[NorCalAthlete]

Originally Posted by BzsBimmer

Donated $50 because it looks like a great cause
Attachment 2513556

Much love, thanks man. Yeah they're not just a great cause but also one of the best-run charities.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ind...ry&orgid=11708

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semper...tchdog_Ratings

Charity Navigator

Provided the Semper Fi Fund with nine consecutive four-star ratings (only 3% of rated charities achieve this level of recognition[23]), reflecting scores of 100 out of 100 for accountability and transparency and 97.50 out of 100 for financial performance. These rankings placed the Semper Fi Fund at the very top of Charity Navigator's list of charities performing similar types of work.[46]

CharityWatch

Gives the Semper Fi Fund an A+ rating, one of only two of the 64 veteran and military charities reviewed to receive this highest ranking.[23] CharityWatch lists the Semper Fi Fund as a Top-Rated Charity in their Veterans & Military category. According to Charity Watch, "groups included on the Top-Rated list generally spend 75% or more of their budgets on programs, spend $25 or less to raise $100 in public support, do not hold excessive assets in reserve, and receive "open-book" status for disclosure of basic financial information and documents to CharityWatch."[47]

Daniel Borochoff, founder and president of CharityWatch, has said this about the Semper Fi Fund: "They give 93, 94 percent of their spending toward bona fide real programs that help veterans, and their cost to raise money is very small. It's only like 3 or 4 percent."[48]

I spent over a decade in the military before deciding to get out and venture into tech, so a significant portion of my time / donation money / sweat equity goes into giving back to veteran causes.

[spazzyfry123]

Originally Posted by BzsBimmer

Donated $50 because it looks like a great cause
Attachment 2513556

This might be the first time I've seen someone stay true to their word on the internet.

[NorCalAthlete]

Had a couple people ask me WTF I do / how'd I get into trading. Might be worth another thread / even another sub forum, but for now....

Books I'm slowly working through :
Capital in the 21st Century

The Intelligent Investor

Videos / online resources :
TastyTrade - options and fundamentals

edit - imgur embeds, apparently. Click through for various strategies on the first link, I'm going to try and link the individual images for easier reference here...

View post on imgur.com

View post on imgur.com

View post on imgur.com

View post on imgur.com

View post on imgur.com

News / general "feel" reading :
https://worldview.stratfor.com/
https://www.marketwatch.com/
Various subreddits, forums, etc - some forums have people who break news before CNN does based on locality, employment, etc. So generally I'll use the news / reddit / forums to grab a ticker and then start my research / due diligence from there.

I am not a CFA, financial advisor, or anything remotely related to a trading professional so take anything I say with a large grain of salt. I like to think I'm smarter than the average bear (pun intended) but everything involves risk. Plus, it's a pretty solid bull market, so it's a bit of an "any idiot should be able to come out ahead this year" situation as well.

But hey, may the odds be ever in your favor. I think most of us here are already at least moderately successful in life and aren't just going to dump our life savings into a single option play.

[BzsBimmer]

^ well you may have to be this threads new RMTT since he pretty much bailed on us for stocktwits lol

[kscarrol]

Hope y'all sold that GME at $150!

[corn18]

Originally Posted by kscarrol

Hope y'all sold that GME at $150!

Wow. That looks like one hellofa ride.

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by corn18

Wow. That looks like one hellofa ride.

Timing is everything!!

[NorCalAthlete]

https://moxreports.com/vw-infinity-squeeze/

Nah. Still holding shares + call option. That was basically the 2nd spike on this chart, before the dip + massive moon spike. I have auto-sell at $1,000 for the day for the call option and $420 for the shares (because hey, lulz.) Shares may go higher, they may barely touch $500, nobody knows so I figure why be too greedy with a $1,000 share price limit sell - might miss the spike if it only goes to $600.

At the end of the day this is still just my FOMO / fuck around account while I learn options, total value of it at the moment is < $50k still.

For anyone looking to learn options I would STRONGLY suggest treating it like a casino - only play with what you're willing to lose and walk away from. Know your risk tolerance and stick to it. YOLO plays are fun and it can be a life changing amount of money, but it can just as easily be life changing in the wrong direction if you're not careful.

Another good read on short squeezes is here :
https://moxreports.com/kbio-infinity-squeeze/

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by NorCalAthlete

https://moxreports.com/vw-infinity-squeeze/

Nah. Still holding shares + call option. That was basically the 2nd spike on this chart, before the dip + massive moon spike. I have auto-sell at $1,000 for the day for the call option and $420 for the shares (because hey, lulz.) Shares may go higher, they may barely touch $500, nobody knows so I figure why be too greedy with a $1,000 share price limit sell - might miss the spike if it only goes to $600.

At the end of the day this is still just my FOMO / fuck around account while I learn options, total value of it at the moment is < $50k still.

For anyone looking to learn options I would STRONGLY suggest treating it like a casino - only play with what you're willing to lose and walk away from. Know your risk tolerance and stick to it. YOLO plays are fun and it can be a life changing amount of money, but it can just as easily be life changing in the wrong direction if you're not careful.

Another good read on short squeezes is here :
https://moxreports.com/kbio-infinity-squeeze/

Question since I know nothing about options - let's say you purchase a call option at a certain strike/exercise price (price doesn't really matter) on the market. Who underwrites these options? Are they individuals?

If so, what happens if that option becomes extremely valuable and you want to exercise it / sell it, but the person underwriting the option can't cover the shares?

[NorCalAthlete]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Question since I know nothing about options - let's say you purchase a call option at a certain strike/exercise price (price doesn't really matter) on the market. Who underwrites these options? Are they individuals?

If so, what happens if that option becomes extremely valuable and you want to exercise it / sell it, but the person underwriting the option can't cover the shares?

Preconditions :

• Stock BPST (Bimmerpost) is sitting at $10.
• Call option with $12 strike price (commonly written as $12c) with an expiration date 1 month from now
• Individual Jason owns 100 shares of BPST. Jason hates the new 4 series grill so much, he thinks there's no way BPST will be worth $12 in a month - might not dip to $8-$9, but won't hit $12.
• So he sells a covered call as $12c 2-25-21 for $0.15 per share, or $15 (all options are multiplied by 100 shares per contract - 1 contract = 100 shares, so if a contract is $1 cost it's actually $100 total to buy).
• Mark buys the contract from Jason for $15

Scenario 1 :
BPST holds steady below $12 and as of market close on 2-25-21, the stock is worth $11.99 or less. Jason pockets $15 and keeps his 100 shares. Mark loses $15 and gets nothing for it.

Scenario 2 :
BPST holds steady below $12 and as of market close on 2-25-21, the stock is worth $11.99 or less. Jason pockets $15 and keeps his 100 shares. Mark's contract has decreased in value to $0.05 on the morning of expiration, but he doesn't think BPST will hit $12 so he sells the contract for a $10 loss to Brad. Since the stock closes at $11.99, Mark limited his losses to $10 and Brad loses $5.

Scenario 3 :
BPST rises above $12 and before market close on 2-25-21, the stock is worth $12.15 or more. As the strike price on the contract is $0.15 per share, this now makes it worth it to Mark to exercise the contract and purchase those 100 shares at a price of $12.15 each. This means he must have $1,250 cash in his account in order to exercise, plus any transaction / trading fees by his brokerage. Jason gains $1,265, but loses his 100 shares. Mark now owns 100 shares of BPST, at an average cost of $12.15. As the price is now above his purchase price, let's say $13, Mark could immediately turn around and sell his shares for a $0.75 profit per share, making $1,300 on the sale. Subtracting his $1,250 cost, Mark just made $75.

Scenario 4 : BPST rises above $12 and before market close on 2-25-21, the stock is worth $12.15 or more. The contract is now "In the money" and worth say, $0.45 rather than the $0.15 Jason sold it for. Since Mark now owns the contract, he may choose to simply sell it rather than exercise - maybe he doesn't have enough cash to exercise it. Mark sells the contract to Brad for $0.45, and pockets $45. Minus his $15 to purchase the contract, Mark just made $30, Jason made $15, and Brad has the option to exercise the contract and purchase the shares for $12.45 break-even price.

There are a few other ways it could play out and my numbers are probably a tiny bit off, since we didn't go into the greeks, but hopefully you get the gist here.

Warning : lots of reading ahead if you click this link :

[smyles]

He's asking what's the mechanism to guarantee Jason fulfils his part of the deal. What prevents Jason from selling his 100 shares before 2-25-21 and calling it quits?

[NorCalAthlete]

I mean, it's called a "contract" for a reason...

Jason sold "covered calls" not "naked calls". As in, he put up his shares as collateral. If he had sold naked calls, and they expired out of the money, then ok he could just pocket the money I think. But if he sold naked options and they were ITM at expiration, and the buyer wanted to exercise, Jason would be forced to buy whatever shares he could, at whatever market price was, in order to have the inventory to cover. This would likely mean purchasing the shares at a higher price than the strike price of the contract he sold, meaning he would take an immediate loss by buying the shares and giving them to the contract holder at the lower strike price. So let's say share was $10, goes to $15, and Jason had sold a naked contract with a $12 strike. He now has to go on the open market, buy 100 shares at $15 / share, and then immediate give them to the guy holding the $12 contract. Jason may have sold the naked contract for a quick $15 gain, but now eats a -$1,500 loss due to having to buy the shares to fulfill the contract. Edit - not $1,500 loss sorry. It would be $1,500 - $1,200 so $300 loss (or $285 loss including the $15 gain from the initial contract sale). Limited upside, infinite downside (ie, let's say the stock went to $20 instead of $15, he'd now have to fork over $2000 to buy, sell for $1200, and eat an $800 loss)(I think).

Selling naked options gets you into a lot of trouble if it goes sideways - read the above links on GME, VW, etc to see how it can get even the big hedge funds into trouble.

If Jason tried to sell his shares (assuming he wasn't locked out of doing so by his brokerage for some reason) he'd be opening himself up to lawsuits, SEC investigation, etc.

It's like buying a house - once buyer & seller agree on price and sign the contract, the money & title go into escrow right? So if the seller then tries to sell the house again to another person, while in contract with the first buyer, that ain't gonna fly.

Least, that's the way I understand it. I'm sure we have some more savvy financial gurus in here lurking who can correct me on this if I'm off.

[smyles]

First, I believe "naked calls", "naked shorts", etc. is not a thing, at least in the SEC regulated space, so not sure why you even mention it. Second, again, the question is re mechanics of options contract underwriting. Simple reliance on "contract" is naïve, to say the least - just ask Madoffs clients.

[NorCalAthlete]

Originally Posted by smyles

First, I believe "naked calls", "naked shorts", etc. is not a thing, at least in the SEC regulated space, so not sure why you even mention it. Second, again, the question is re mechanics of options contract underwriting. Simple reliance on "contract" is naïve, to say the least - just ask Madoffs clients.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nakedcall.asp

What Is a Naked Call?

A naked call is an options strategy in which an investor writes (sells) call options on the open market without owning the underlying security. This strategy is sometimes referred to as an uncovered call or an unhedged short call.

This stands in contrast to a covered call strategy, where the investor owns the underlying security on which the call options are written. A naked call can be compared with a naked put.

Understanding Naked Calls

A naked call gives an investor the ability to generate premium income without directly selling the underlying security. Essentially, the premium received is the sole motive for writing an uncovered call option. It is inherently risky as there is limited upside profit potential and, in theory, unlimited downside loss potential. In fact, the maximum gain is the premium that the option writer receives upfront, which is usually credited to their account. So, the goal for the writer is to have the option expire worthless.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/coveredcall.asp

What Is a Covered Call?

A covered call refers to a financial transaction in which the investor selling call options owns an equivalent amount of the underlying security. To execute this an investor holding a long position in an asset then writes (sells) call options on that same asset to generate an income stream. The investor's long position in the asset is the "cover" because it means the seller can deliver the shares if the buyer of the call option chooses to exercise. If the investor simultaneously buys stock and writes call options against that stock position, it is known as a "buy-write" transaction.

Understanding Covered Calls

Covered calls are a neutral strategy, meaning the investor only expects a minor increase or decrease in the underlying stock price for the life of the written call option. This strategy is often employed when an investor has a short-term neutral view on the asset and for this reason holds the asset long and simultaneously has a short position via the option to generate income from the option premium.

Simply put, if an investor intends to hold the underlying stock for a long time but does not expect an appreciable price increase in the near term then they can generate income (premiums) for their account while they wait out the lull.

But yes, my jab at "it's called contract for a reason" was a bit more tongue in cheek.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by NorCalAthlete

I mean, it's called a "contract" for a reason...

Jason sold "covered calls" not "naked calls". As in, he put up his shares as collateral. If he had sold naked calls, and they expired out of the money, then ok he could just pocket the money I think. But if he sold naked options and they were ITM at expiration, and the buyer wanted to exercise, Jason would be forced to buy whatever shares he could, at whatever market price was, in order to have the inventory to cover. This would likely mean purchasing the shares at a higher price than the strike price of the contract he sold, meaning he would take an immediate loss by buying the shares and giving them to the contract holder at the lower strike price. So let's say share was $10, goes to $15, and Jason had sold a naked contract with a $12 strike. He now has to go on the open market, buy 100 shares at $15 / share, and then immediate give them to the guy holding the $12 contract. Jason may have sold the naked contract for a quick $15 gain, but now eats a -$1,500 loss due to having to buy the shares to fulfill the contract.

Selling naked options gets you into a lot of trouble if it goes sideways - read the above links on GME, VW, etc to see how it can get even the big hedge funds into trouble.

If Jason tried to sell his shares (assuming he wasn't locked out of doing so by his brokerage for some reason) he'd be opening himself up to lawsuits, SEC investigation, etc.

It's like buying a house - once buyer & seller agree on price and sign the contract, the money & title go into escrow right? So if the seller then tries to sell the house again to another person, while in contract with the first buyer, that ain't gonna fly.

Least, that's the way I understand it. I'm sure we have some more savvy financial gurus in here lurking who can correct me on this if I'm off.

Yes, I'm basically asking what protection do you have that the person you have a contract with doesn't tell you to eat a bag of dicks because he's just going to declare bankruptcy.

Not sure in the States, but in Canada, we have insurance through the government to cover up to $100K if we have that much in a bank account and the bank goes bust. Is there anything insurance wise (or any other means, not necessarily insurance) that allows you to be comfortable that the other party comes through without going the lawsuit route?

Because suing someone takes a lot of your own money, and if he/she doesn't have any significant assets anyways, its just a waste of your money since you get nothing at the end of the day. Contracts are only good if the other party has enough assets to cover what they say they are covering.

Also, can you as a buyer tell whether you are buying a covered vs naked call? Options have always really interested me, but I admit I'm too dumb at the moment to really understand them, so I appreciate the education you are giving me!

[smyles]

Originally Posted by NorCalAthlete

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nakedcall.asp...

And I'm sure wikipedia provides a definition for slavery. Doesn't mean we can legally trade people.

[NorCalAthlete]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Yes, I'm basically asking what protection do you have that the person you have a contract with doesn't tell you to eat a bag of dicks because he's just going to declare bankruptcy.

Not sure in the States, but in Canada, we have insurance through the government to cover up to $100K if we have that much in a bank account and the bank goes bust. Is there anything insurance wise (or any other means, not necessarily insurance) that allows you to be comfortable that the other party comes through without going the lawsuit route?

Because suing someone takes a lot of your own money, and if he/she doesn't have any significant assets anyways, its just a waste of your money since you get nothing at the end of the day. Contracts are only good if the other party has enough assets to cover what they say they are covering.

Also, can you as a buyer tell whether you are buying a covered vs naked call? Options have always really interested me, but I admit I'm too dumb at the moment to really understand them, so I appreciate the education you are giving me!

Now THAT I'm not sure on. As for being able to tell whether it's a covered vs naked call - no, not that I'm aware of anyway. It's basically irrelevant to the purchaser - they're owed what they're owed.

[NorCalAthlete]

Originally Posted by smyles

And I'm sure wikipedia provides a definition for slavery. Doesn't mean we can legally trade people.

Ooooook. First of all, pump the brakes there sparky. No need for hyperbole like that. Let's keep things on track here.

Secondly, here, take it from Fidelity :

https://www.fidelity.com/learning-ce...ed-calls-video

Once again, I'm relatively new at this myself - only started a year ago, so I'm fully willing to admit if I get something wrong, but please do post sources to backup your feelings and beliefs about what's legal and what's not. Let's at least make a good faith effort to not post FUD in here.

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by BzsBimmer

^ well you may have to be this threads new RMTT since he pretty much bailed on us for stocktwits lol

My play money brokerage account was up 21.45% for 2020 thanks to his research! (In comparison, the S&P 500 only went up 18.40% last year.) It would have been more like up 40%, if my bad picks did not drag the balance down.....

[corn18]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

My play money brokerage account was up 21.45% for 2020 thanks to his research! (In comparison, the S&P 500 only went up 18.40% last year.) It would have been more like up 40%, if my bad picks did not drag the balance down.....

Did you subtract transaction costs and taxes?

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by corn18

Did you subtract transaction costs and taxes?

My brokerage actually stopped charging per-transaction fees last year for small personal traders, supposedly driven by their need to stay competitive with Robin Hood in the market.

Regarding the government's share, the tax man (or tax forms for that matter) have not come...yet. I'm sure that my generous philanthropic contributions last year will more than offset the tax bill from my play money trading account when it does arrive.....

[cpow99]

Lightning eMotors (SPAC Commercial BEV/FCEV play)

$GIK (stock) or $GIK.WS (warrants)

Solid business going public. Will trade as $ZEV after the merger.
Investor Deck

Guide to SPAC warrants for those that need it.