Now let's take this thing out of the harbor and see what it can do in the open waters.
In this article, we'll look at two documented trades using the LEAPS Perpetual Income Strategy - both of them on PYPL (payment processor PayPal).
But first . . .
To review . . .
>> The Strategy is constructed by buying deep in the money long call LEAPS and deep in the money long put LEAPS
>> We strive to buy LEAPS contracts that contain as little extrinsic or time value as possible (because we'll need to recoup that over the life of the trade)
>> The vast majority of the long LEAPS' value will be comprised of intrinsic value then - and because our long dated long calls and long puts essentially offset one another (whatever intrinsic value one set loses, the other set will gain), no matter where the stock trades, the overall combined value of intrinsic value will never decrease
>> With a constant intrinsic value functioning as a safety net, we're free to generate high yield income by strategically selling near dated calls and puts against the long LEAPS (i.e. calendar or time spreads)
>> The LEAPS Perpetual Income Strategy exploits the "covered calls on steroids" leverage advantage of calendar spreads in that we can control a lot more shares through our purchase of LEAPS options compared to purchasing (or shorting in the case of the long put LEAPS) the shares outright, and in the process sell a ton more near dated options for income
>> We measure the trade's success by employing what I call its "Profitability Spread" - the more the annualized returns we generate from selling near dated options exceeds the pro-rated annualized cost of the long LEAPS extrinsic or time value (i.e. the Nuisance Tax), the greater the trade's overall profits
>> Initiated Trade on 2016-08-08
>> Purchased (10) JAN 19 2018 $28 LONG CALLS
>> Purchased (10) JAN 19 2018 $47 LONG PUTS
>> Total Cost = $23,612.50
>> Total Intrinsic Value = $19,000
>> Total Time/Extrinsic Value = $4,612.50
>> Total Extrinsic Value Penalty = 24.28%
>> Annualized Rate = 16.75% over 529 days until expiration of LEAPS
(Click on the image above to enlarge)
In summary -
>> My extrinsic value Nuisance Tax = 16.75% annualized
>> The net premium generated and accumulated to date from selling near dated options against the LEAPS is currently 34.21% annualized
>> That means PYPL Trade #1 is at the time of this writing (updated on 2017-02-22) generating a positive 17.46% annualized profitability rate
Keep in mind that this first trade was about understanding the trade at a deeper level, not setting records, although these are still very solid returns for what's been an extremely low maintenance trade.
So let's move on to the next trade . . .
>> Initiated Trade on 2016-11-28
>> Purchased (4) JAN 19 2018 $30 LONG CALLS
>> Purchased (4) JAN 19 2018 $50 LONG PUTS
>> Total Cost = $9,286.16
>> Total Intrinsic Value = $8,000
>> Total Time/Extrinsic Value = $1,286.16
>> Total Extrinsic Value Penalty = 16.08%
>> Annualized Rate = 14.07% over 417 days until expiration of LEAPS
(Click on the image above to enlarge)
So once again . . .
>> My extrinsic value Nuisance Tax here is 14.07% annualized
>> The net premium generated and accumulated to date from selling near dated options against the LEAPS is currently 80.40% annualized
>> That means PYPL Trade #2 is - at the time of this writing (last updated on 2017-02-22) currently generating a positive 66.33% annualized profitability rate
We've definitely covered a LOT of material here, but before wrapping this up, I want to address the returns.
As you can tell, there's a big difference in the returns produced by these two trades.
In fact, in the early going of PYPL Trade #2, the spread between the two trades was even greater - +65.08% annualized net gains on PYPL #2 and just 9.84% annualized on PYPL #1.
At the time, both results seemed unrealistic - those 9.84% annualized returns on PYPL #1 were very low in my view.
And the +65.08% annualized profitability rate on PYPL #2 was also likely unsustainable, I felt at the time (primarily because while off to a great start, the trade had been open for just a short period at the time).
Now I'm not so sure about what the realistic upper limits of the Strategy is.
PYPL #2 is generating 66.33% annualized returns through one full quarterly cycle - if it can perform at this level through one quarter, why can't it post simular results in future quarters?
The bigger picture is what's important, however - and by that, I mean the incredible structural advantages built into this thing and what I see as simple, low maintenance, low risk, high yield returns.
(It really is low maintenance - believe me, I spend a lot more time writing about the LEAPS Perpetual Income Strategy than I do actually trading and managing it.)
Whatever the final returns end up being for either of these PYPL trades, I'm confident that they're going to be a hell of a lot better than 9.84% a year.
The following section comes from what I posted at the time for members inside The Leveraged Investing Club:
Yes, I know a 9.84% positive annualized spread isn't exactly a super lucrative return.
But keep in mind a number of very salient facts:
>> I'm on record as saying I felt I paid too much originally setting up the position
>> This first test trade was never about setting a land speed record
>> It was about making as many important discoveries as we could, discoveries that we could only make in the real world, not the lab
>> Now that we see the power of measuring the trade in terms of the spread between our option selling gains and the extrinsic value penalty, we can now focus much more effectively on increasing that spread
>> Keep in mind also that this trade is designed to never lose money at the end of the day (based on our confidence and assumptions about the effectiveness of our short option trade repair and management process)
Re: the returns themselves, there is actually a lot we can do to boost that spread - now that we've discovered this is what we should be focusing on - but that's going to be a conversation for another day.
Or said another way . . .
The significance of Kitty Hawk wasn't about finding the most effective mode of transportation on that particular day.
It was simply about Orville and Wilbur getting their contraption airborne and proving it could be done.
KO - 125 shares
KMI - 100 shares
BP - 100 shares
MCD - 30 shares
JNJ - 25 shares
GIS - 25 shares
PAYX - 25 shares
Open Market Purchase Price: $20,071.83
Less Booked Option Income: $16,341.71
Tot. Discount: 81.42%
Adj. Div. Yield: 19.59%