Traders.com

PUTTING IT TO BETTER USE

If I want to accumulate a stock over time and am willing to buy on weakness, is hedging shares with protective puts the best means to do this? Or would a short put strategy be a better approach?

That’s a wonderful question. In the first scenario, by buying or “marrying” a put in conjunction with shares, you as a trader have guaranteed yourself limited losses and guard the stock against a bearish downside catastrophe. 

As someone who also wishes to buy on such weakness, as long as your outlook on the stock hasn’t changed, the small resulting loss compared to the kind suffered by a bull simply holding shares will mean you’re in a stronger position to average in or accumulate on weakness and capitalize on attractive value for a longer-term commitment.

With a married put, the trader always maintains control of their maximum risk exposure while allowing for unlimited upside, and after factoring in the cost of the put. These benefits, of course, aren’t free, as the trader is paying for protection, which increases the cost basis of the stock position. This can prove expensive if the stock isn’t dropping strongly enough to make the put worthwhile. Worse yet is if multiple put purchases over the course of a few months prove unnecessary and thus add up to being expensive protection, or if shares simply aren’t rising enough in price to offset the cost of the put(s).

As you noted, buying on weakness can also be pursued by selling or shorting a put in lieu of a married put strategy. In this method, the trader is willing to accept assignment of shares, which means getting long at the strike price of the put minus the premium taken in from the sale. Many refer to this play as a “targeted purchase.” This terminology applies as the trader is happy, initially at least, to buy shares at a known discount price if shares were to drop through the strike and assignment to occur.

If the stock remains above the strike, the premium is kept and the trader can look to roll out to the next calendar month and repeat the process if his or her outlook remains intact. The collection of premiums without receiving assignment helps reduce the purchase price when shares wind up below the strike and assignment results using this strategy.

Upon assignment, often the trader will buy a put to protect the new stock position and establish a married put. But until a put is purchased to hedge shares, the trader is exposed to substantial risk. The stock could be well below the targeted purchase price upon receiving assignment, as fast bearish moves and/or price gaps are a real possibility. Thus, considering a bull put spread as a means to initiate a targeted purchase, while taking in fewer cents initially, may make better sense over the long haul.

So which strategy is better? Aside from the risk/reward differences and our view of favoring a bull put spread over the naked short put, traders need to have a firm grasp of their expectations for the stock as well as the pricing of premiums. As the saying goes, there is a time and place for everything. If protection is fair to cheap and expectations are for shares to be traded higher, the married put becomes more attractive. Conversely, if premiums are rich and the trader’s immediate technical outlook is less certain, selling a vertical as part of a targeted purchase becomes a stronger candidate for positioning.

Originally published in the February 2012 issue of
Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities magazine. 
All rights reserved. © Copyright 2012, Technical Analysis, Inc.