SteadyOptions is an options trading forum where you can find solutions from top options traders. TRY IT FREE!

We’ve all been there… researching options strategies and unable to find the answers we’re looking for. SteadyOptions has your solution.

Selling Naked Strangles: The Math


Selling short (naked) strangles is heavily promoted by some options "gurus". Is it a good strategy? It might have an unlimited (theoretical) risk, but what about the return? Is the return worth the risk? We decided to do some math, based on real prices, not some theoretical "studies".

Assumptions:

  1. $100,000 account.
  2. Sell SPY 10 delta calls and 10 delta puts.
  3. Use options expiring in 30 days.
  4. Base the number of contracts on "notional exposure", not margin. 
  5. Hold till expiration, then open the next trade.

Notional value speaks to how much total value a security theoretically controls. For example, with SPY around $290, that means selling 1 SPY strangle per ~$29,000 of capital.
 

With SPY around $288 on August 12, 2019, we will be selling the following strangle:

  • Sell 4 Sep.11 2019 264 put
  • Sell 4 Sep.11 2019 302 call

Those strikes are the closest to 10 delta. 4 contracts give us notional exposure of $115,200 ($288*100*4), which means 1.15 leverage. This is fairly conservative exposure.


This is how the P/L chart looks like:

image.png

Please note that our total credit is $676 (assuming we can get filled at the mid point).

Now lets do the math. 

If ALL trades expire worthless and we keep all credits, we will collect $676*12=$8,112. This is 8.1% on $100,000 account. But this is the best case scenario. This is probably not going to happen. Based on the deltas of the options, this trade has around 80% probability of winning. Which means that statistically, 2-3 trades per year will be losers.

Now, lets be conservative and assume that 2 trades per year will be losers, and the losing trades will lose the same amount as winners ($676 per trade). In reality, when the markets move against you, even with the best risk management, your losers are usually larger than your winners when you trade a high probability strategy. But again lets be conservative.

Note: The theoretical probability of winning is based on deltas and implied volatility, while the actual win rate is slightly higher because of the volatility risk premium (IV exceeding RV over time). But it doesn't have material impact on the results.

This assumption gives us total P/L of $676*10-$676*2=$5,408. That's total annual return of 5.4%. You can use T-bills as a collateral, which might add 2-4% to the annual return.

In no way this single example can represent the whole strategy, and this calculation might not be very "scientific". Different dates or parameters might provide slightly different results, but this is a ballpark number. We estimate the range to be around 5-7% per annum.

Of course fund managers like Karen Supertrader who use similar strategies realize that those returns probably would not attract too many investors, and also would not get her a spot in tastytrade show. What's their solution to get to the 25-30% annual return they advertise? The answer is: leverage. To get from 5% return to 25%, you need 5x leverage, or 20 contracts.

To see how the leveraged trade would perform during market meltdown, lets assume it was initiated on Dec.3, 2018, with SPY at 280. Three weeks later, SPY was around 234, 16% down. This is how the trade would look like:

image.png

That's right, the $100k portfolio would be down 50%. This is how you blow up your account.

In this case, the 16% market decline took 3 weeks. What if it was 25% decline happening in one week? You can only imagine the results.

Of course we could change the parameters, use 20 delta options, different time to expiration etc. This would not change the results dramatically. With 20 delta options, you would get more credit, but also higher number of losers per year.

Does it mean the selling naked strangles is a bad strategy? Not necessarily. In fact, according to CBOE Volatility Risk Premium and Financial Distress, 1x notional strangle on SPX has historically returned about the same as SPX with 3x the Sharpe Ratio:

image.png

But the strangle itself produced around 6% annualized return, which is pretty close to the performance we calculated. Rest of the return came from the collateral.

The bottom line is: selling naked strangles on indexes is a good strategy if used with a sensible amount of leverage. But you should set your expectations correctly. I suspect that most traders would probably base their position sizing on margin, not notional exposure, which is like driving a Ferrari 190 MPH down a busy street...just because you can. This would increase the return, but also the risk. If you base your position sizing on notional exposure, the risk is pretty low, but so is the potential return. 

Naked options by themselves are not necessarily a bad thing. The problem is leverage and position sizing. If implemented correctly, naked options can make money in the long term. But if you overleverage, you just cannot recover from the inevitable big losses. We warned our readers about the dangers of naked options and leverage on several occasions. It's not the strategy that killed Karen Supertrader, James Cordier, Victor Niederhoffer and others. It's the leverage and lack of risk management.

What about selling naked strangles on individual stocks? Personally, I would never do it, especially not before earnings. The risk is just too high. But lets leave something for the next article..

“The problem with experts is that they do not know what they do not know.” 
― Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

Related article:

What Is SteadyOptions?

Full Trading Plan

Complete Portfolio Approach

Diversified Options Strategies

Exclusive Community Forum

Steady And Consistent Gains

High Quality Education

Risk Management, Portfolio Size

Performance based on real fills

Try It Free

Non-directional Options Strategies

10-15 trade Ideas Per Month

Targets 5-7% Monthly Net Return

Visit our Education Center

Recent Articles

Articles

  • Realistic Expectations: Using History as A Guide

    One of the biggest challenges I come across with the typical investor is maintaining realistic expectations and being able to properly understand the tradeoffs between risk and return. We all want high returns with low risk and there’s no limit to the efforts we’ll make to find it.

    By Jesse,

    • 0 comments
    • 25 views
  • CAPM As an Alternative Option Pricing Model

    Options traders endlessly debate the merits of the Black-Scholes pricing model. Some swear by it and others don’t even try to use it. Given the many profound flaws in the model, it is not an accurate tool for developing a sense of where price is likely to move in the future. But there are alternatives.

    By Michael C. Thomsett,

    • 0 comments
    • 292 views
  • Option Payoff Probability

    Options traders must, naturally, be concerned with the likelihood of payoff for a strategy. Ironically, one of the most often cited statistics about profit and loss is simply incorrect. That statistic is captured in the headline of a story posted online “Trading Options: Data Shows That 75% or More of Options Expire Worthless.”

    By Michael C. Thomsett,

    • 0 comments
    • 383 views
  • The Minimum Effective Dose (MED) For Cash Flow Planning

    Financial planners can usually give generic advice that will be appropriate for the majority of Americans, and that’s the goal of this article. If we can get the fundamentals of cash-flow planning right (where to put your money after you earn it and pay your taxes and bills), we’re 80% of the way towards maximizing our financial situation.

    By Jesse,

    • 0 comments
    • 434 views
  • Are You Breaking Even? Or Losing?

    Among the good reasons to trade options is the need to meet or surpass your breakeven yield. This is the yield you need just to preserve your purchasing power; and it higher than most people think. In fact, most people relying on moderate to conservative yields from stocks, mutual funds, real estate and savings accounts might be earning well below this breakeven level.

    By Michael C. Thomsett,

    • 0 comments
    • 513 views
  • Buy When You Have the Money, Sell When You Need the Money

    Money can be quite an emotional topic for many of us. Emotions can enhance our experiences and relationships in many ways, but they can act as mental roadblocks especially when trying to make wise financial decisions. One of the most common emotional roadblocks I come across when working with individuals is an unwillingness to invest idle cash to meet long-term goals.

    By Jesse,

    • 0 comments
    • 1,009 views
  • Strategy Selection vs. Risk Management

    "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money." Everett McKinley Dirksen. Let’s begin with the bottom line: When I talk to anyone about the concept of choosing an option strategy (or two) to adopt for trading, I stress that the strategy should have certain characteristics.

    By Mark Wolfinger,

    • 0 comments
    • 486 views
  • Blending Anchor Strategy

    Anchor and Leveraged Anchor investors frequently ask why the strategy only trades SPY and SPY options rather than individual stocks, other indexes or commodities. We avoid individual stocks because of tracking and divergence issues.

    By cwelsh,

    • 0 comments
    • 592 views
  • Fundamental Volatility and Stock Prices

    Every options trader must wonder whether any connection will be found between the company's fundamentals and stock prices (and in turn, option valuation as well). Because options are derived from stock price behavior, the analysis of stock movement is crucial to selecting options wisely; and that relies on volatility in the reported profit and loss over several years.

    By Michael C. Thomsett,

    • 0 comments
    • 600 views
  • Bullish Short Strangles

    A bullish short strangle sounds like a complicated strategy, but it’s really quite simple for those familiar with option terminology. A short put is combined with a short call to where the position starts with some amount of positive delta overall. This distinguishes itself from a delta neutral strangle, where both the short put and short call are sold at the same delta.

    By Jesse,

    • 5 comments
    • 986 views

  Report Article

We want to hear from you!


VERY good article. I know some traders are really feeling some pain out there right now. Conservative position sizing is one sure way to give yourself a little edge and confidence to be able to do this long term. 

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right that leverage is a solution but not in the way you think:

- own capital (i.e. from investors) 10,000$ ;

- borrow the equivalent of 90,000$ in the Eurozone at monthly rates of say 0.2% over EURIBOR - that would be -0.2%;

- perform a swap transaction of the currency into US$ which includes eliminating the currency risk - this will have a variable cost but lets put that at 1% - it can be more or less.

Now lets take your assumption that they can make 5% on a 100K. That would now look like this:

  •  +5,000$ income from the SPY strategy
  • - 720$ Total cost of swap/interest
  • +4,280$ profit for investors

That is a 42.80% return on an annual basis. You could be less sophisticated and just borrow monthly US$ which costs around 2.5% tops - the strategy remains the same and the return would be 25% annualised. There is still huge risk involved in this transaction even though its mitigated somewhat by the fact you trade monthly SPY. There can be a refinancing problem or interest rates could rise which would eat into your return like there is no tomorrow.

Obviously this isnt happening wholesale and so the premise of your article that you wont lose more than you win on your two losers is at fault here. Whilst you can mitigate the losers somewhat taking them at least at the triple value of a 'regular' win is already more realistic. You then have a 3% or less return which means that unless you go the sophisticated way of foreign currency swaps and the whole shebang you will find it hard to get to where you need to be.

If there was a strategy yielding standard 5% (without additional risk) today all the big money in the market would be into it. Big fortunes fear above all to make big losses and do very well on modest growth.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree about the "gurus" pitching option selling as some great alternative to buy and hold without really addressing the risks (including the risk of under-performing buy and hold which is likely the case over the past 10 years).

On the positive side,  my father who is in retirement mode may be fine with a 5% annualized return that has less volatility that holding SPY and provides a diversified income stream.   I think it just depends on your goals and tolerances for risk.

 

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, TrustyJules said:

You are right that leverage is a solution but not in the way you think:

- own capital (i.e. from investors) 10,000$ ;

- borrow the equivalent of 90,000$ in the Eurozone at monthly rates of say 0.2% over EURIBOR - that would be -0.2%;

- perform a swap transaction of the currency into US$ which includes eliminating the currency risk - this will have a variable cost but lets put that at 1% - it can be more or less.

Now lets take your assumption that they can make 5% on a 100K. That would now look like this:

  •  +5,000$ income from the SPY strategy
  • - 720$ Total cost of swap/interest
  • +4,280$ profit for investors

That is a 42.80% return on an annual basis. You could be less sophisticated and just borrow monthly US$ which costs around 2.5% tops - the strategy remains the same and the return would be 25% annualised. There is still huge risk involved in this transaction even though its mitigated somewhat by the fact you trade monthly SPY. There can be a refinancing problem or interest rates could rise which would eat into your return like there is no tomorrow.

Obviously this isnt happening wholesale and so the premise of your article that you wont lose more than you win on your two losers is at fault here. Whilst you can mitigate the losers somewhat taking them at least at the triple value of a 'regular' win is already more realistic. You then have a 3% or less return which means that unless you go the sophisticated way of foreign currency swaps and the whole shebang you will find it hard to get to where you need to be.

If there was a strategy yielding standard 5% (without additional risk) today all the big money in the market would be into it. Big fortunes fear above all to make big losses and do very well on modest growth.

 

I believe the over a long time, you can make 5% with this strategy. But it doesn't mean you will make it every year - it is still possible (and expected) to have 20-30% drawdowns (which is still better than S&P). What happens if the drawdown happens right after you took the loan? The 30% loss means 30k which is 3 times your initial capital. And you have no idea how long will it take to recover.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, FrankTheTank said:

Totally agree about the "gurus" pitching option selling as some great alternative to buy and hold without really addressing the risks (including the risk of under-performing buy and hold which is likely the case over the past 10 years).

On the positive side,  my father who is in retirement mode may be fine with a 5% annualized return that has less volatility that holding SPY and provides a diversified income stream.   I think it just depends on your goals and tolerances for risk.

 

 

Options selling strategies are likely to underperform in strong bull markets. But what will happen to your father's retirement funds if the markets tank 50% tomorrow?

The whole point of options selling strategies (like our Steady Momentum strategy) is to reduce volatility, while still producing market like returns over the long term. After all, you never know when the next bear market will come.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take a look at this article where a long time tastytrade follower pretty much confirms our estimates. He is getting to ~15% annual return by applying ~2x leverage, but I'm wondering how much risk does it add. 

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites


Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy and free!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

Options Trading Blogs