Talk:Protective option

Speedy deletion
"I only finished adding this page to Wikipedia an hour ago and it is my first post. I had intended to return and add more, both content and references but the hour is late (about 2 am local time) I am the author of one of three sources quoted here but did not make any advertising claims. All of the content of this entry is verifiable and factual, and I'm surprised that I am the first to post about the married put strategy. Perhaps others have attempted to post but have been cut short within hours... Please investigate both my article and the person responsible for marking it for speedy deletion. I will gladly remove any offensive material and add any references that would make it more scholarly and correct. I believe that Wikipedia, a resource I use and respect, should have articles about this body of knowledge."

The above was added by original author User:KurtFrankenburg to the article page; I have moved it here. Loganberry (Talk) 13:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing
I have edited the article down to three paras; my personal view is that it now needs cleanup but is no longer worthy of a speedy deletion on grounds of spam. Loganberry (Talk) 13:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Protective put
Should this page be renamed "protective put"? Finnancier 11:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I expect "protective put" is more common...but for now it should at least be noted in the article. --DudeOnTheStreet (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Married Put is appropriate
See SEC Interpretive Release regarding this strategy. http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/34-48795.htm


 * I find it odd that the SEC document refers to the long put as "the purchase of the option to sell," rather than "the purchase of the option having the right but not the obligation to sell." --Briankeithanderson (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't another way of saying "the right but not the obligation" is to say "option"? As in "you have the option to do such-and-such"....  That's why options are called "options".--DudeOnTheStreet (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong way round?
I've never made any changes to this type of page, so I'll try not to mess anything up. The reason for this post is to discuss the sentence in the article which states, "In effect, one can over-spend the concept until a likely recovery is infinitesimal. In that sense, the married put combined with consecutive subsequent protective puts boasts theoretically unlimited loss potential."

Now it is true that if you have a stock that is growing and say it is nearing its peak a married put can get it hung up too high. If you have been riding it all the way up then who cares you will be profiting anyway, but if you just got in at the top and you entered the put then yeah your going to have to eat it on that trade. That is sort of what makes this trade great is like with a stop loss you can set the amount of risk you wish to use....anyway.

My point is in the second half of the sentence which states that the put "boasts theoretically unlimited loss potential." I think what was meant to be written was puts boast theoretically unlimited gain potential with a limited loss. Because if the put is used to cap off the amount of loss then you can control it then as the stock rises you can just let it go to infinity.


 * Well, this article as a whole is much too wordy. Some pruning is best, I think.  --DudeOnTheStreet (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)