidity simply describes the ease with which an asset can be bought and sold (converted to cash). Without going into the reasons why, treasury bills are one of the most liquid securities - they can be bought or sold almost instantly at any time for an exact price. The near-perfect liquidity of treasuries is one of the major reasons why the price (yield) of a t-bill will always be higher (lower yield) than that of an otherwise identical corporate or municipal bond. Stated in general terms, a relatively liquid asset is always worth more than an relatively illiquid asset, all else being equal.  The value of liquidity is easy to understand - we experience it everyday in real life. If you're buying a house or car, the ability to resell it if needed is an important component of the decision. It's the same for investors - most people would prefer an asset that they can quickly and easily liquidate if the need for cash arises.  It's no different with options. American-style options allow the holder to exercise (liquidate) at any time, whereas the buyer of a European option has his cash tied up until a specific date. Obviously, it rarely makes sense to exercise an option early in terms of net returns, but sometimes an investor has a desperate need for cash and this need outweighs the reduction in net profits from early exercise.  It could be argued that this liquidity advantage is eliminated by the fact that you can trade (sell) either type of option without restriction before expiration, thus closing the long position. This is a valid point, but it ignores the fact that there's always a buyer on the other side of an option trade, meaning the long position, and the right/restriction of early exercise, is never eliminated, it simply changes hands. It follows that the American-style liquidity advantage increases an options market value regardless of one's position (call/put or short/long). Without putting an exact number on it, the general interest rate (time value of money) could be used to approximate the additional cost of an American-style option over a similar European-style contract. I came across this €1000 coin, which can actually be bought for €1000. It contains 17 grams of gold, worth about €600 today. Is there any downside to this over keeping €1000 in regular banknotes? These are bullions / medallions / collectibles / Non Circulating Tenders or whatever name one wants to call it. A coin has a value because the Central Banks says so that enforces everyone accept it at that. This as such is not a coin. Banks or anyone else will not accept this for face value.  These are of numismatic interest and certain people do collect such items. They are collectibles to the extent the price is dependent on general interest in future on such items and quantity available. So if future the price may go up much higher than the gold price or may retain its gold price. Mints make these with intricate design, best finish, limited quantity to charge the additional premium. If you are not into numismatics, stay away, a better options is buy simple gold bullion of similar weight for actual gold price. I don’t disagree that housing prices are important and vital to the economy, but I think they are a separate issue to inflation, requires a different set of tools to deal with, and has completely different outcomes from policies.   First and foremost, they are almost the only item purchased that can be resold at a higher value. So even though house prices may have risen 1000%, who ever had bought a house exits with a 1000% increase in equity. How would account for that when calculating inflation? "Simply put, yes. I bought that call. I was betting the shares would rise in value by Jan 2018, and chose the $130 strike. With a strike nearly a year away, I paid a premium that was all time value as the shares traded at   Now the shares are replaced by $128. The time value has gone to zero, and there is no intrinsic ""in the money"" value. If the shares were bought at $140, the time value stills drops to zero, but the option is closed at $10 in the money.  My answer was for a cash deal. In a case where the old shares are replaced by new shares or a combination of shares and money, the options terms are changed to reflect the combination of new assets for old.  Update based on disclosure that it's Monsanto we are discussing.   Bayer and Monsanto have announced that they signed a definitive   agreement under which Bayer will acquire Monsanto for USD 128 per   share in an all-cash transaction. Based on Monsanto’s closing share   price on May 9, 2016, the day before Bayer’s first written proposal to   Monsanto, the offer represents a premium of 44 percent to that price.  You can see that the deal has been in the works for some time now. Further research shows they expect the deal to close by ""the end of 2017"". It's not a done deal. This is why the options are still trading.   Now the shares are replaced by $128. The time value has gone to zero, and there is no intrinsic ""in the money"" value. If the shares were bought at $140, the time value stills drops to zero, but the option is closed at $10 in the money.  My answer was for a cash deal. In a case where the old shares are replaced by new shares or a combination of shares and money, the options terms are changed to reflect the combination of new assets for old.  Update based on disclosure that it's Monsanto we are discussing.  Bayer and Monsanto have announced that they signed a definitive   agreement under which Bayer will acquire Monsanto for USD 128 per   share in an all-cash transaction. Based on Monsanto’s closing share   price on May 9, 2016, the day before Bayer’s first written proposal to   Monsanto, the offer represents a premium of 44 percent to that price. You can see that the deal has been in the works for some time now. Further research shows they expect the deal to close by ""the end of 2017"". It's not a done deal. This is why the options are still trading." As other uses have pointed out, your example is unusual in that is does not include any time value or volatility value in the quoted premiums, the premiums you quote are only intrinsic values.  For well in-the-money options, the intrinsic value will certainly be the vast majority of the premium, but not the sole component. Having said that, the answer would clearly be that the buyer should buy the $40 call at a premium of $10.  The reason is that the buyer will pay less for the option and therefore risk less money, or buy more options for the same amount of money.  Since the buyer is assuming that the price will rise, the return that will be realised will be the same in gross terms, but higher in relative terms for the buyer of the $40 call.   For example, if the underlying price goes to $60, then the buyer of the $40 call would (potentially) double their money when the premium goes from $10 to $20, while the buyer of the $30 call would realise a (potential) 50% profit when the premium goes from $20 to $30. Considering the situation beyond your scenario, things are more difficult if the bet goes wrong.  If the underlying prices expires at under $40, then the buyer of the $40 call will be better off in gross terms but may be worse off in relative terms (if it expires above $30).  If the underlying price expires between $40 and $50, then the buy of the $30 will be better off in relative term, having lost a smaller percentage of their money. You bought 1 share of Google at $67.05 while it has a current trading price of $1204.11. Now, if you bought a widget for under $70 and it currently sells for over $1200 that is quite the increase, no? Be careful of what prices you enter into a portfolio tool as some people may be able to use options to have a strike price different than the current trading price by a sizable difference. Take the gain of $1122.06 on an initial cost of $82.05 for seeing where the 1367% is coming. User error on the portfolio will lead to misleading statistics I think as you meant to put in something else, right? It helps to put the numbers in terms of an asset. Say a bottle of wine costs 10 dollars, but the price rises to 20 dollars a year later. The price has risen 100%, and your dollars have lost value. Whereas your ten used to be worth 100% of the price of bottle of wine, they now are worth 50% of the risen price of a bottle of wine so they've lost around 50% of their value. Divide the old price by the new inflated price to measure proportionally how much the old price is of the new price. 10 divided by 20 is 1/2 or .50 or 50%. You can then subtract the old price from the new in proportional terms to find how much value you've lost. 1 minus 1/2 or 1.00 minus .50 or 100% minus 50%. /u/NotMyRealFaceBook  As a sniff test, I threw the following assumptions into a Black-Scholes options pricing calculator:  * Stock Price and Strike Price = $200  * Valuation date = 10/31/2017  * Expiration date = 10/29/2027 (European style - no early exercise)  * Volatility = 20% (on the low end for a tech. company - but again see the non-log-normal assumption point above)  * Interest rate = 4% (on the high end - which means the option seller is over-charging you)  * Dividend yield = 0%  The calculator's theoretical call option price results in $82.  Unless the company in question has a materially skewed upside given today's starting valuation, my opinion is the options you are offered are being priced via a Black-Scholes model and are over-priced.