4 ms·
Sometimes its easier to trade the right to buy/sell something than to trade the thing itself. It’s less obvious with stocks because there’s a pretty streamline
by reaperman 3y ago
Sometimes its easier to trade the right to buy/sell something than to trade the thing itself.
It’s less obvious with stocks because there’s a pretty streamlined system for taking delivery of the stock ownership but with physical goods or real estate sometimes actually changing ownership triggers a lot of regulatory or tax or process things.
For example, with real estate if you actually buy it you’ll need at minimum to get insurance to cover if any trespassers or workers get injured on the property. Lots of paperwork to transfer the title/deed, and you might be on the hook to help sort out future title / deed / survey errors. But if you never own it you save the headache of all these things.
For buying commodities you need a safe, regulated warehouse/tank to store it, handle all the ohysical logistics, etc.
By buying and selling the right to purchase the things you can delay the actual purchase until you find someone who can and wants to actually deal with the ownership of the thing.
- matsemann 3y agoIt wasn't really a question about options in general, but these specific options. If they are either basically free money for the seller, or suspicious trading by the buyer, why allow both sides to trade like this? The seller is basically stealing money from a "sucker", until they suddenly aren't. No value in allowing those kind if bets, then. Where the seller either wins or claim fraud. Very one sided.
- pierrefermat1 3y agoFrom my understanding the SEC would end up taking the profits if the prosecution is successful? The seller here is not free rolling by claiming fraud on losses.
- snypher 3y agoThe option could be used as a low cost hedge against another trade and may end up being cheap insurance for a very unique event