What option-related strategies are better suited to increasing return potential?
"I've traded covered calls now and then. This is a recent trade. Bought 1000 shares of RSH (Radio Shack) and sold 10 calls. So, I own the stock at a cost of $6.05, but have to let it go for $7.50. There's a 50c dividend in November, so the call buyer will call it away even if the stock trades below the strike. So, I'm expecting this is a 10 month trade for a 24% return.  This is one strategy where options clearly take down the risk (of course, I did not say 'remove', just lessens). The stock can be 10% lower a year out, and I'm still ahead by 8% plus the dividend if it's not canceled.  Note - it's a rare case for a one year trade to return 20% or more at a flat stock price. More common is 10-12%.  (I hope this example is acceptable as an example of this type of trade. If not, I can edit to ""XYZ corp"" to remove the stock name. (So if anyone comments, please do not repeat name in case I need to remove)" It definitely depends on your risk appetite as Joe Taxpayer pointed out in his answer. Covered calls are a good choice for someone who already own's the stock, because the premium collected reduces the cost basis for the position. The downside is that if the calls are exercised, there is a good chance that you are missing out on additional upside in the stock price (because the strike is obviously below the market value for the stocks).  Another good option trade is the spread option. This would allow you to capture the difference between the two strikes of the options in the spread. This is also one of the less risky choices because your initial cost an potential profit/loss are known in advance of entering the position. I think you need to be very careful here. Covered calls don't reduce risk or increase performance overall. If they did, every investment manager would be using them. In a typical portfolio, over the long term, the gains you give up when your stock goes beyond the strike of your calls will negate the premiums you receive over time. Psychologically, covered calls are appealing because your gains happen over a long period and this is why many people suggest it. But if you believe the Black-Scholes model (used for pricing options) this is what the model predicts over the long term - that you won't do any better than just holding stock (unless you have some edge other traders don't). Now you say you want to reduce diversification and raise your risk. Keeping in mind that there is no free lunch, there are several ways to reduce your risk but they all come at a price. For simplicity, there are three elements to consider - risk, potential gain and cash. These are tradeoffs and you can't simultaneously make them all favorable. You must trade one or more of them to gain in the others. Let's say you wanted to concentrate into a few stocks... how could you counteract the additional risk? 1) Covered calls: very popular strategy usually intended (erroneously) for increasing returns. You get the bonus of cash along with marginally less risk. But you give up a substantial amount of potential return. You won't have blowout returns if you do this. You still face substantial risk. 2) Collar your stock: You sell a covered call while using the cash from the sale to buy puts for protection. You give up potential gains, you're neutral on cash but gain significantly on reducing risk.  3) Use calls as proxy for stock: You don't hold stock but only calls in equivalent delta to the stock you would have held. Substantially lower risk while still having potential gain. Your tradeoff is the cash you have to pay for the calls. When using this, one must be very, very careful not to overleverage.  4) Puts as protection for stocks: This is basically the same as #3 in tradeoffs. You won't overleverage and you also get dividends. But for the most part it's the same. These are the main ways to reduce the risk you gain by concentrating. Options themselves are far broader. But keep in mind that there is no free money. All these techniques involve tradeoffs that you have to be aware of.
The important thing to realize is, what would you do, if you didn't have the call? If you didn't have call options, but you wanted to have a position in that particular stock, you would have to actually purchase it. But, having purchased the shares, you are at risk to lose up to the entire value of them-- if the company folded or something like that.  A call option reduces the potential loss, since you are at worst only out the cost of the call, and you also lose a little on the upside, since you had to pay for the call, which will certainly have some premium over buying the underlying share directly. Risk can be defined as reducing the variability of outcomes, so since calls/shorts etc. reduce potential losses and also slightly reduce potential gains, they pretty much by definition reduce risk. It's also worth noting, that when you buy a call, the seller could also be seen as hedging the risk of price decreases while also guaranteeing that they have a buyer at a certain price. So, they may be more concerned about having cash flow at the right time, while at the same time reducing the cost of the share losing in value than they are losing the potential upside if you do exercise the option. Shorts work in the same way but opposite direction to calls, and forwards and futures contracts are more about cash flow management: making sure you have the right amount of money in the right currency at the right time regardless of changes in the costs of raw materials or currencies. While either party may lose on the transaction due to price fluctuations, both parties stand to gain by being able to know exactly what they will get, and exactly what they will have to pay for it, so that certainty is worth something, and certainly better for some firms than leaving positions exposed. Of course you can use them for speculative purposes, and a good number of firms/people do but that's not really why they were invented. We can't know the future, of course, but we know that on average it's better to invest a lump sum. We can look at some periods of recent history to get a sense of the difference between a lump sum 450k investment and maybe say 5 years of 90k. Using S&P 500 return rates, let's say you started investing on Jan 1, 2008: Here, spreading your investing over 5 years earns you an extra $163k.  Starting a year later, the same strategy would earn you $327k less than a lump investment: I looked at some other periods, but the story doesn't change from what we already knew; you can reduce risk of losing a big chunk due to a bad year, but it comes at the cost of potential gains. Perhaps you could make a killing by waiting for the next down-turn and buying on the cheap, or maybe you'll just be wasting time and money as the market enjoys sustained growth. I'd go with a lump, trusting the averages; but you're right, another 2008 with no recovery would suck. As for holding $50k back it depends primarily on your monthly budget, many people suggest a 3-8 month liquid emergency fund, I like 6 months. Go with what you're comfortable with. Since I got downvoted for poking fun at   &gt; I've come to realize I don't really enjoy the engineering aspects of my job nor the industry, but I enjoy corporate culture.  Here's some info for those actually interested:   https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/corporate-strategy-vs-corporate-development https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/corporate-finance-jobs/ https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/day-in-life-corporate-finance-analyst/ https://www.quora.com/Strategic-Management-What-is-the-typical-day-in-the-life-of-a-corporate-strategy-consultant https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/corporate-development-on-the-job/      Corporate finance (Controllers, FP&amp;A, Treasury) is a catch-all for jobs that quantify and manage a company's money. This includes figuring out how much money the business is making, budgeting, and gaining access to money for future plans. They spend most of their day on excel, browsing reddit, and complaining that other departments don't take them seriously. There is work-life balance, unless your company is at risk of bankruptcy, but pay will likely be the least of this group.   Corporate strategy/development is about finding ways to achieve the vision/goals of the C-suite. Corporate development usually are ex-IB people and focused on finding companies to acquire, integrate, and achieve the goals of the acquisition (synergies, returns on investment, technology/product acquisition). Corporate strategy is usually broader and could be focused on improving the brand, figuring out new uses for a product, finding new partners, or generally looking for good ideas to improve the company.  Business development usually is about growing the company through finding new customers, markets, or partnerships. Instead of selling specific products or services, you're selling your company's abilities and brand.   I'd say, with your engineering background, if you can swing a corporate strategy gig, you'd have the greatest opps for any VP you decide. I'd say if you want to sell or are good at selling, then business development may be compelling. If I were you, corporate finance would be the least appealing unless you are truly interested in finance. You are probably right that using a traditional buy and hold strategy on common equities or funds is very unlikely to generate the types of returns that would make you a millionaire in short order. However, that doesn't mean it isn't possible. You just have to accept a more risk to become eligible for such incredible returns that you'd need to do that. And by more risk I mean a LOT more risk, which is more likely to put you in the poorhouse than a mansion. Mostly we are talking about highly speculative investments like commodities and real estate. However, if you are looking for potential to make (or more likely lose) huge amounts of money in the stock market without a very large cache of cash. Options give you much more leverage than just buying a stock outright. That is, by buying option contracts you can get a much larger return on a small movement in the stock price compared to what you would get for the same investment if you bought the stock directly.  Of course, you take on additional risk. A normal long position on a stock is very unlikely to cause you to lose your entire investment, whereas if the stock doesn't move far enough and in the right direction, you will lose your entire investment in option contracts. In my IRA I try to find stocks that are in growing sectors but have are undervalued by traditional metrics like PE or book value; I make sure that they have lower debt levels than their peers, are profitable, and at least have comparable margins.   I started trading options to make better returns off of indices or etfs. It seems overlooked but it's pretty good, in another thread I was telling someone about my strategy buy applying it to thier portfolio: https://www.reddit.com/r/options/comments/77bt17/ive_been_trading_stocks_for_a_year_and_am/dolydu8/?context=3  I double checked, I told him/her I would buy the DIA Jan 19 2018 call 225 for 795. 8 days later it's trading for 1085. Nearly 50% in a week. It'll never be 300% earnings returns, but I'm happy to take it slow.   Shorting is a very different animal it takes a lot to get things right. "Mathematically it seems like the expected rate of return, whatever that might be, is the same for both. An aggressive strategy is higher risk and higher reward. A conservative strategy is lower risk and lower reward. That is not true.  Roughly, the mathematical analogue of ""higher risk and higher reward"" is ""higher standard deviation and higher mean"".  In other words, the aggressive strategy does have a higher expected rate of return (higher mean).  Its disadvantage is that it has a higher likelihood of incurring intermediate losses (and/or higher magnitude of intermediate losses) on the way. This is classically illustrated with the following chart -  from Vanguard. You can see that the average return is greater the riskier the portfolio (i.e., the more allocated to stocks relative to bonds), but this higher average return comes at the price of a greater range of possible returns.  With an aggressive portfolio, you take a greater risk of losses at any given moment for a greater chance of gains over a long period. Given this, it should be obvious why the advice is to be aggressive early on.  Early in life, you don't care about whether your current position is up or down, because you're not taking the money out.  If your portfolio is down, you just leave the money in there until it goes back up again.  Later in life, you need to spend the money; you now care about whether your current position is up or down, because you can't afford to wait out a down market and may have to realize a loss by selling. It's important to note that the expected return is always greater for a higher-risk portfolio, as is the expected risk; the expected rate of return doesn't magically change as you age.  What changes is your ability to absorb losses to hold out for later gains." "As foundational material, read ""The Intelligent Investor"" by Benjamin Graham.  It will help prepare you to digest and critically evaluate other investing advice as you form your strategy." Foreign stocks tend to be more volatile -- higher risk trades off against higher return potential, always. The better reason for having some money in that area is that, as with bonds, it moves out-of-sync with the US markets and once you pick your preferred distribution, maintaining that balance semi-automatically takes advantage of that to improve your return-vs-risk position. I have a few percent of my total investments in an international stock index fund, and a few percent in an international REIT, both being fairly low-fee. (Low fees mean more of the money reaches you, and seems to be one of the better reasons for preferring one fund over another following the same segment of the market.) They're there because the model my investment advisor uses -- and validated with monte-carlo simulation of my specific mix -- shows that keeping them in the mix at this low level is likely to result in a better long-term outcome than if i left them out. No guarantees, but probabilities lean toward this specfic mix doing what i need. I don't pretend to be able to justify that via theory or to explain why these specific ratios work... but I understand enough about the process to trust that they are on (perhaps of many) reasonable solutions to get the best odds given my specific risk tolerance, timeline, and distaste for actively managing my money more than a few times a year. If that.