Poll - The Stock Market and Vintage Sales

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If you're an active trader, sure. But most people do not have the time, energy, and sophistication that takes. Buy and hold, and broad based funds, work better for most people as I understand it.

actually its pretty easy, you buy an index fund like sp 500, SPY and hold and sell calls on it and you will outperfrom 95% of the 'expert funds'

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

actually its pretty easy, you buy an index fund like sp 500, SPY and hold and sell calls on it and you will outperfrom 95% of the 'expert funds'

Pardon the naivety, however what if you sell calls, and since stocks only go up, you stock gets called away?

[Balticfox]

Since you were willing to sell the stock at that price, you just buy it again. Since you pocketed the call premium already, you're still ahead in the game.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Pardon the naivety, however what if you sell calls, and since stocks only go up, you stock gets called away?

you can roll up the calls, yeah in theory if the market goes up 30 percent you will make 20 percent etc, but assuming the market doesnt go up forever you will eventually catch up to the market with your calls and be always outperforming the market...yeah if market loses 30 percent you will still lose 20 percent etc so you will also get crushed but you will still be out performing the market..which very few hedge funds do ..

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

you can roll up the calls, yeah in theory if the market goes up 30 percent you will make 20 percent etc, but assuming the market doesnt go up forever you will eventually catch up to the market with your calls and be always outperforming the market...yeah if market loses 30 percent you will still lose 20 percent etc so you will also get crushed but you will still be out performing the market..which very few hedge funds do ..

So why don't all sophisticated investors just do covered calls? It can't be this simple.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So why don't all sophisticated investors just do covered calls? It can't be this simple.

We’ll see what Jake has to say. But I would posit a few hypotheses:

1 - there are some real limits to the scale. At some point, the market becomes oversaturated with people writing call options, and not as many people buying them. That would cause the price to fall, which would wipe out your gains. So you can probably write calls for a few thousand shares, and maybe even tens of thousands, but once you’re writing millions or hundreds of millions, you’re going to move the market. And most sophisticated shops are investing at scale.

2 - this strategy probably works best with stocks where there is a lot of interest from individual investors. Think Tesla, or GameStop. Particularly when the good times are rolling and the “number go up” crowd is feeling its oats. In these cases, they’re hyper optimistic and will pay good money to buy the right to buy the stock in the future for a price that is well above today’s price. I’m guessing that those excessively exuberant individual investors essentially over-pay for this right because they have so much confidence in their prognostications.

3 - this strategy probably works best when the market is going up up up. Once sentiment turns more dour, particularly for those individual investors, the demand for these call options probably declines, so the market demand and price paid for the options will similarly decline.

Just spitballing here, but those would be my thoughts about why it’s difficult to replicate this strategy always and everywhere at maximum scale.

Plus there’s that tax issue I raised earlier, where income earned using this strategy is taxed heavily.

[BioCRN]

As a "value investor" I find it is a whole lot less work to specialize in a few fields of industry (gas/oil + air transportation for me) and only engage during times when things are advantageous. It's a low-effort way to engage in the market that requires very little "following the market" work.

I will sometimes go many months without inputting a single dollar and re-enter when a buy-low opportunity emerges.

Volume plays can turn small bumps of gains into real money. Not going all-in on the initial buy (unless it makes sense) can help hedge averaging down the buy-in if you don't have the true floor when you decide to enter.

[joshuanip]

.

[joshuanip]

.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by raulus

We’ll see what Jake has to say. But I would posit a few hypotheses:

1 - there are some real limits to the scale. At some point, the market becomes oversaturated with people writing call options, and not as many people buying them. That would cause the price to fall, which would wipe out your gains. So you can probably write calls for a few thousand shares, and maybe even tens of thousands, but once you’re writing millions or hundreds of millions, you’re going to move the market. And most sophisticated shops are investing at scale.

2 - this strategy probably works best with stocks where there is a lot of interest from individual investors. Think Tesla, or GameStop. Particularly when the good times are rolling and the “number go up” crowd is feeling its oats. In these cases, they’re hyper optimistic and will pay good money to buy the right to buy the stock in the future for a price that is well above today’s price. I’m guessing that those excessively exuberant individual investors essentially over-pay for this right because they have so much confidence in their prognostications.

3 - this strategy probably works best when the market is going up up up. Once sentiment turns more dour, particularly for those individual investors, the demand for these call options probably declines, so the market demand and price paid for the options will similarly decline.

Just spitballing here, but those would be my thoughts about why it’s difficult to replicate this strategy always and everywhere at maximum scale.

Plus there’s that tax issue I raised earlier, where income earned using this strategy is taxed heavily.

covered calls on SPY which is the SP index and tons of liquidity for options..

again if the market goes down you will always outperform the market because you will get some premium on the calls but will be losing money overall.

The way you dont outperform market is if the markets explodes over your calls but you will make money but not as much as the market. If market dosnt go up 30 percent a year for 3 years in a row you should be able to catch up..

lets do a real world example right now..

the SPY ticker is 563, you can sell a 630 (strike price) call in September for 500.


each call is 100 shares so for 56,300 you will make 500 dollars..if stock goes down and you lose 5,000 bucks in September, you would still out perform the market becasue you would 'only' lose 4500 becasue of the Call.

now if the SPY goes higher than 635 (630 plus the 500 you make on the call) you wont share in any more upside..but that would be an all time market high and you would now have at 63,500 dollars from the 56,300. Then you can roll it up to to 650 etc, i dont see the market going up forever and you should catch up..

obviously you can tinker with the numbers, the closer to the strike price you are to the actual current stock price the more premium but yes peter, i dont know how you wouldnt outperform the index market if you constantly sell covered calls...but again losing 25 percent instead of 35 percent etc still would not be good...just outperform the market...

in my example if the SPY got to 610 but not to 630, now you captured the 500 dollars which is better thant he market and can sell another call at whatever....some use these calls sort of as a dividend...also remember you are getting a percent or so on the SPY on your holdings a year as well...its not that hard to get 6-7 percent more on the calls you sell so in theory if the market was even all year you would still make a better return than any CD etc and better tax consequences..

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by raulus

We’ll see what Jake has to say. But I would posit a few hypotheses:

1 - there are some real limits to the scale. At some point, the market becomes oversaturated with people writing call options, and not as many people buying them. That would cause the price to fall, which would wipe out your gains. So you can probably write calls for a few thousand shares, and maybe even tens of thousands, but once you’re writing millions or hundreds of millions, you’re going to move the market. And most sophisticated shops are investing at scale.

2 - this strategy probably works best with stocks where there is a lot of interest from individual investors. Think Tesla, or GameStop. Particularly when the good times are rolling and the “number go up” crowd is feeling its oats. In these cases, they’re hyper optimistic and will pay good money to buy the right to buy the stock in the future for a price that is well above today’s price. I’m guessing that those excessively exuberant individual investors essentially over-pay for this right because they have so much confidence in their prognostications.

3 - this strategy probably works best when the market is going up up up. Once sentiment turns more dour, particularly for those individual investors, the demand for these call options probably declines, so the market demand and price paid for the options will similarly decline.

Just spitballing here, but those would be my thoughts about why it’s difficult to replicate this strategy always and everywhere at maximum scale.

Plus there’s that tax issue I raised earlier, where income earned using this strategy is taxed heavily.

Not to mention the capital needed to write covered calls. And for options with small premiums relative to the underlying asset value, how the "income" from those premiums adds up so slowly.

Between this and expensive spreads in illiquid spots, commissions, etc....I've always guessed that in theory, options were a similar negative sum game (on both sides) for dart throwers. They're too overpriced to go long with a positive EV, yet all the extra costs and limitations with being short may be just as bad.

In the end, not much different than having to lay -110 on either side of a game in a sportsbook

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So why don't all sophisticated investors just do covered calls? It can't be this simple.

You're right. It's not that simple. The computer models calculate what "would" have happened over the decades with such a strategy. But that's not real world, and in the real world there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip. In the real world your trading influences prices.

If you're a little guy, you won't really move prices much but just try selling calls. They're illiquid so you'll end up selling at the bid which (if they even exist) are put in place by sophisticated traders with computerized mathematical models that are designed to give them not you an edge. Moreover you'll pay some kind of commission.

If you're a big fund, your activities always move the market but in the opposite direction you want, e.g. your buying increases prices while your selling depresses prices. Now you will probably be able to find a big brokerage firm willing to act as a counter party for your options, but remember what I said about their sophisticated mathematical models designed to make them money? If these models weren't making them money, they wouldn't be in that business for long. Therefore as a fund your employment of an option strategy consists of betting against the pro traders at brokerages who have a long successful history of making money being on the other side.

So you're right. Not only is it not that easy, it's pretty damn difficult.

[1952boyntoncollector]

nah it is that simple, you are 100 percent going to outperform a down market....on an up market it will have to go super super up for you to not outperform but you will still have a large profit..

what can make it more complicated if you starting selling puts to help offset any gains you are missing out of..

but there is a reason on my trading platforms for options, covered calls are 'level 1' they are the easiest and most understood and least risk..if you are going to be holding onto the stock you are doing it on for a long time

[joshuanip]

.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

nah it is that simple, you are 100 percent going to outperform a down market....on an up market it will have to go super super up for you to not outperform but you will still have a large profit.

No. You are missing out on the large profits which make up most of the returns with which the market rewards investors:

Timing the Market Is Impossible - Hartford Funds

Originally Posted by Hartford Funds

If you missed the market’s 10 best days over the past 30 years, your returns would have been cut in half. And missing the best 30 days would have reduced your returns by an astonishing 83%.

There are also very serious problems associated with investing in an index. These actually force you to buy high, and sell low.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

actually its pretty easy, you buy an index fund like sp 500, SPY and hold and sell calls on it and you will outperfrom 95% of the 'expert funds'

Yes, I'm sure it's that easy.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes, I'm sure it's that easy.

Free money! Can't lose!!

[B O'Brien]

Don’t take the “blood in the streets” comment, at least from me as, cavalier. My 401k is one thing, suffers like everyone else.

My other account generates cash each week from selling calls and or puts. That cash goes into monthly dividend paying ETF’s until I need the $ for life, or until there is a downturn in the market, and creates opportunistic buying opportunities. Or some cards!

I started trading like that years ago because I couldn’t afford child support and tuition on my salary (my X is a lawyer!). It was developed out of necessity from the tiny 401k that I got in the divorce.

Everyone has their own style and risk tolerance when running your own account. I bring in cash from people that are willing to gamble on things going up 5% in a week, while I hope they go up 4% and I pocket their $100 bill in the process. Repeat the next week. It took years of practice, working countless hours and continuously researching.

Thanks,
Bob

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes, I'm sure it's that easy.

The problem with such an option strategy is that a big spread typically prevails between bid and ask prices on puts and calls. Therefore it's difficult to pocket the theoretically realizable advantage of that strategy (particularly after commissions).

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

The problem with such an option strategy is that a big spread typically prevails between bid and ask prices on puts and calls. Therefore it's difficult to pocket the theoretically realizable advantage of that strategy (particularly after commissions).

Pretty sure all of your income from writing options is also ordinary (or short term capital gain), so you get to pay ordinary tax rates. As opposed to generally lower rates for long-term capital gains.

And unlike income from selling cards, this income is definitely getting reported to the IRS, so anyone who might be tempted to use a little accounting legerdemain when it comes to the taxation of their cardboard sales, that's not a possibility here.

I suppose if your taxable income is low enough that your marginal tax rate is low, then that's not a big deal, but for some of us, our marginal rate is at or approaching the current highest marginal rates.

When you factor in state (and sometimes local) taxes, some of us are lucky enough to get to share 50%+ of our ordinary income with the government.

[Rhotchkiss]

The poll asks: Do stock market losses impact YOUR buying habits. However, Leon’s first post asks: Does the stock market impact prices of prewar cards. These are two very different questions. It’s very possible that the stock market could impact overall values but have no impact on an individual’s buying habits.

I feel the health of the stock market must impact the overall health of the card market - people spend more when they feel wealthy and spend less when they feel less wealthy. That said, cards are an asset class (not just hobby) and may serve as a haven (like gold) when the market is down. So I don’t think the correlation is that easy.

To me, it’s economic and political uncertainty more than where the stock market is going. Given current events, do I want wealth in stock, cardboard, real estate, cash, private equity, etc. Diversity is likely the smartest move, but I am heavy real estate - you cannot live in or off a card, stock, or cash. The big question is whether I invest in other countries, and if so, which one(s). Or put differently, when does it make sense to hedge against traditional US investments.

[Leon]

Duly noted and changed the post wording to more reflect the poll question.

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

The poll asks: Do stock market losses impact YOUR buying habits. However, Leon’s first post asks: Does the stock market impact prices of prewar cards. These are two very different questions. It’s very possible that the stock market could impact overall values but have no impact on an individual’s buying habits.

I feel the health of the stock market must impact the overall health of the card market - people spend more when they feel wealthy and spend less when they feel less wealthy. That said, cards are an asset class (not just hobby) and may serve as a haven (like gold) when the market is down. So I don’t think the correlation is that easy.

To me, it’s economic and political uncertainty more than where the stock market is going. Given current events, do I want wealth in stock, cardboard, real estate, cash, private equity, etc. Diversity is likely the smartest move, but I am heavy real estate - you cannot live in or off a card, stock, or cash. The big question is whether I invest in other countries, and if so, which one(s). Or put differently, when does it make sense to hedge against traditional US investments.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

The big question is whether I invest in other countries, and if so, which one(s). Or put differently, when does it make sense to hedge against traditional US investments.

To what extent do you think that large cap US equities cover you here?

It just seems like most of the big companies do so much business around the world and have assets and operations all over the globe that you should be able to get decent coverage that way.

Of course, it's one thing to operate in another country, and another thing to be a local business that is near and dear to the hearts of the local populace and governing class. So there can definitely be some different profiles that way.

[Rhotchkiss]

Decent question. I suppose large caps have foreign risk mitigation, but they are still highly subject to whims of the US. Nevertheless, I am not really thinking stock. More direct investment in real estate or a foreign company. Or holding cash in foreign currencies.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I feel the health of the stock market must impact the overall health of the card market - people spend more when they feel wealthy and spend less when they feel less wealthy.

It is though a mistake to conflate the "health" of any hobby with the loftiness of prices.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

It is though a mistake to conflate the "health" of any hobby with the loftiness of prices.

Agreed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

And unlike income from selling cards, this income is definitely getting reported to the IRS, so anyone who might be tempted to use a little accounting legerdemain when it comes to the taxation of their cardboard sales, that's not a possibility here.

I would have thought this was the first use of "legerdemain" on this forum, but according to search it's been used once before.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would have thought this was the first use of "legerdemain" on this forum, but according to search it's been used once before.

Guilty as charged. It's one of my favorite vocab words. Right up there with omphaloskepsis and defenestration. And eleemosynary. Although I learned that one here.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

Guilty as charged. It's one of my favorite vocab words. Right up there with omphaloskepsis and defenestration. And eleemosynary. Although I learned that one here.

How sesquipedalian.