I just read the post you linked (probably should have done that first ) . It pretty much reiterates what I'm saying, with any option purchase whether long or short term you have to think about how much of the price is intrinsic or extrinsic. I think of it as a gradient, the gambler buys options that are 100% extrinsic, move the slider more towards cautionary investing and people will want to be buying options that have high intrinsic value. It's always weighing probabilities for positive outcomes vs the size returns that are possible.
I don't believe there is a right way or a wrong way, but there is a right way and wrong way for each of us individually. It needs to match your investing temperament since we are the biggest obstacle to our own success especially if we enter investments that are mismatched to our risk/reward tendencies. So it can work to take $100k and spread it out on good stocks that you believe in buying deep out of the money calls a year out. No matter what a good number of them will expire worthless losing 100% but if you choose well some will work and you have a chance at making significant returns on those to make up for the others.
Another investor may take that $100k and buy less names and go for the deep in the money options, where its more likely a significant number will expire in the money but returns on those positive hits may be more muted as a percent. To me it is classic tortious vs the hare. I know I don't need outsized gains to become very wealthy but I'm patient by nature. The gambler may loose interest and not achieve his goal doing it my way so he is better taking the chance.
Which one builds wealth better overtime? Obviously I'm bias, but my opinion is that the tortious wins in the aggregate but there will always be the select few who beat the odds, so as Clint says "Do you feel lucky?"
Fogel you still bagholding VLDR? The $17.50 calls went crazy town today. I think the shorts are getting scared. I might close my calls out early to take advantage of this possible move up.
Blazin
what's your experience with buying ~1 year calls? From reading the article, if you're bullish on a stock, it's a good way to buy larger exposure to the stock with less capital. The question is, what strike price do you buy, or does it make that big of a difference outside of the cost of the original call? For example MSFT is at 260 right now, if I wanted to buy a 1 year call on them, should I go right at the 260 strike versus a higher strike? A high strike will call will cost less but does it provide any other benefit as far as the intrinsic/extrinsic value?
