vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I think you need to be very careful here. Covered calls don't reduce risk or increase performance overall. If they did, every investment manager would be using them. In a typical portfolio, over the long term, the gains you give up when your stock goes beyond the strike of your calls will negate the premiums you receive over time. Psychologically, covered calls are appealing because your gains happen over a long period and this is why many people suggest it. But if you believe the Black-Scholes model (used for pricing options) this is what the model predicts over the long term - that you won't do any better than just holding stock (unless you have some edge other traders don't). Now you say you want to reduce diversification and raise your risk. Keeping in mind that there is no free lunch, there are several ways to reduce your risk but they all come at a price. For simplicity, there are three elements to consider - risk, potential gain and cash. These are tradeoffs and you can't simultaneously make them all favorable. You must trade one or more of them to gain in the others. Let's say you wanted to concentrate into a few stocks... how could you counteract the additional risk? 1) Covered calls: very popular strategy usually intended (erroneously) for increasing returns. You get the bonus of cash along with marginally less risk. But you give up a substantial amount of potential return. You won't have blowout returns if you do this. You still face substantial risk. 2) Collar your stock: You sell a covered call while using the cash from the sale to buy puts for protection. You give up potential gains, you're neutral on cash but gain significantly on reducing risk. 3) Use calls as proxy for stock: You don't hold stock but only calls in equivalent delta to the stock you would have held. Substantially lower risk while still having potential gain. Your tradeoff is the cash you have to pay for the calls. When using this, one must be very, very careful not to overleverage. 4) Puts as protection for stocks: This is basically the same as #3 in tradeoffs.
I think it may be best to take everything you're asking line-by-line. Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. This is not true. Companies can go out of business, or take a major hit and never recover.  Take Volkswagen for example, in 2015 due to a scandal they were involved in, their stocks went downhill. Now their stocks are starting to rise again. The investors goal is not to wait as long as necessary to make a profit on every stock purchase, but to make the largest profit possible in the shortest time possible. Sometimes this means selling a stock before it recovers (if it ever does). I think the problem with most buyers is that they desire the most gain they can possibly have. However, that is very risky. This can be true. Every investor needs to gauge the risk they're willing to take and high-gain investments are riskier.  Therefore, it's better to be winning [small/medium] amounts of money (~)100% of the time than [any] amount of money <~25%. Safer investments do tend to yield more consistent returns, but this doesn't mean that every investor should aim for low-yield investments. Again, this is driven by the investor's risk tolerance. To conclude, profitable companies' stock tends to increase over time and less aggressive investments are safer, but it is possible to lose from any stock investment.
This is a Short Diagonal Calender Put Spread Generally, you're writing that long dated one at the money, and buying the short dated one out of the money.  The maximum amount that can be made is if the stock breaks out strongly to the upside, and you keep the upfront credit minus whatever small amount it took to buy the April puts back.  You can also make money if it breaks strongly to the downside, but only if the credit when you opened your positions was more than $10. Example:  Now say the stock falls to $500 by the time of that march expiration. You'd make $90/share on the march put, and lose $100/share on the April put (or a little more; but that deep in the money, there won't be much premium on it). That's a loss of $10/share, or -$1000. So: I make a point of pointing this out because in that article I linked to the fact that your upfront credit needs to be greater than the strike spread in order to profit to the downside is not clearly mentioned.
"You are conflating two different types of risk here.  First, you want to invest money, and presumably you're not looking at the ""lowest risk, lowest returns"" end of the spectrum. This is an inherently risky activity.  Second, you are in a principal-agent relationship with your advisor, and are exposed to the risk of your advisor not maximizing your profits. A lot has been written on principal-agent theory, and while incentive schemes exist, there is no optimal solution.  In your case, you hope that your agent will start maximizing your profits if they are 100% correlated with his profits. While this idea is true (at least according to standard economic theory, you could find exceptions in behavioral economics and in reality), it also forces the agent to participate in the first risk.  From the point of view of the agent, this does not make sense. He is looking to render services and receive income for it. An agent with integrity is certainly prepared to carry the risk of his own incompetence, just like Apple is prepared to replace your iPhone should it not start one day. But the agent is not prepared to carry additional risks such as the market risk, and should not be compelled to do so. It is your risk, a risk you personally take by deciding to play the investment gamble, and you cannot transfer it to somebody else.  Of course, what makes the situation here more difficult than the iPhone example is that market-driven losses cannot be easily distinguished from incompetent-agent losses. So, there is no setup in which you carry the market risk only and your agent carries the incompetence risk only. But as much as you want a solution in which the agent carries all risk, you probably won't find an agent willing to sign such a contract. So you have to simply accept that both the market risk and the incompetence risk are inherent to being an investor.  You can try to mitigate your own incompetence by having an advisor invest for you, but then you have to accept the risk of his incompetence. There is no way to depress the total incompetence risk to zero."
"Another factor to consider, beyond the fact that growth and volatility go together, is that the times when many people will need to liquidate their investments will correlate with the times that many other people need to liquidate their investments, and such correlation will push down the immediate value of those investments. While certificates of deposit have penalties for early withdrawal, one can establish up front what the worst-case penalty would be for cashing it in at the most inopportune time.  By contrast, stocks offer no such assurance.  Stocks sometimes have weird downward spikes that may be short-lived, but if life circumstances force one to liquidate stocks during such a downward spike the ""penalty"" can be much larger than on a CD."
"Your plan already answers your own question in the best possible way: If you want to be able to make the most possible profit from a large downward move in a stock (in this case, a stock that tracks gold), with a limited, defined risk if there is an upward move, the optimal strategy is to buy a put option. There are a few Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track the price of gold. think of them as stocks that behave like gold, essentially. Two good examples that have options are GLD and IAU. (When you talk about gold, you'll hear a lot about futures. Forget them, for now. They do the same essential thing for your purposes, but introduce more complexity than you need.) The way to profit from a downward move without protection against an upward move is by shorting the stock. Shorting stock is like the opposite of buying it. You make the amount of money the stock goes down by, or lose the amount it goes up by. But, since stocks can go up by an infinite amount, your possible loss is unlimited. If you want to profit on a large downward move without an unlimited loss if you're wrong and it goes up, you need something that makes money as the stock drops, but can only lose so much if it goes up. (If you want to be guaranteed to lose nothing, your best investment option is buying US Treasuries, and you're technically still exposed to the risk that US defaults on its debt, although if you're a US resident, you'll likely have bigger problems than your portfolio in that situation.) Buying a put option has the exact asymmetrical exposure you want. You pay a limited premium to buy it, and at expiration you essentially make the full amount that the stock has declined below the strike price, less what you paid for the option. That last part is important - because you pay a premium for the option, if it's down just a little, you might still lose some or all of what you paid for it, which is what you give up in exchange for it limiting your maximum loss. But wait, you might say. When I buy an option, I can lose all of my money, cant I? Yes, you can.
This is literally the worst article ever.  First dividends are not guaranteed, and the higher the yield the higher the risk for a dividend paying stock. When buying a stock that pays dividends make sure they have the cash flows to cover it long term.  Utility stocks are interest rate sensitive. If we head into a period of high interest rates, utility stocks are going to underperform, if not get killed.  Exchange traded funds can be extremely risky, and some have much higher fees than mutual funds.  Variable Annuities should never be purchased unless you have exhausted all other tax deferred strategies, and then probably still to be avoided because of high fees.  Money markets and CDs aren't really investments. They're a cash alternatives that May not keep up with inflation.
"As Dilip has pointed out in the comment, investing in commodities is to either delivery or Buy. Lets say you entered into buying ""X"" quantities of Soybeans in November, contract is entered into May. In November, if the price is higher than what you purchased for, you can easily sell this, and make money. If in November, the price is lower than your contract price, you have an option to sell it at loss. If you don't want to sell it at loss, you are supposed to take the physical shipment [arrange for your own transport] and store it in warehouse. Although there are companies that will allow you to lease their warehouse, it very soon becomes more loss making proposition. By doing this you can HOLD onto as long as you want [or as long as the good survive and don't rot] It makes sense for a large wholesaler to enter into Buy contracts as he would be like to get known prices for at least half the stock he needs. Similarly large farmers / co-operative societies need to enter into Sell contracts so that they are safeguarded against price fluctuations."
"If you're asking this question, you probably aren't ready to be buying individual stock shares, and may not be ready to be investing in the market at all.  Short-term in the stock market is GAMBLING, pure and simple, and gambling against professionals at that. You can reduce your risk if you spend the amount of time and effort the pros do on it, but if you aren't ready to accept losses you shouldn't be playing and if you aren't willing to bet it all on a single throw of the dice you should diversify and accept lower potential gain in exchange for lower risk. (Standard advice: Index funds.)  The way an investor, as opposed to a gambler, deals with a stock price dropping -- or surging upward, or not doing anything! -- is to say ""That's interesting. Given where it is NOW, do I expect it to go up or down from here, and do I think I have someplace to put the money that will do better?"" If you believe the stock will gain value from here, holding it may make more sense than taking your losses.  Specific example: the mortgage-crisis market crash of a few years ago. People who sold because stock prices were dropping and they were scared -- or whose finances forced them to sell during the down period -- were hurt badly. Those of us who were invested for the long term and could afford to leave the money in the market -- or who were brave/contrarian enough to see it as an opportunity to buy at a better price -- came out relatively unscathed; all I have ""lost"" was two years of growth. So: You made your bet. Now you have to decide: Do you really want to ""buy high, sell low"" and take the loss as a learning experience, or do you want to wait and see whether you can sell not-so-low. If you don't know enough about the company to make a fairly rational decision on that front, you probably shouldn't have bought its stock."
You're correct. If you have no option position at execution then you carry no risk. Your risk is only based on the net number of options you're holding at execution. This is handled by your broker or clearinghouse. Pretend that you wrote 1000 options, (you're short the call) then you bought 1000 of the same option (bought to cover) ... you are now flat and have zero options exposure. Pretend you bought 1000 options (you're long the calls) then you sold 1000 of them (liquidated your long) ... you are now flat and have zero options exposure.
Hopefully, before you invested in this stock, you evaluated the company.  You looked at the financial information about the company and where the company was headed, and evaluated whether the stock was undervalued or overvalued.  Hopefully, you determined that the stock was undervalued at the time you bought it. The thing to do now is to reevaluate the stock.  Do you think the stock is overvalued or undervalued right now?  If you didn't own it, would you buy it today?  Instead of looking at the past performance of the stock, you want to try to determine which direction the stock will go from today.  If you wouldn't buy it today at it's current price, then you should sell. If you have no idea how to do this evaluation, neither do I.  For me, with the investing knowledge I have right now, investing in an individual stock would be way too risky.  If you don't know how to evaluate a stock and determine if it is a good buy or not, then you should stay away from individual stocks and instead invest in stock mutual funds, which lower the risk by diversifying over lots of stocks.
I have had this happen a couple of times because of splits or sales of portions of the company.  The general timeline was to announce how the split was to be handled; then the split; then a freeze in purchasing stock in the other company; then a freeze in sales; followed by a short blackout period; then the final transfers to funds/options/cash based on a mapping announced at the start of the process. You need to answer two questions: To determine if the final transactions will make the market move you have to understand how many shares are involved compared to the typical daily volume. There are two caveats: professional investors will be aware of the transaction date and can either ignore the employee transactions or try and take advantage of them; There may also be a mirroring set of transactions if the people left in the old company were awarded shares in your company as part of the sale. If you are happy with the default mapping then you can do nothing, and let the transaction happen based on the announced timeline. It is easy, and you don't have to worry about deadlines. If you don't like the default mapping then you need to know when the blackout period starts, so you don't end up not being able to perform the steps you want when you want.  Timing is up to you. If the market doesn't like the acquisition/split it make make sense to make the move now, or wait until the last possible day depending on which part they don't like. Only you can answer that question.
If it helps you to think about it, long is equivalent to betting for the upside and short is equivalent to betting for the downside. If you are long on options, then you expect the value of such options to increase.  If you are long an option, then you own the option.  If you are short an option, then generally you sold the option.  Someone who is short a call (sometimes called the writer or occasionally the issuer) has sold a call option to someone who is now long a call. Buying a call option that will increase in value is itself a form of investment, just as it's investment to buy stock or other instruments hoping they will appreciate in value.  An option's value will rise or fall with the underlying, so being long an option is a way to be long in the underlying.  Someone can be long in a stock by buying the stock, or long in a call by buying call options in the stock.  The long call generally requires less initial investment than buying the underlying, and lets the option-holder avoid the asset downside during the option term.  The risk is that the asset may not appreciate to the point that the call option will pay off. In the conceptual sense, a share of stock is a particular right to the profits and assets of a corporation, both in form of dividends and in liquidation.  An option is a particular right to the the share of stock.  It's just a further way to formalize and subdivide the various property rights that exist in a corporation.  If you can buy a piece of paper with particular rights to corporate profits and assets, then you can buy another piece of paper with particular rights to the former piece of paper.
As with forex, you will often be at a severe informational disadvantage when trading. So, view any purchase of a stock as a very long-term commitment—at least five years. And if you're going to invest in a stock, you must review the company's financial history—that means poring through 10-K/Q for several years (I typically examine a minimum ten years of financial statements) and reading the notes to the financial statements. Read the yearly MD&A (quarterly is usually too volatile to be useful for long term investors) – management discussion and analysis – but remember, management pays themselves with your money. I assure you: management will always place a cherry on top, even if that cherry does not exist. If you are a shareholder, any expense the company pays is partially an expense of yours—never forget that no matter how small a position, you have partial ownership of the business in which you're invested. Thirdly, I need to address the stark contrast and often (but not always!) deep conflict between the concepts of investment and speculation. According to Seth Klarman, written on page 21 in his famous Margin of Safety, ""both investments and speculations can be bought and sold. Both typically fluctuate in price and can thus appear to generate investment returns. But there is one critical difference: investments throw off cash flow for the benefit of the owners; speculations do not. The return to the owners of speculations depends exclusively on the vagaries of the resale market."" This seems simple and it is; but do not underestimate the profound distinction Mr. Klarman makes here. (and ask yourself—will forex pay you cash flows while you have a position on?) A simple litmus test prior to purchasing a stock might help to differentiate between investment and speculation: at what price are you willing to sell, and why? I typically require the answer to be at least 50% higher than the current salable price (so that I have a margin of safety) and that I will never sell unless there is a material operating change, accounting fraud, or more generally, regime change within the industry in which my company operates. Furthermore, I then research what types of operating changes will alter my opinion and how severe they need to be prior to a liquidation.
The second choice--to hold the stock in hopes of it rising in price (Option B)--is a bit harder to quantify. You must assume that today is day zero, and that every cent in price the stock rises is a gain to you, and every cent in price the stock looses is a loss to you. If you believe that the stock will rise to a price that will net your more than your tax benefit from option A, then holding the stock is more favorable than selling it at a loss today. Conversely, if you believe this stock will fall even further in the future, or not rise enough to net you $200 (per the example), then Option A is preferable. Granted, there are some additional complications that play into your decision. By selling the stock today, you not only get a tax benefit from the loss, but you've also freed up the funds previously used to purchase that stock to be invested elsewhere (in hopefully a better performing asset). If you choose to stick with your current stock, then the gains you may have netted elsewhere must be considered as an opportunity cost associated with Option B. Finally, the tax benefit is essentially guaranteed (so in our example, a $200 risk free return), while sticking with the stock in Option B still comes with some risk."
Purchasing an option to sell the stock is probably the safest bet. This gives you reasonable leverage, and your risk is limited to the cost of the option. Say the stock currently sells for $100 per share. You think it will drop to $80 per share in the next two weeks and the market thinks the price will be stable. Now, consider an option to sell one share of that stock for $95 any time within the next two weeks. The market would consider that option nearly worthless, since in all likelihood, you would lose out by exercising it (since you could just sell the share on the market for a price expected to be higher than that). You might be able to acquire that option for $5. Now, say you're right and within two weeks, the price drops to $80. Now you can purchase a share for $80, exercise the option to sell it for $95, and pocket $15. That would make you a $10 profit on a $5 investment. If you're wrong, you just let the option lapse and are out $5. No problem. In reality, you would buy a number of such options. And you wouldn't actually buy a share and exercise the option, you would just sell the option back to its issuer for $15.
An alternative options strategy to minimize loss of investment capital is to buy a put, near the money around your original buy price, with a premium less than the total dividend. The value of the put will increase if the stock price falls quickly. Likely, a large portion of your dividend will go towards paying the option premium, this will however ensure that your capital doesn't drop much lower than your buy price. Continued dividend distributions will continue to pay to buy future put options. Risks here are if the stock does not have a very large up or down movement from your original buy price causing most of the dividend to be spent on insuring your position. It may take a few cycles, but once the stock has appreciated in value say 10% above buying price, you can consider either skipping the put insurance so you can pocket the dividend, or you can bu ythe put with a higher strike price for additional insurance against a loss of gains. Again, this sacrifices much of the dividend in favor of price loss, and still is open to a risk of neutral price movement over time.
My understanding was that if a company buys back shares then those shares are 'extinguished' I.e. the rest of the shareholders now own a greater portion of the company. However, if there is only one share left, then the company could not buy it because doing so would extinguish it leaving the company without an owner. That result would run contrary to the requirements for an incorporated company in countries like NZ and Australia.