Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
an
ParticipantSome people don’t know Econ 101. Good luck trying to buy.
Also, great way to keep low income area run down.
ParticipantDidn’t stop the price increase in the 70s.
Participant[quote=deadzone][quote=Coronita][quote=Coronita]
Show me one credible financial document from a reputable financial company that says “in the money option” includes strike price AND option premium paid…
[/quote]
Crickets chirping.[/quote]
Regardless of definition, I can literally purchase an option that is technically “in the money” so that doesn’t mean shit. [/quote]
What? You’re saying now we’re living an alternative universe where industry standard definition no long mean shit? So, can we also say the same about WFH doesn’t mean shit or market crashing doesn’t mean shit?Participant[quote=deadzone]
What did you pay for the option?
Also, options prices on 2024 leaps are pretty loose as there is not a lot of activity. You can’t “brag” about 30% gain unless you actually sell. Let us know when you do this and you can post it.[/quote]
Doesn’t matter what I paid for it. It still doesn’t change the fact that my call is in the money.Not bragging… Just stating the fact that currently, my call is up over 30%. I’ll let you know when I sell to give you the exact profit or loss #.
Participant[quote=deadzone][quote=Coronita]
He bought a contract at $360. Stock $384/share now. Definitely in the money. If he sold at any point these past couple of days , he wins …Case closed. His speculation is no different than your short positions that are speculation and not investing, except his speculation seemed to have worked out.
I don’t understand why you try to spin how wrong you are and how his trade is no value. Seems to me he made money.[/quote]
STFU FLU you don’t know shit about options trading. If I bought a Netflix Call right now for $200 with strike price of $300 I would immediately be “in the money” according to you”. But I paid a major premium so hat doesn’t mean anything. Yes it went up in value in the last 3 days, if he sold it.[/quote]
https://www.thestreet.com/dictionary/i/in-the-moneyParticipant[quote=deadzone]
But that said, are you going to sell and take your profit, or keep for the long term as was your original plan? How much do you believe in the future of Nflix and tech stocks at this point forward?[/quote]
Depends… I’m not selling it today. I never exercise an option, so I’m not going to start w/ NFLX. Which means I’ll sell between now and January 2024. When I sell it will be decided on when I think I can get the most option premium and when I think there might be a pullback. Just because there’s a pullback does not mean it won’t be higher 5 years from now. Trading options are vastly different than buying/selling stocks.Participant[quote=Coronita]Speculation = gambling. Nothing wrong with it. Shorting is speculation. So is option trading….
A win is a win.[/quote]
Yep, no different than going to Vegas and putting it all on Red.Participant[quote=Coronita][quote=deadzone][quote=an][quote=Coronita]Netflix is up again. Your call options totally killing it.. good job. Nice speculation.
Pretty surprised at how the market is moving after the interest rate announcement and why I won’t bet against the markets and just do mostly DRIP into indexes.
The markets can stay irrational longer than one can stay solvent[/quote]
Up 32% so far. Not bad for a few days. Now my call is deep in the money.[/quote]It is up in value, no where near in the money. In the money it would have to be higher than strike price plus the price you paid for it.
But that said, are you going to sell and take your profit, or keep for the long term as was your original plan? How much do you believe in the future of Nflix and tech stocks at this point forward?[/quote]
Uh. Yout definition of “in the money” option is definitely NOT the common definition, it’s something you made up to spin how wrong you are.
“In the money” call option means when the contract price is below the market price, and does NOT include the option premium. Your definition in the money call option of including both the strike price and the option premium paid is something you made up…
No one makes money in stock or options until one sells and completes the transaction, so we wait for AN to sell and hopefully make significant gain.
He bought a contract at $360. Stock $384/share now. Definitely in the money. If he sold at any point these past couple of days , he wins …Case closed. His speculation is no different than your short positions that are speculation and not investing, except his speculation seemed to have worked out.
I don’t understand why you try to spin how wrong you are and how his trade is no value. Seems to me he made money.[/quote]
Exactly!Make that 35% now.
Participant[quote=Coronita]Netflix is up again. Your call options totally killing it.. good job. Nice speculation.
Pretty surprised at how the market is moving after the interest rate announcement and why I won’t bet against the markets and just do mostly DRIP into indexes.
The markets can stay irrational longer than one can stay solvent[/quote]
Up 32% so far. Not bad for a few days. Now my call is deep in the money.Participant[quote=Coronita]Dude AN, your Netflix options are totally in the money now. You’re killing it.
My Pfizer and Merck are back to pre-crash values slightly above break even.
4th round of boosters anyone? :)[/quote]
Yep, have to thank dz for that one. I wasn’t even looking at NFLX until this thread.ParticipantFake news!
Not to mention the fake news about the market going bonkers after the Fed raises rates.
Participant[quote=deadzone][quote=an][quote=deadzone]
Strawman my ass. The number of people fully working from home is going down. Period. Companies are bringing folks back to the office, in droves, that have been working fully from home for 2 years. That’s the whole point. What is this so hard to understand? If you claim fully remote workers were a significant factor in SD (or any other city’s) RE gains over the last 2 years, you can’t also claim that remote workers going back to the office won’t have a negative impact. You can’t have it both ways.[/quote]
Of course number wfh went down. Everyone (except for essential workers) were either WFH or not working. So, yes, it is a strawman cuz no one is arguing with you about that. You’re arguing against yourself on that one. Which is the exact definition of strawman.[/quote]No, actually people on this site have been arguing this. Many here don’t really understand mathematics. They think just because the WFH folks who moved here aren’t necessarily going back to Bay area, that this is good for the housing market. It doesn’t mean squat becauese they’ve already bought their houses. What matter is growth (positive or negative) going forward. The point is there will be less and less future opportunities to move from Bay Area to SanDiego (or whereever) to wfH going forward so there will be far less demand than there was during Covid.[/quote]
Can you quote someone who said we either will stay 100% remote as a whole (except for essential workers) or somehow, 100% remote as a whole (including essential workers)?ParticipantI wish I have more time 🙂
Participant[quote=deadzone]
Strawman my ass. The number of people fully working from home is going down. Period. Companies are bringing folks back to the office, in droves, that have been working fully from home for 2 years. That’s the whole point. What is this so hard to understand? If you claim fully remote workers were a significant factor in SD (or any other city’s) RE gains over the last 2 years, you can’t also claim that remote workers going back to the office won’t have a negative impact. You can’t have it both ways.[/quote]
Of course number wfh went down. Everyone (except for essential workers) were either WFH or not working. So, yes, it is a strawman cuz no one is arguing with you about that. You’re arguing against yourself on that one. Which is the exact definition of strawman. -
AuthorPosts
