45 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
45 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
O.,ter 3: Call Buying
|
|
TABLE 3-5.
|
|
Original and spread positions compared.
|
|
Stock Price Long Call
|
|
at Expiration Result
|
|
25 -$300
|
|
30 - 300
|
|
33 - 300
|
|
35 - 300
|
|
38 0
|
|
40 + 200
|
|
45 + 700
|
|
FIGURE 3-2.
|
|
Companion: original call purchase vs. spread.
|
|
§
|
|
~ +$200
|
|
·5..
|
|
~
|
|
al
|
|
tJ)
|
|
.3
|
|
0
|
|
:1:
|
|
e
|
|
c.. -$300
|
|
Stock Price at Expiration
|
|
Spread
|
|
Result
|
|
-$300
|
|
- 300
|
|
0
|
|
+ 200
|
|
+ 200
|
|
+ 200
|
|
+ 200
|
|
115
|
|
With these prices, a 1-point debit would be required to roll down. That is, selling 2
|
|
October 35 calls would bring in $300 ($150 each), but the cost of buying the October
|
|
30 call is $400. Thus, the transaction would have to be done at a cost of $100, plus
|
|
commissions. With these prices, the break-even point after rolling down would be 34,
|
|
still well below the original break-even price of 38. The risk has now been increased
|
|
by the additional 1 point spent to roll down. If XYZ should drop below 30 at October
|
|
expiration, the investor would have a total loss of 4 points plus commissions. The
|
|
maximum loss with the original long October 35 call was limited to 3 points plus a
|
|
smaller amount of commissions. Finally, the maximum amount of money that the |