swissaustrian
Yellow Jacket
- Messages
- 2,049
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more.
Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!
The long guts is a neutral strategy in options trading that involve the simultaneous buying of an in-the-money call option and an in-the-money put option of the same underlying stock and expiration date.
Long Guts Construction
Buy 1 ITM Call
Buy 1 ITM Put
This is an unlimited profit, limited risk strategy that is taken when the options trader thinks that the underlying stock will experience significant volatility in the near term. The long guts is a debit spread as a net debit is taken to enter the trade.
Unlimited Profit Potential
Large gains for the long guts strategy is attained when the underlying stock price makes a very strong move either upwards or downwards at expiration. The move in the underlying stock price must be strong enough such that either the long call or the long put rise enough in value to offset the loss incurred by the other option expiring worthless.
The formula for calculating profit is given below:
•Maximum Profit = Unlimited
•Profit Achieved When Price of Underlying < Strike Price of Long Put - Net Premium Paid OR Price of Underlying > Long Call + Net Premium Paid
•Profit = Price of Underlying - Strike Price of Long Call - Net Premium Paid OR Strike Price of Long Put - Price of Underlying - Premium Paid
Limited Risk
Maximum loss for the long guts strategy occurs when the underlying stock price on expiration date is trading between the strike prices of the options bought. At this price, while both options expire in the money, they have lost all their time value. It is this loss in time value that is the cost of employing the long guts strategy.
The formula for calculating maximum loss is given below:
•Max Loss = Net Premium Paid + Strike Price of Long Put - Strike Price of Long Call + Commissions Paid
•Max Loss Occurs When Price of Underlying is in between the Strike Prices of the Long Call and the Long Put
A few things I can give as advice:I need to learn more about this myself - At present I don't use options in trading.
I think I need to find some software that looks at the current option prices and builds those charts off them - with real numbers, so I can better assess risk/reward at the current pricing of options at various ITM/OTM points.
Your professional background will definitely help you learning options quickly. The math will probably be a cakewalk for you anyway.Thanks, SA! As a computer guy and scientist, expensive books are not a shock to me (I even wrote one). In this case, the "right stuff" is much more important - all the junk books I got cheap at the used bookstore are lame, and bad info could lose me real money, after all...
I'll check out the other stuff too. I've been hankering to use the API over at TDAmeritrade where I trade, which I've got a copy of and support to just write my own doggone platform that does what *I* want, but it's been a question of supporting my other business first, of late. Sigh, hours in the day and all that.
By Jeff Clark, Casey Research
On February 29, gold dropped 4.8% and silver 6.2% (based on London fix prices). That's quite the fall for one day. We've seen prices that have risen that much, too. But as I'm about to show, these ain't nothin', baby.
Based on our experience, we've been saying for some time that volatility will increase as the markets fight their way to the mania phase of this cycle – and that once there, the gyrations will jump even higher. This call doesn't exactly require one to go out on a limb; it makes sense since more investors will be crowding in – and volatility was high in the 1979-'80 mania.
First, let's put last Wednesday's big plunge in perspective. Here's a picture of the daily changes in the gold price since 2003, based on London fix prices. (This chart is very busy, but I want to show the bulk of the bull market in one visual.)
A 4.8% decline is one of gold's bigger one-day movements over the past nine-plus years. But as you can see, there have been a number of days where gold rose or fell more than 5%. And it exceeded 6% on five occasions.
Here are the data for silver.
Last Wednesday's decline of 6.2% was one of the metal's bigger one-day movements. However, it's exceeded 10% on 14 occasions, 15% three times, and rose an incredible 20.06% on September 18, 2008.
You might think this kind of volatility is high – and it's true. Worse – or better, depending on how you see things – the volatility in the underlying commodity is magnified in the related company stocks. This is why Doug Casey calls mining stocks, especially the juniors, "the most volatile stocks on earth." But the thing is, metals volatility has been higher in the past, particularly during a mania.
Here's what I mean.
The following chart documents gold's daily price changes from 1976 through the end of 1980. Take a look at the jump in volatility in 1979-'80.
Volatility became the norm in 1979 and especially 1980. Fluctuations of 4% or more were not uncommon.
Here's the same chart for silver. The metal's volatility during the 1979-'80 period became extreme.
Daily price movements of 6% or more didn't occur once prior to 1979 – but then they became commonplace.
...
Continue reading here: http://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/face-volatility?ppref=ZHB442ED0312A
h/t to ZH for the following chart:
The current crash in gold was out of the value at risk (VaR) range for many models. The percentage change is so far away from regular price drops that it presents a black swan.
http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_99/murphy090899.htmlJames G. Rickards, who sent us a letter, along with an affidavit from fund principal Eric Rosenfeld. Rickards stated that Long- Term Capital Management denied any involvement in the manipulation of the gold market, and Rosenfeld said to the Cafe, "None of LTCM, LTCP, nor their affiliates, has ever entered into any transaction involving the purchase or sale of gold, including without limitation, spot, forwards, options, futures, loans, borrowings, repurchases, coin or bullion, long or short, physical or derivative, or in any other form whatsoever."
http://gata.org/node/12460Dennis Gartman of The Gartman Letter, writes today:
"Concerning gold, let's note firstly something sent to us by our old friend John Brimelow, who had a most interesting piece in his commentary this morning regarding the violence of the recent price changes. He noted a piece written by Russell Rhoads, CFA of the CBOE Option Institute, who wrote the following:
"'Friday was a 4.88 standard deviation move in the price of gold. For simplicity's sake let's call it a five standard deviation move. Statistically we get a five standard deviation move approximately once every 4,776 years. So we should not expect another move like this out of the price of gold until May 17, 6789. ... Currently the two-day price change in GLD is 16.65, which can be converted to just over eight standard deviations. I wanted to share what this comes to, but the table I use only goes up to seven standard deviations. Let's just say the sun is expected to burn out first.'"
Gartman continues: "We shall confidently say that we will never, ever see a day such as we saw yesterday in the gold market in our lifetime again. It will not happen. The sun will indeed burn out before we see anything such as that again. Nor shall we ever want to see anything such as that again. We can reasonably deal with deviations from the norm of 2 or 3 or perhaps even 4, but 8+ standard deviations is beyond our ken or that of anyone else anywhere. Yesterday's price action will go down in history as an aberration of truly historic proportions.
"We judge the violence of the market's movements by the numbers of requests for interviews made of us, for the correlation between high numbers of such requests is nearly 1:1 with peaks and valleys of various markets. A large number of requests made of us is four or five a day; a truly large number is eight. Yesterday we had 12, and we've agreed to give several more today that we could not fit into our schedule yesterday. This befits an 8+ standard deviation day."
Ah, yes, "an aberration of truly historic proportions" -- but while central banks are the biggest gold traders, that aberration was still not large enough to prompt Gartman to put a question to a central bank or two. Yes, in that respect as well the sun will burn out first.
More like nuclear armageddon. As benjamen said, there is a 1 in 390,682,215,445 chance for such an eventDoes 7-9 standard deviations qualify as "blood in the streets"?
Yes VaR is flawed. But the whole financial system is built on it. Especially the derivatives market. Imagine we would get a bond crash and all the outstanding interest rates swaps would blow up. That's one giant black hole :flail:well, "we will never see a move like that" - "never", is a very long time...
I am by no means an expert, but VaR models are being questioned, in case of "black swans", by people much smarter than meself (James Rickards is one of them). In other words - use them when the sea is smooth, but do not expect them to work or give good guidance, in times of troubles - because static analysis doesn't really apply to the markets in every case - only in very specific cases (only where there is relatively low volatility).
He proposes that markets should be rather seen as dynamic systems, in which chain reactions are possible and quite expected, when times are rough- what makes some initial criteria met for a number of "actors" - they react, and they reaction changes the price, so it triggers reaction of other actors now (usually, in greater numbers than the first wave), etc...
Just you wait, if price rebounds strongly - how many people would think "this is it, the bottom is in", and jump on board immediately, pushing prices up nearly or as fast, as they went down? Will GATA report that "it shouldn't had happened"
well, "we will never see a move like that" - "never", is a very long time...
I am by no means an expert, but VaR models are being questioned, in case of "black swans", by people much smarter than meself (James Rickards is one of them). In other words - use them when the sea is smooth, but do not expect them to work or give good guidance, in times of troubles - because static analysis doesn't really apply to the markets in every case - only in very specific cases (only where there is relatively low volatility).
He proposes that markets should be rather seen as dynamic systems, in which chain reactions are possible and quite expected, when times are rough- what makes some initial criteria met for a number of "actors" - they react, and they reaction changes the price, so it triggers reaction of other actors now (usually, in greater numbers than the first wave), etc...
Just you wait, if price rebounds strongly - how many people would think "this is it, the bottom is in", and jump on board immediately, pushing prices up nearly or as fast, as they went down? Will GATA report that "it shouldn't had happened"
Yes VaR is flawed. But the whole financial system is built on it. Especially the derivatives market. Imagine we would get a bond crash and all the outstanding interest rates swaps would blow up. That's one giant black hole :flail:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?