I agree that if the author had made any attempt at all to try and actually cover the facts, you probably wouldn’t have had that misunderstanding. If you look at

I agree that if the author had made any attempt at all to try and actually cover the facts, you probably wouldn’t have had that misunderstanding. If you look at this guy’s disclosure (the one linked in the article no less), it seems as though he sells a covered call on just about every allotment of stock he purchases (which is a perfectly common strategy). So it doesn’t even seem like an out of the ordinary trade for him to be making. I don’t agree that the article implies in any way that he was selling ITM calls to try and exit a position though. But it does seem to imply that he had control over when the contract was exercised, and that he may not have even had a contractual obligation to sell the stock, which is very obviously complete nonsense. So who knows what the article was trying to say, apart from maybe GOP man bad?…