How much money are you actually trading with options?
You would have paid $880.00 plus commission in this case, and made $85 before commissions. How much you would have made on expiration depends on the price that TSLA has on April 1, which hasn't come yet.  If it expires worthless, you typically don't pay a commission but you will have lost the full $880.  If it expires in the money and you want to exercise it, then you would pay a commission (often different than the commission to buy/sell the option itself) and you would have 100 shares of TSLA.  You won't know how much you make or lose in this case until you ultimately sell the shares of TSLA.
So, child, your goal is to make money? This is usually achieved by selling goods (say, lemonade) at a price that exceeds their cost (say, sugar, water and, well, lemons). Options, at first, are very much same in that you can buy the right to engage in a specific future trade. You make money in this situation if the eventual returns from the scheduled trade cover the cost of purchasing the option. Otherwise you can simply opt out of the trade -- you purchased the right to trade, after all, not any type of obligation. Makes sense? Good. Because what follows is what makes options a little different. That is, if you sell that same right to engage in a specific trade the situation is seemingly reversed: you lock in your return at the outset, but the costs aren't fully realized until the trade is either consumed or declined by the owner of the option. And keep in mind that it is always the owner of the option who is in the driver's seat; they may sell the option, hold on to it and do nothing, or use it to engage in the anticipated trade. And that's really all there's to it. "I'm adding to @Dilip's basic answer, to cover the additional points in your question.  I'll assume you are referring to publicly traded stock options, such as those found on the CBOE, and not an option contract entered into privately between two specific counterparties (e.g. as in an employer stock option plan). Since you are not obligated to exercise a call option you purchased on the market, you don't need to maintain funds on account for possible exercising.  You could instead let the option expire, or resell the option, neither of which requires funds available for purchase of the underlying shares. However, should you actually choose to exercise the call option (and usually this is done close to expiration, if at all), you will be required to fund your account much like if you bought the underlying shares in the first place.  Call your broker to determine the exact rules and timing for when they need the money for a call-option exercise. And to expand on the idea of ""cancelling"" an option you purchased: No, you cannot ""cancel"" an option contract, per se.  But, you are permitted to sell the call option to somebody else willing to buy, via the market.  When you sell your call option, you'll either make or lose money on the sale – depending on the price of the underlying shares at the time (are they in- or out- of the money?), volatility in the market, and remaining time value.  Once you sell, you're back to ""no position"".  That's not the same as ""cancelled"", but you are out of the trade, whether at profit or loss. Furthermore, the option writer (i.e. the seller who ""sold to open"" a position, in writing the call in the first place) is also not permitted to cancel the option he wrote.  However, the option writer is permitted to close out the original short position by simply buying back a matching call option on the market.  Again, this would occur at either profit or loss based on market prices at the time.  This second kind of buy order – i.e. made by someone who initially wrote a call option – is called a ""buy to close"", meaning the purchase of an offsetting position.  (The other kind of buy is the ""buy to open"".) Then, consider: Since an option buyer is free to re-sell the option purchased, and since an option writer (who ""sold to open"" the new contract) is also free to buy back an offsetting option, a process known as clearing is required to match remaining buyers exercising the call options held with the remaining option writers having open short positions for the contract.  For CBOE options, this clearing is performed by the Options Clearing Corporation.  Here's how it works (see here): What is the OCC? The Options Clearing Corporation is the sole issuer of all securities   options listed at the CBOE, four other U.S. stock exchanges and the   National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), and is the   entity through which all CBOE option transactions are ultimately   cleared. As the issuer of all options, OCC essentially takes the   opposite side of every option traded. Because OCC basically becomes   the buyer for every seller and the seller for every buyer, it allows   options traders to buy and sell in a secondary market without having   to find the original opposite party.   [...]   [emphasis above is mine] When a call option writer must deliver shares to a call option buyer exercising a call, it's called assignment.  (I have been assigned before, and it isn't pleasant to see a position called away that otherwise would have been very profitable if the call weren't written in the first place!) Also, re: ""I know my counter party cannot sell his shares"" ... that's not strictly true.  You are thinking of a covered call.  But, an option writer doesn't necessarily need to own the underlying shares.  Look up Naked call (Wikipedia).  Naked calls aren't frequently undertaken because a naked call ""is one of the riskiest options strategies because it carries unlimited risk"".  The average individual trader isn't usually permitted by their broker to enter such an order, but there are market participants who can do such a trade. Finally, you can learn more about options at The Options Industry Council (OIC)." "No.  The more legs you add onto your trade, the more commissions you will pay entering and exiting the trade and the more opportunity for slippage.  So lets head the other direction.   Can we make a simple, risk-free option trade, with as few legs as possible? The (not really) surprising answer is ""yes"", but there is no free lunch, as you will see.  According to financial theory any riskless position will earn the risk free rate, which right now is almost nothing, nada, 0%.   Let's test this out with a little example. In theory, a riskless position can be constructed from buying a stock, selling a call option, and buying a put option.  This combination should earn the risk free rate. Selling the call option means you get money now but agree to let someone else have the stock at an agreed contract price if the price goes up.  Buying the put option means you pay money now but can sell the stock to someone at a pre-agreed contract price if you want to do so, which would only be when the price declines below the contract price.  To start our risk free trade, buy Google stock, GOOG, at the Oct 3 Close:   495.52 x 100sh = $49,552 The example has 100 shares for compatibility with the options contracts which require 100 share blocks. we will sell a call and buy a put @ contract price of $500 for Jan 19,2013.   Therefore we will receive $50,000 for certain on Jan 19,2013, unless the options clearing system fails, because of say, global financial collapse, or war with Aztec spacecraft. According to google finance, if we had sold a call today at the close we would receive the bid, which is 89.00/share, or $8,900 total.  And if we had bought a put today at the close we would pay the ask, which is 91.90/share, or $9190 total. So, to receive $50,000 for certain on Jan 19,2013 we could pay $49,552 for the GOOG stock, minus $8,900 for the money we received selling the call option, plus a payment of $9190 for the put option we need to protect the value.  The total is $49,842.   If we pay $49,842 today, plus execute the option strategy shown, we would have $50,000 on Jan 19,2013.  This is a profit of $158, the options commissions are going to be around $20-$30, so in total the profit is around $120 after commissions.   On the other hand, ~$50,000 in a bank CD for 12 months at 1.1% will yield $550 in similarly risk-free interest.   Given that it is difficult to actually make these trades simultaneously, in practice, with the prices jumping all around, I would say if you really want a low risk option trade then a bank CD looks like the safer bet.  This isn't to say you can't find another combination of stock and contract price that does better than a bank CD -- but I doubt it will ever be better by very much and still difficult to monitor and align the trades in practice." "This is the sad state of US stock markets and Regulation T. Yes, while options have cleared & settled for t+1 (trade +1 day) for years and now actually clear ""instantly"" on some exchanges, stocks still clear & settle in t+3.  There really is no excuse for it. If you are in a margin account, regulations permit the trading of unsettled funds without affecting margin requirements, so your funds in effect are available immediately after trading but aren't considered margin loans.  Some strict brokers will even restrict the amount of uncleared margin funds you can trade with (Scottrade used to be hyper safe and was the only online discount broker that did this years ago); others will allow you to withdraw a large percentage of your funds immediately (I think E*Trade lets you withdraw up to 90% of unsettled funds immediately). If you are in a cash account, you are authorized to buy with unsettled funds, but you can't sell purchases made on unsettled funds until such funds clear, or you'll be barred for 90 days from trading as your letter threatened; besides, most brokers don't allow this.  You certainly aren't allowed to withdraw unsettled funds (by your broker) in such an account as it would technically constitute a loan for which you aren't even liable since you've agreed to no loan contract, a margin agreement.  I can't be sure if that actually violates Reg T, but when I am, I'll edit. While it is true that all marketable options are cleared through one central entity, the Options Clearing Corporation, with stocks, clearing & settling still occurs between brokers, netting their transactions between each other electronically. All financial products could clear & settle immediately imo, and I'd rather not start a firestorm by giving my opinion why not. Don't even get me started on the bond market... As to the actual process, it's called ""clearing & settling"". The general process (which can generally be applied to all financial instruments from cash deposits to derivatives trading) is: The reason why all of the old financial companies were grouped on Wall St. is because they'd have runners physically carting all of the certificates from building to building.  Then, they discovered netting so slowed down the process to balance the accounts and only cart the net amounts of certificates they owed each other.  This is how we get the term ""bankers hours"" where financial firms would close to the public early to account for the days trading.  While this is all really done instantly behind your back at your broker, they've conveniently kept the short hours." "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." I'm sorry, but your math is wrong.  You are not equally likely to make as much money by waiting for expiration. Share prices are moving constantly in both directions.  Very rarely does any stock go either straight up or straight down.  Consider a stock with a share price of $12 today.  Perhaps that stock is a bad buy, and in 1 month's time it will be down to $10.  But the market hasn't quite wised up to this yet, and over the next week it rallies up to $15. If you bought a European option (let's say an at-the-money call, expiring in 1 month, at $12 on our start date), then you lost.  Your option expired worthless. If you bought an American option, you could have exercised it when the share price was at $15 and made a nice profit. Keep in mind we are talking about exactly the same stock, with exactly the same history, over exactly the same time period.  The only difference is the option contract.  The American option could have made you money, if you exercised it at any time during the rally, but not the European option - you would have been forced to hold onto it for a month and finally let it expire worthless. (Of course that's not strictly true, since the European option itself can be sold while it is in the money - but eventually, somebody is going to end up holding the bag, nobody can exercise it until expiration.) The difference between an American and European option is the difference between getting N chances to get it right (N being the number of days 'til expiration) and getting just one chance.  It should be easy to see why you're more likely to profit with the former, even if you can't accurately predict price movement. "Number 2 cannot occur. You can buy the call back and sell the stock, but the broker won't force that #2 choice. To trade options, you must have a margin account. No matter how high the stock goes, once ""in the money"" the option isn't going to rise faster, so your margin % is not an issue.  And your example is a bit troublesome to me. Why would a $120 strike call spike to $22 with only a month left? You've made the full $20 on the stock rise and given up any gain after that. That's all. The call owner may exercise at any time. Edit: @jaydles is right, there are circumstances where an option price can increase faster than the stock price. Options pricing generally follows the Black-Scholes model. Since the OP gave us the current stock price, option strike price, and time to expiration, and we know the risk free rate is <1%, you can use the calculator to change volatility. The number two scenario won't occur, however, because a covered call has no risk to the broker, they won't force you to buy the option back, and the option buyer has no motive to exercise it as the entire option value is time premium." Yes, if there is liquidity you can sell your option to someone else as a profit. This is what the majority of option trading volume is used for: speculative trading with leverage.