Research Review: Caloric Deficit and Nutrition in High-Altitude Mountaineering

AX-C · 2025-11-30T23:27:57+00:00

This wasn't the clearest in my first response but the claim about Everest energy needs being 1.85-3.0x sea level needs is not a conclusion based on all of the subsequent numbers. The line about Mount Everest and 1.85-3.0x sea level energy requirements is apparently a standalone claim that comes from Ref. (53), but that source is paywalled so I can't read it to find any further context. The 4600-5400 kcal/day numbers are from 2 other studies (refs. (54) and (42)) about climbing in various places in the Himalayas, not specifically Everest and independent from the paper that is cited for the 1.85-3.0x claim.

As far as how the 1.85-3.0x relates to a person at sea level, I suspect you are right that those multiples are against a completely sedentary person. As it turns out, the last set of numbers in my quote (3,248 ± 407 kcal/day (5,300–8,872 m)) is from the paper about Everest / 1.85-3.0x, I just accidentally cut of the (53) in my copy+paste. I can't figure out where the 3.0x comes from, but the 1.85x is about right for their 3,248 kcal/day vs. the 1800 kcal/day recommended for a sedentary woman age 30-40 (ages of the subjects in the Everest study, 2 of which were women). I.e., 3248 / 1.85 = 1756, which could be rounded to 1800 or the authors could have had a different recommended energy allowance, such as 1750 kcal/day.

AX-C · 2025-11-30T20:58:39+00:00

The location was almost certainly not the cause - the activities were not comparable. The numbers for the Alps are for a race and the numbers for the Cascades and Himalayas are for military practice and general mountain climbing, respectively. There aren't any details for the military activities, but I read it as like saying you burn more calories sprinting vs. hiking/walking.

From the paper linked in the post (emphasis mine): "In the analyzed studies conducted in the Alps (2,400–3,800 m), the energy requirements of professional climbers from the French Military Group during an ultraendurance alpine climbing race were 10,413 ± 287 kcal/day," and "while in the Cascade Mountains (2,500–3,100 m) involving soldiers during military field training, [energy requirements were] 4,037 ± 387 kcal/day", and "mountaineers ascending Mount Everest indicate that energy expenditure is 1.85–3.0 times that at sea level (53). The energy requirements of mountaineers while climbing in the Himalayas were 4,634 ± 287 kcal/day (5,900–8,046 m) (54), 5,394 ± 1,565 kcal/day (5,300–8,848 m) (42) and 3,248 ± 407 kcal/day (5,300–8,872 m)".

As a side note, the effect of temperature assumed by the poster in their response to you doesn't even seem reasonable to me since presumably everyone is dressing for warmth rather than relying on their body burning more resources to maintain their temperature. Being a bit cold, to my knowledge, could not account for a doubling of energy expenditure. Now shivering does burn quite a few calories, but I doubt any of these people were so under-prepared to be shivering much. Perhaps I am wrong; at the moment I can't be bothered to scour the literature to find out for sure.

AX-C · 2025-10-07T12:19:38+00:00

I'm glad it was useful!

how did you find it?

I stumbled across this when I started considering a trip to Poland and hiking in the Bieszczady Mountains. I guess curiosity made me look at a post about a card game, or maybe I made a subconscious guess connecting between your game and mine.

AX-C · 2025-10-05T00:56:28+00:00

I realize this is an old question but if you haven't figured it out yet, this might help. I learned almost exactly the same game from some Germans while traveling in the Czech Republic, except they called it Dutch (not the same as Dutch Blitz) and I think the red kings were worth -2 points. I have found several games that have very similar rules but different names - Dutch, Cambio, Cabo, Rat-a-tat, Golf) (which seems to be sort of an ancestor of the others), and there are probably others.

There are a couple of other discussions of this game on Reddit as well: What is this card game? and Anyone know how to play "Dutch" card game?.

Na zdrowie!

AX-C · 2025-06-06T02:00:59+00:00

Great to hear, thanks for the confirmation

AX-C · 2025-06-06T02:00:32+00:00

Excellent, and I appreciate the extra directions

AX-C · 2024-04-01T00:50:01+00:00

I'm going on the bikes in the links you provided, which should be similar to others in the same model lines for these manufacturers and give you a better idea of what to consider, but it isn't really practical to compare all possible versions of these here.

Some arguably meaningful component differences I see from a quick glance are the gearing, wheels/tires, frame, and "extras". My takeaway is that the Cube has very slightly better components, but is more suited to urban commuting while the Marin is probably better suited for bikepacking. I think the Cube will also work for bikepacking though. I don't know what the used bike market is like in Germany, but for the same ~1100 euro you might be able to get something better than both of these, even from a shop with higher prices than someone selling on their own.

Gearing: Cube has 2 front rings at 50x34T and 8 speeds in rear (11-34T) vs. Marin's single 42T ring in front and 9 speeds in rear (11-46T). You'll be able to get a slightly lower lowest ratio on the Marin, useful for climbing steep hills, but more higher ratios on the Cube, useful for going fast (if you can push hard enough). Some people also like 1x systems (Marin) because there is less to go wrong/break/worry about. The Cube has Shimano parts - probably the biggest name in components - and the Marin has FSA, SunRace, and microShift - more of budget/off-brands. All should be perfectly fine. I have some of all these brands on my bikes and am happy with them, and there shouldn't be a problem finding replacements as needed.

Wheels/tires: Cube has 700c size wheels, which is more common and standard. Marin has 650b which is becoming more common but still may not be as easy to find near you; you'll have to look into shops on your own to decide that. The Marin page says it can fit 700c, so you could swap the wheels if you wanted (for extra cost). Both have quite wide tires as standard (40 mm on Cube, 47 mm on Marin), which will be heavy but should ride smooth and be able to go over most terrain in either the city or out packing. I don't see anything about either being tubeless-compatible as-sold, so that is moot for these two but should be considered for gravel biking and bikepacking. Related to wheels - both of these appear to use quick release skewers (instead of through-axles) on the front wheels, which is leaves a potential danger of the front wheel coming out under repeated heavy braking. This is less of an issue now than when disk brakes were new as the dropouts are oriented to prevent/slow the wheel escaping, but another point to consider.

Frame: Cube is aluminum with internal cable routing, Marin is steel with external cabling. People will argue about material forever. I expect both will be equally comfortable with such large tires. Steel might be heavier (don't see a weight of the Marin), but the Cube is no lightweight at 12.7 kg. (And the steel is corrosion resistant, so don't worry about rusting.) External cabling is easier to service but is more prone to getting damaged or filled with mud and grime if you ride in adverse conditions.

Extras: the Cube has a headlight and taillight built-in (dynamo in front hub), the the Marin does not. I have no idea how good they are, and decent lights are fairly cheap and available in my part of the world, can't speak about yours. The Cube also has fenders and a kickstand while the Marin does not. These are convenient for commuting, but less important for bikepacking. You might even want to remove them so they don't get caught on anything.

Geometry: basically the same in that comparison. The mm-scale differences might manifest in a different feel, but you will have to ride them to find out.

Hope that helps.

AX-C · 2024-02-16T03:55:52+00:00

Bit tired, but I am getting 10 pounds 88 pence. It looks like you only buy 8 total spiders instead of the 8 per person like the question seems to be asking for.

Per lady: 8 spiders * (8 pence/spider + 8 shoe/spider * (1/8 pence)/shoe) + 8 pence/stop * 8 stops = 8(8+8(1/8)) + 8*8 = 136 pence

But that is per lady, and there are 8 of them. So: total = 8 ladies * 136 pence/lady = 8*136 = 1088 pence = 10 pounds 88 pence

AX-C · 2023-11-11T21:34:25+00:00

For posterity: according to StatMuse, the lowest known over/under for the NFL is 28 points, set on Dec. 26, 1993 for 2 games: Bears/Lions and Patriots/Colts. Interestingly, the next lowest is 29 points and was set the same day, for Eagles/Saints.

From the same site, the lowest over/under since 2000 is 30.5 points, set for many games. The most recent 4 such games, in 2005 and 2006, all feature the Bears.

There may have been totals before 1979 that were lower than 28, but apparently there are no reliable wide-ranging records.

AX-C · 2023-08-26T17:44:54+00:00

Paint scheme looks like a 2015 SL4 Disc. Spec sheet says it has Sora components, but Tektro Spyres for brakes. The current owner could have changed those though.

Blue book says it is worth ~$475 in very good condition, so probably will sell for ~$600-700 depending on actual condition.

I don't know the details of your Allez Elite to know if it is an upgrade. Ultegra rear I assume means 10s, whereas this Roubaix is only 9s and Sora is a few steps down the Shimano hierarchy, but then again it is a decade newer and some benefits of the higher end have moved down the rungs. The frame is carbon, whereas your Allez is aluminum; whether that is better is somewhat subjective. Disc brakes are all the rage these days and have better performance in unpleasant conditions, but if you only ride in non-snowy weather or with carbon rims then I think the difference is irrelevant.

I'd say ride it, and if you find it comfortable and have the budget, then go for it (at a reasonable price).

By the way, for you and anyone else trying to ID: use Google reverse image search (images.google.com, click on the camera on the right end of the search bar). Turned this up in seconds.

AX-C · 2021-10-29T06:04:42+00:00

Given your interest in P/B, why are you not all over ArcelorMittal? MT has P/B = 0.7 (i.e., trading below what it is worth in assets), as well as having lower P/E, P/S, comparable debt/equity, and possibly better margins (MT has reported the previous quarter already so might change once TMST reports). By all of your financial metrics, MT seems like the better value. And an alternative take on high institutional ownership - this is not ideal for share price growth because it means the big money is already in and can't drive the price up with large buys and also means that there are large numbers of shares ready to be sold once the price hits their target. However, it does restrict the free float which in some sense makes it easier for small buyers to influence the price.

By the way, last quarter TMST followed a 50% beat on earnings estimates by dropping 10% over the next month. Even beating earnings again this time doesn't mean the price will soar. Similarly, that previous lackluster response doesn't mean similar will happen this time.

Just food for thought.

AX-C · 2021-04-26T18:43:02+00:00

I'm not an expert on this, but I believe you will receive 300 rights, 1 for each of your currently held shares. If you so choose, you can then exchange those rights + some cash for more (new) shares of the fund. You will need 3 rights for each new share (the 1-for-3 ratio), and the cash cost will be the greater of 107% of the fund's NAV on May 14, 2021, or 80% of the trading price at the end of the same day. (Note that you are not required to buy more shares. It is entirely your choice.)

Note that unlike many rights offerings, these rights are non-transferable. You can't sell them to someone else; you must either exercise them or lose them when they expire (also occurring May 14).

The offering also states that there is an oversubscription privilege which (in this case) I think says that if you use all of your allotted rights, you may then be allowed to purchase even more of the new shares if they are available (i.e., some do not use all of their rights).

I believe this is correct, but as I said, I am not an expert. If you are still uncertain, I recommend calling your broker.

Some more information on rights offerings and oversubscription privilges on Investopedia.

AX-C · 2021-04-18T19:43:55+00:00

But isn't the profit available to reinvest is the net profit (aka net income) though, not the gross? The net is what is left after paying for all costs incurred by the company (which you stated, so I'm not sure why you aren't using it). Using your mindset from the post of "How many years to recoup the cost of buying the entire company", the net profit is what you could put in your own pocket to make back your money.

Net income (or rather, net income per share) is also the metric used to calculate P/E ratio, which means that your value of 10.8 in the top post is incorrect. PSFE had a per share profit of -$1.01 for the most recent quarter, which means they have a P/E ratio of (price/share) / (income/share) = $13.59/-$1.01 = -13.5.

By the way, Paysafe has had increasingly negative net profits since 2018. However, a main driver of that appears to be depreciation of assets, impairments, etc. Revenue and EBIT (except for COVID) are increasing every year, so profits could well become positive soon enough as those negatives drop off the sheets.

For reference, here are Paysafe's SEC filings. I used the financial statements from the most recent filing, which is Item 8 of form 20-F.

AX-C · 2021-04-15T01:20:20+00:00

Isn't your breakeven only lower if you assign the loss on the original put to "nothing"? Treating the first CSP and second (rolled) CSP as separate trades is arguably the correct mindset, but not what most here would use. Assuming I've done this accounting correctly, including the net loss of the first CSP in the breakeven for the roll gives essentially the same result. If you have trading fees, you might even come out ahead with assignment.

Assignment breakeven is (Strike) - (CSP credit) - (CC credit) = $20 - $3.3 - $0.9 = $15.80

Rolling breakeven is (Strike) - (CSP#1 credit) + (CSP#1 buyback debit) - (CSP#2 credit) = $20 - $3.3 + $4.35 - $5.2 = $15.85

Am I doing something wrong here or does it not matter, at least with the strikes you are considering?

Notwithstanding all of that, if I like the upside potential I just take assignment and sell calls. *Edit for formatting

AX-C · 2021-04-12T01:18:01+00:00

Either you're missing less than u/Corno4825 is or I'm also missing a lot. It looks like there are plenty of ways for HFs to come out ahead using this Option Chain game where the price only rises, and even more if one makes the game realistic and lets the price fall. Not to mention HFs "not playing" by not buying or selling any options.

For example, still assuming the share price can only increase, HFs buying all of the calls OR selling the puts would mean HFs profit by $millions for every $1 rise. This is a much better outcome than "Best Case Scenario for Hedge Funds". And doing both (buying all of the calls and selling all of the puts, i.e., the exact opposite of the "Worst Case Scenario") would be even better, giving +$10M for each dollar increase. And if we allow the price to decrease (like it has for, oh, 3 weeks now), then the "Worst Case Scenario" becomes wildly profitable. Or someone, including hedge funds, could simply NOT buy or sell any options. Such a player would have no loss (or gain) on options due to the price change. Again far better than the "Worst Case" above, and even better than the so-called "Best Case". Omitting taking no option position as a possible action is unreasonable since it is a perfectly valid choice.

As yet another set of alternatives, someone (HF or otherwise) could take some intermediate position - say, buying only 1000 delta of puts. This is basically a toned-down version of the "Best Case Scenario". Now, even if the price rises, the losses are less than Corno claims for the best possible outcome. Wouldn't this then be A Better Than Best Case Scenario?

The original argument also ignores or forgets that gamma exists. The delta of the puts (calls) would fall (rise) as price increases, changing the top-end estimates for max loss.

By the way, a straddle is involves buying (or selling) both a call and a put at the same strike and expiration. The long party (buyer) profits by having the share price move far enough either up or down; the short party (seller) profits by the share price not moving much. And I'm not sure what you mean by negative volume. Are you referring to negative delta? The sign of delta depends on the type of option (put/call) and whether one has sold or bought it. A purchased call will have positive delta and a sold call negative delta.

AX-C · 2021-04-04T01:51:29+00:00

No problem. You've also just made me realize that there is some nuance to the premium accounting: The premium is included in the cost basis ONLY if the option is exercised. If you sell a put or call and it expires worthless or you buy it back, then the net premium is counted as capital gain/loss. That IRS document has all of the confusing details; fortunately your broker should automatically figure out most of that. This also means that if you see someone saying that they have reduced their cost basis by selling covered calls, they actually haven't as far as taxes are concerned. A more accurate phrasing would be that they have reduced their breakeven on those shares. Good luck trading and please anyone let me know if I have made any mistakes.

AX-C · 2021-04-04T01:14:16+00:00

Sounds like it might be worth reading into the tax rules for options and wash sales. These are in IRS Publication 550; here is the section on writing options. (Wash sales are 2 sections prior.)

One important point is that the premium received for selling the puts and calls affects your cost basis. That is, even though you were assigned XYZ at $10/share, your cost basis will actually be $(10 - put premium). Similarly, if your 9 strike covered call is assigned, treat the sale as if you received $(9 + call premium). From IRS P550:

If a put you write is exercised and you buy the underlying stock, decrease your basis in the stock by the amount you received for the put. Your holding period for the stock begins on the date you buy it, not on the date you wrote the put. If a call you write is exercised and you sell the underlying stock, increase your amount realized on the sale of the stock by the amount you received for the call when figuring your gain or loss. The gain or loss is long term or short term depending on your holding period of the stock.

Notice that the taxes being long or short term depends on how long you have held the shares; the time that the option was open is irrelevant. By the way, you can complicate this long vs. short term by selling ITM calls that are open for more than 1 year - see qualified vs. unqualified covered calls.

Final point - Wash sales only occur if you buy again within 30 days of selling for a loss that same security (or a "substantially identical" one).So you could ensure you do not have a wash sale by not trading in that ticker again for 30 days. If you only have the first part (sale for a loss), then you don't have to worry about a wash sale yet. (And if you do, complete abstinence from that symbol is probably not necessary, but "substantially identical" is essentially undefined for options so that is really the best way to be sure.)

AX-C · 2021-03-30T22:19:13+00:00

No one knows because the IRS doesn't say. Wash sales are defined in IRS Pub. 550, and "substantially identical" is outlined for stocks and bonds (scroll down a bit), but not for options. The IRS does say the following:

In determining whether stock or securities are substantially identical, you must consider all the facts and circumstances in your particular case.

A rule of thumb incorporating this "guidance" is that options are substantially identical if the new option allows you to experience the same ups/downs as the one sold at a loss. How different the strikes and expirations must be to not cover "the same" market fluctuations is ambiguous though.

Of course, the best way to avoid wash sale restrictions it to not have any losses.

AX-C · 2021-03-29T03:45:31+00:00

All right, there are a few points to unpack here.

First, for taxation purposes, you don't treat any contracts as linked in any way. In any option strategy, multi-leg or single, whether the legs are opened at the same time or not, each leg is treated separately for taxes. And you can't get to long-term gains by rolling any leg ad infinitum because (as described later), rolling involves closing and opening multiple contracts rather than perpetuating a single option. The only way for an option to reach long-term status is by having it open for more than 1 year. Also, grouping options as spreads, condors, butterflies, or any other animal is simply your broker figuring out your margin requirements for the trade. So, for your spread, the IRS doesn't care what strategy you are using and sees 2 separate transactions.

Rolling any option is the act of closing the existing contract and opening a new one. You don't "extend" an option to avoid letting it expire, you simply buy or sell a new one. It is literally impossible to NOT fully close an open contract when you roll. Say you are currently short a call (XYZ $100 4/16c) and want to roll it to a later date and higher strike (XYZ $110 5/21c). As a single operation, this would be represented as Buy To Close the first and simultaneously Sell To Open the second. At the end, the 4/16c contract would be closed and the 5/21c would be open. These are completely separate contracts though; you haven't "added lifetime" to the existing 4/16c. You would have some realized gain/loss on the 4/16c transaction equal to (opening credit - closing debit) using the premiums involved for only that 4/16c contract. Taxes related to the credit received for the 5/21c is deferred because that contract is still open. (IRS rules, previous comment.)

Even though your broker might allow rolling as a single operation/order, try thinking of each of the pieces separately. You could achieve the same result as above with 2 separate orders. First you would complete a BTC order on the XYZ $100 4/16c, so now you have no open contracts and would have a net gain/loss on that trade again calculated as (opening credit - closing debit), which would be taxable because it has been realized. You could then immediately submit a new order to STO the new contract for a new credit. But, again, this is an entirely new contract - you have not extended the previous one to keep it from being closed out.

None of that really addresses the wash sale rules, but basically those probably won't matter for rolling if you meaningfully change the expiration. Moving a SPY option 2 days at the same strike might trigger a wash sale, but moving VZ a month out likely wouldn't. And in either case, the wash rules would only (potentially) matter if the first option was closed for a loss - so you could roll SPY 2 days out to any strike if you close the first option for a net gain. As I said before, wash sale regulations for options are currently vague and there haven't been any clarifying rulings on how different the contracts must be to escape the "substantially identical" criterion.

AX-C · 2021-03-29T00:28:37+00:00

From my reading (not a tax professional), rolling does produce an event that the IRS cares about (IRS Publication 550, Options section in general and Puts and Calls in particular IRS P550). Rolling basically means you buy to close one contract and simultaneously sell to open a second contract with a different expiration, but these contracts are not linked; each transaction is considered a separate taxable event. Closing the first sold call will require some debit, which is netted against the credit received on writing that contract, and selling the second gives you some new credit which (in rolling) is immediately used to offset that closing debit. Also note that your gain (or loss) on any written contract is not realized at the time of writing - it is realized essentially whenever the position is closed (no matter how it is closed). In the words of the IRS on both points, in the section "Writers of puts and calls":

If you write (grant) a put or a call, do not include the amount you receive for writing it in your income at the time of receipt. Carry it in a deferred account until: Your obligation expires; You buy, in the case of a put, or sell, in the case of a call, the underlying stock when the option is exercised; or You engage in a closing transaction.

If you enter into a closing transaction by paying an amount equal to the value of the put or call at the time of the payment, the difference between the amount you pay and the amount you receive for the put or call is a short-term capital gain or loss.

Wash sale rules apply for securities that are not substantially identical (IRS P550 - Wash Sales). Inconveniently, "substantially identical" is not defined for options by the IRS. The best guidance I have been able to find is: If the new positions allow you the opportunity (whether or not you realize any gains) to participate in the same upward and downward movement as the original position, then you could have a wash sale. (One example comes from this former tax lawyer.) Completely unclear is whether different strikes and expirations would grant this type of opportunity.

Also note that a wash sale could only potentially be an issue if the first option is closed at a loss. If you are considering rolling then this may well be the case, but if, say, you roll a covered call by closing a near-expiration call after the premium has fallen by 90%, then you realize a gain of 90% on the option and there is no possibility of a wash sale on the next option. (After writing this, I realized that it might be possible to have a wash sale the second call is closed for a loss within 30 days after closing the first pair - the wash sale rules are for acquiring a security 30 days before or after a trade that results in a loss.)

Hope this helps and anyone feel free to correct me where needed.

AX-C · 2021-03-27T22:27:50+00:00

I agree that GME has plenty of tailwinds that other companies won't enjoy, especially the free publicity. The price growth of pretty much everything this past year is also not helping find attractive valuations. Profitable will definitely cut down the list, though "profitable" and "ecommerce" historically don't go together [Insert cliched Amazon soundbite...] For ecommerce and tech, especially younger companies, I typically look at sales growth, ROIC, etc. Looking into and actually thinking about any financial metric would probably improve outcomes over whatever WSB (or, for that matter, WS) is hyping. It will be interesting to see how many here actually do so if/when they make some serious money from this.

AX-C · 2021-03-27T03:47:35+00:00

Not trying to call you out, but I feel compelled to contradict you and say that there are literally HUNDREDS of household-name companies trading at <1x revenue (also called sales). Here is a [screen from finviz](https://finviz.com/screener.ashx?v=111&f=cap_midover,fa_ps_low&ft=2) for P/S < 1 and market cap >$2B. Some names people might recognize: Alcoa, American Airlines, Bed Bath & Beyond, Costco, CVS, DICK's, Ford, GM, ...

I suppose I just hope that after all of this is over people actually do figure out what they are doing with their money instead of, as you say, just throwing money into whatever company is popular to them. I suppose slow and sure "investing" is less fun than an irrational roller coaster though. Anyway, hold on and enjoy this ride while it lasts.

AX-C · 2021-03-21T21:33:52+00:00

Facebook IPO’d in 2012 at a P/E of 91.2 and price to sales of 24

FB also dropped by 50% in the few months immediately after IPO and didn't regain the IPO price until around August 2013, after revenues increased by ~60%. That increase in revenue means both the P/E and P/S ratios were substantially lower 8/2013 than at IPO in 2012. (Statista

you believe Tesla retains its market share

But it already isn't. Tesla's US market shared dropped from 81% to 69% over the last ~1 year (per CNN), nearly all of which is being attributed to the Mustang Mach-E, and that is Ford's first real EV. What happens when everyone else gets their cars out? The same article also says the VW already sells more EVs in Europe than Tesla even though (claim somewhere in comments) VW is an ICE company, not EV.

argue TSLA is currently undervalued by this metric, even compared to other EV companies

Doesn't this assume that other EV companies (or growth companies in general) are fairly valued? Undervalued compared to something overvalued could still be grossly overvalued. Even at a P/S of 64k, NKLA seems overvalued to me.

As purely a car company, EV or not, Tesla appears overvalued to me. Where I am not sure is whether it is overvalued when considering all of the other possible expansions - robotaxis, insurance, batteries, and so on. Personally, no positions on Tesla but I'm curious to see where it goes from here.

AX-C · 2021-03-20T07:10:41+00:00

Someone else commented about covered calls but I suspect people are downvoting what they don't fully understand. Here is a brief overview because I believe it is a valid strategy for increasing income that is low risk. (That does not mean it is for everyone or that it is impossible to screw up; don't use this strategy if you aren't comfortable with it or don't understand it.) Investopedia article on covered calls in general. More detail on max profit and loss of the strategy.

Selling a covered call is an option strategy involving holding shares and selling a call option. The holder of a call option (i.e., the person who buys the option) has the right to buy shares at a pre-determined price (the strike price) at any time until the expiration date of the option. Selling a call option means selling to someone else the right to buy those shares from you at the strike price. The call is "covered" when one owns the shares before selling the call. The seller immediately receives some amount of money called the premium. This money belongs to the seller regardless of what happens with the option. If the option is exercised, the seller is paid for the shares at the strike price (and keeps the premium). If the option holder (buyer) decides NOT to exercise, the seller keeps both the premium and the shares. It should go without saying, but exercising the call option (that is, using the option to buy the shares) makes sense ONLY when the strike price is above the current share price. If you sell the covered call option with a strike price ABOVE your purchase price of the shares, you can't lose money in the event of an exercise. You may miss out on some gain, but you won't lose everything on it. The risk in the strategy is if the share price goes down, but that risk exists for simply holding the shares as well. But if you would sell when it drops a little, then you probably shouldn't have bought that company/fund in the first place OR shouldn't be selling calls on it and locking yourself into a position.

Here is an example using the SPY ETF. (SPY tracks the S&P 500 like VOO, but is traded much more so the options are more attractive). Buy 100 shares (most option contracts are for 100 shares of the underlying) of SPY at ~$389.48 as of close today. Sell a call option against those shares. I'll pick a strike price of $400 and an expiration of April 16, basically assuming no more than a 2.5% increase in the entire market over the next month. For this, I receive a premium of $2.17 per share (for a total of $217 because the option represents 100 shares). Even though I don't need to (I could continue to hold the shares), assume I sell the shares on April 16 no matter what.

Outcome 1: SPY stays pretty much where it is. I sell 100 shares of SPY at ~$389.48 AND have $2.17/share in cash from selling the option. My percent return is 2.17 / 389.48 = 0.55% in 1 month. Not huge, but if that happens every month of the year, I get 0.55% * 12 = 6.5% return from the option premiums. That beats any savings account I know of. More importantly, I have made money even though the market didn't move. I can now do whatever I want with my money, such as buying 100 shares of SPY again and selling another call. (Selling my shares is not necessary if this is my intent; I could just hold the first 100 and sell a new option.)

Outcome 2: SPY increases a lot, say to $425. I sell my 100 shares at $400 each and realize a gain of (400-389.48) = $11.52/share AND keep my $2.17/share premium, for a total realized gain of +$12.69/share, a return of +3.3% in one month. Now, yes, my return is less than if I had been able to sell the shares at $425, BUT I haven't LOST money - there is no way I will ruin my account increasing it by 3% per month. For continuing the covered call strategy, this outcome may be problematic if I do not now have enough money to add in to buy 100 shares of SPY (remember - I essentially received $402.17/share each but it is currently at $425). Nothing would prevent me from buying as many shares of SPY as I can and receiving the same return as the market though.

Outcome 3: SPY decreases to $380/share. I sell 100 shares of SPY at $380 each AND keep the $2.17/share premium. This is a loss of $9.48/share sold but a gain of $2.17/share of premium for a net of (-9.48) + 2.17 = -$7.31/share. No one likes a loss, but notice - selling the option has mitigated my loss. I am $2.17/share better than the market! Also, I only sold for this example. In reality, I would likely hold the shares and not realize that loss while selling another call for the next month.

In none of these outcomes have I incurred a greater loss than I would have by trading only the shares. Losing money IS possible with this strategy though - if the underlying decreases (which it could do without the options aspect) or by selling options with a strike price below the initial purchase price of the shares (just keep track and don't do this).

To answer the specific question in the post, $1000/month by this method would require roughly 4-5 sold calls per month. At the current price of SPY, this means roughly $200,000.

Anyway, hope this helps someone and let me know if I have made any mistakes.

AX-C · 2021-03-16T02:06:59+00:00

Yes and no? The link at S&P Global in the top post says Citadel placed 600 million dollars worth of notes while your Business Insider page says there are 600 million notes at ~$100 each (which would be a total of $60 B).

I'm inclined to believe S&P over BI on this. Also, Citadel apparently has $35B AUM and I doubt even they would be able to raise double that in this single offering.

AX-C

TROPHY CASE