I think everybody who like covered calls ETF understand that they give up upside in exchange for getting dividends now, every month. Instead of waiting years when (ever?) portfolio grows enough to be able to take profit.
If you are not going to reinvest the income from the call option, might as well just have an allocation of the underlying asset and bonds, and sell small portions of it every month. That will get similar total returns, monthly income, and downside risk, while having a lower expense ratio and more tax efficient.
I swear that this video and the "relevance of dividend irrelevance" video should be forced and required watching for anyone purporting themselves to be "finance experts". Great job!
@@itsalltakenup income-based investors are not investors who require income. They are biased or error-prone investors who need help figuring out how to spend from a portfolio. It's an important difference. Investors who require income should still be focusing on total returns.
It is always easy to talk in terms of rationality and logic. It is however, in terms of investing and money in general, a short sighted view of the "most efficient" way to invest if there is no consideration on psychological factors. It is easy to tell people to eat healthy. It is hard to craft a plan and stimulate them to do it right, you will find most of the time telling them to just eat healthy and exercise is not actually of any help and will achieve nothing. I understand this is not David Ramsey show lol. But just saying, maybe we should not tell people they are 'wrong' for certain decisions which fit their idea of handling money their own not super efficient way if there are other factors to consider around thr financial markets, and not personal factors necessarily.
@@roknrolla01 Not really the point for actual experts and advisors to literally lie just so you can feel cozy with the mental gymnastics you need to apply in order to feel correct. "Income based" investors or whatever you call it follow sub-optimal strategies and in doing so accidentally trick/mislead their followers into thinking they are getting "free cash flow". If one truly and really cared about fixed income, other approaches would need to be taken into cosideration... and it would not be to build a portfolio of SCHD's galore.
Every one of your videos has great citations, but this one is phenomenal! What a gold mine of information. The insights about the skewness of equity outcomes vs. covered calls (or any structure that caps the upside of equities long term), and how the Sharpe Ratio is abused without accounting for lost skewness, were fantastic! Your podcast guests were amazing, even if what they ultimately were doing is explaining to the CC crowd that Santa Claus doesn't exist.
I'm invested heavily in CC ETF's, I'm Canadian. My thoughts are that I'm purchasing income. I'm retired and require cash flow. If I held only non-dividend paying stocks, I would potentially be forced to sell in a downturn. With manual DRIP I can choose to reinvest the dividends or withdraw for living expenses. In Canada we have RRSP and TFSA (like Roth IRA), between them both I generate a substantial amount of income, more than I need. And my situation is unique in that I'm single with no dependents so long term, not an issue for me if stock prices decline. The other point I think is that the bull market days are over for the next decade. There is so much debt out there, the system is imploding, so why not capture some income on the way down?. Just my thoughts, I'm no expert but this works for me. Good video
@steftrando Seems like a logical course of action based on their current situation, in a volatile market moving to fixed income seems far more intelligent if you're near or at retirement age
Both covered calls and writing puts are often sold as safe strategies but this video really openend my eyes to the incompleteness of the sharp ratio. I highly recommend reading Nassim Taleb as he really focuses on the idea of tail risk.
I agree that CC ETF's have high MER's, however I write Covered Calls on my own stocks. It's a good income strategy, and if the stock gets called away, I'm also happy to take the gain.
In theory just investing in stocks, ETFs, etc. yields better returns in the long run - and I’m saying this in all seriousness - but you could also die or get ill before you ever get there. This is a way of getting approximately 10% a month that is useable now (and tax sheltered depending on how you use it) and you don’t have to worry about market fluctuations when you want to use the money. I’m mostly in stocks but I have put aside some portion for covered call investments so that I can use it to go on vacation whenever I want. I also use the cash to reinvest on opportunities that pop up, like when my favourite stocks are low.
The income/capital gain mental separation is too powerful. I know full well they shouldn’t have any affect but sometimes I turn off the rational voice just to bath in the warmth of “certain predictable” income
I hear ya'! I used to get triggered by some of my closer-to-retirement-than-me buddies and their insistence on "cash flow" generated by their dividends, and then me banging my head against the wall trying to explain how total return is more important... but I honestly lay off them now. I get it. The brain needing to be cozy is indeed powerful. It's also why some people hold more cash than they (probably) should. Understanding that "pace of mind" is important. Heck, my portfolio has a slight REIT lean - which is also completely idiosyncratic risk - in a tax advantaged account! (Does not lead to higher expected returns) But I do it because it's a small enough slice and it being there fools my brain into thinking I am a "real estate investor"... whatever the heck that means. :)
@@Omar-et7sb REITs have important differences that I believe classify them as a distinct asset class. They are synthetic, since they incorporate the physical asset of a commodity, with a stable income similar to bonds (3-5% per month), and the variability and liquidity of equities. They are also decently different than market returns to justify their inclusion for reducing risk. And logically, people require real estate in a way they don't require other goods and services. People can change their diets, transportation, entertainment options, etc. to save money. But they can't refuse to pay rent or they simply become homeless or no longer have a place to conduct business. That's a powerful forced income for REITs owners during most market conditions (Covid aside, which generated an enormous dip that has largely built my current portfolio's returns this past year).
While you are certainly correct, I do use certain specific funds that do some limited covered call strategies that don't experience capital erosion, but I am biased and I KNOW that I'm biased and choose to roll with it and "pay the psychology premium". There's a cost associated with it, but considering that I don't experience much more expensive biases like FOMO and panic selling, the psychological tradeoff is acceptable to me. There is something to be said for a reasonable investing strategy that fits an investor's psychology. Also, the dividends pay out even during a market crash, when I specifically DON'T want to sell total market index for cash.
Yep. This. Funds that generate cash flow without capital erosions do wonders for psychology, especially during hard times when you do not want to sell!
In that podcast episode with Meir Statman that I showed a clip from, he also talked about the difference between an error and a want. Someone investing in a cc strategy because they think it has superior risk-adjusted returns is making an error. Someone who recognises that they are making a sacrifice in terms of expected returns and portfolio quality, but still wants to invest in an asset for other reasons (behavior improvement, expression of values, non-standard preferences etc.) is expressing a want.
My investment in Qyld has done better than my investment in BND total bond ETF and SCHP . I use it more as a bond in my IRA. Comparing Qyld to QQQ is like comparing apples and oranges.
What about implementing the strategy yourself, without the need to rely on an ETF? Do these learnings also apply to Selling Puts? What about Selling puts + Selling Calls (also known as the Wheel strategy)?
In periods where the index are flat over time it seems the income is better. e.g. S&P500 last 18mo, 2007-2013, 2000-2006, 93-94, many other time periods.
Good info . So for those that are retired, and depend on income from their portfolio , what do you recommend ? ( The problem with just owning index funds, is if the market is down 20-30% in a year, you still have to sell to live off the proceeds . Putting you in a hole that is difficult to ever catch back up. )
This is a good video. One item I may add is that the sales pitch of the buyers of call options being speculators and by writing covered call option, you are the "house" for that speculative activity by taking the opposite position. The problem with this logic is that the prices the option based on supply and demand and if everyone can become the "house" you eventually over supply the market to the point that you're better off being the buyer. The market's collective wisdom is what sets a fair price. Aside, the real house is the market itself which comes in the form of bid-asked spread and commission. Whether you buy or sell a call or a put option, you are _never_ truly the house. The retail investor always pay more than the market value and you always sell below market value at any given point in time. This is true even if you place a limit order as your order will not execute until it is no longer at market value. This is true even with individual stocks but with options, the short term nature makes the negative effects more pronounced when you repeat the process for many years.
It’s like selling some of your stocks to buy bonds. You give up the upside potential of the stocks you’re selling to obtain the steady income from the bonds you’re buying, resulting in lower total returns.
Or you can just sell the amount of stock shares equal to the income you're looking for, but be better ahead because the return on stocks are higher in the long run over bonds.
What? Have. you compared the yields on most CC vs Bonds - they is the major difference. You are giving up some of appreciation for high yielding. monthly CF (10% or greater)
@@erranzimmermann1207 The problem is with an investor's emotional ability to 'sell off' a portion of their pie - whereas with distrubitons its 'forced' monthly (mainly)....its consistent and doesn't really timing the market.
@@MStar10 and that links with what Ben mentioned - it's mental accounting, which leads to sub-optimal portfolio selection. If someone needs monthly cashflow by selling off shares, there shouldn't be any market timing anyway.
Covered Call ETF's are starting to be spruiked within Australia - an article recently from our flagship financial newspaper I think gave a realistic assessment of their use. The head of an ETF provider in Australia gave this comment: “The strategy can succeed as a tactical play in a range-bound market. However, long-term investors are better off investing in ETFs that don’t put a ceiling on potential capital growth.”
After reading the income factory I have to say its up to the style. If you want returns and growth then investing in cc etfs most likely not your route. But for those that want CASH flow being diverse in a few of these cover calls and reinvest divs provides growth through cash. Some people like to be more liquid 🤷🏾♂
Just read the Income Factory description and I would have to imagine they would fundamentally disagree with each other (having watched all of Ben's material).
CASH flow is a mental account. Total returns are what matter. Catering to mental accounting is fine to the extent that it helps people behave better, but it will almost always lead to suboptimal portfolios.
@@BenFelixCSI depending on how much you can contribute and how much time you have. Also you ignored the fact that makes a huge point, total return has no true value until you sell. Where as an income investor has cash flow and real liquid being built monthly . I personally never have to sell and that mental state of never having to sell and only worry about what the cash flow does means more then you like to give it. Every business is about cash and what it can create. Total return to a certain degree is waiting to agree or see what the market says. Each style plays a pro and con. All about what you want. someone invested in certain blue chip long term like Intel are not doing as well like someone in a cover called etf allowing you to grow with reinvesting 👍
@@AntBoogieWorld What Ben implied is that you will both have better expected "cash flow" and total returns if you use normal passive index funds and sell part of the shares for your "cash flow". Even after selling parts of the position, you're expected to have more money in the position than with a covered call ETF, with the same "cashflow". "Cashflow" is just a mental concept that has no impact on technical properties of an investment (bar negligible transaction costs) and how much money you can have available at any point in time. You can emulate any "automatic cashflow" via selling parts of a position and still be better off.
Sorry you are just wrong .. for one selling stock for income is the worse way to get income. Read the income factory your style is one way and it's an old school way of doing things. With CC etfs paying higher then ever it makes no sense buying index to sell for cash flow. New ways are coming learn to check other styles... that style is dated. @@simonp6339
My belief is that the market will have low relative returns for the next decade which is why I think a cc etf will be decent monthly income hedge. Also, selling on a monthly basis runs the risk of completely missing out on the few days/weeks of high performance that typically account for a funds overall yearly return.
4:36 - when I make this point about tax inefficiency, the rebuttal I often get is, "I only do covered calls in a tax advantaged retirement account." So after I wince, I refer them to the previously solved problem about active trading underperforming passive indexing over retirement time horizons.
Great video - thanks. It would be great to work through an example of best / worst case to understand if the core ETF price will go up/down in the near or LT future. (and what circumstances would drive it)-ie projecting total return
Thank you, Ben, for the continued education. I appreciate these videos along with the podcast that you and Cameron provide. I have missed a few of the last podcasts, but I am one of three. What are your blind spots when it comes to your investment theory?
If I knew what my blind spots were, they wouldn't be blind spots! I do my best to get information from diverse sources, including those that disagree with my prior beliefs.
My opinion, when you are near retirement covered call ETF's are great. Picking some all in one covered call ETF's on market dips are hard to beat. Ben if you can point out some better ideas for those nearing retirement who need income that pay monthly dividends in the 10-15% I'd love to hear your thoughts, Is there a better option?
Depends what you're investing in and where you live. In Canada the majority of our stocks are dividend stocks. Our returns will be subject to US withholding tax if we just buy US stocks. However some funds I've invested in actually do have high returns as well as paying dividends. Usually they don't do covered calls on the entire portfolio, but for instance if you look at qqqy (the one on the TSA not the US one) it has kept up with or even surpassed QQQ. Or compare Yamz to AMZN. Pretty close performance.
When I boil things down and look at the price of an ETF over time and the distribution to its investors over time I fail to see a flaw in the investment despite all the technical stuff. Am I missing something? take XYLD for example. In 2014 it was $46, its at a low now of about $39 and if its paid its distraction monthly investors have been paid handsomely have they not? I fail to see the risk compared to holding the underlying equities.
Do skewness or kurtosis explain factor outperformance? For small cap investing, for example, why not think the risk/return premium is explained by the longer or fatter tail on the downside (e.g., a liquidity crunch comes along and puts smaller firms out of business while larger firms can weather it)?
This is not the same as selling covered calls, which I thought the title meant. This is in reference to a fund that generates alpha via covered calls. FNGU or TECL are pretty decent in lowering interest rate environments.
This will trigger some people! 😂 Great video, as always. Ben, do you mind sharing some good books that you recommend or that are behind you on the podcast? I’d love to hear some recommendations from you. Thanks!
How about ETF with 50%(in average) covered call position like QQQX that also come with tax treatment? In long terms it seems better than SPY. Thanks for your time in advanced.
I have only one covered-call ETF (SPYI) in my portfolio representing about 10% of my holdings. I am curious to see for myself how it performs over time. There is nothing to disagree with in Ben’s video; however, as someone who is just now retiring, dividends and distributions are important to me. Sure, I would like there to be at least some decent growth of the underlying assets, but the dividend and distribution income is equally important to me. I really don’t want to have to sell off any of my holdings (especially in a down market).
Good question! How rare is it for a stock to increase so much and so steadily that you will be unable to catch up rolling forward and out? If you're patient you could play that game for years and eventually catch up with the stock while in the mean time pocket the time-decay extrinsic value on the premiums and be better off than someone who simply held the stock. I would like to see an example on how that would play out negatively, and how likely that would be. Early assignment is no argument since you can counteract that by re-buying the stock and re-selling the same call option. Every time you do that you pocket an additional time-premium, so that is even a good thing. The only problem is if the stock pays a divident and you get assigned just prior to the ex-dividend date. In that case you may potentially be set back by the dividend amount (worst case scenario). Then again you can work around ex-dividend option periods by either selecting a higher extrinsic value than the dividend amount, or skip selling options for that month altogether.
I have been writing a couple covered calls on positions I have made money on, but am looking to exit sooner rather than later. It's something I have been trying out, but it's not at all my whole investment strategy. So far I've made pretty good returns on it. As soon as the option is executed though I'm not planning on doing a lot of options in the future. I think if you do it on a small scale on individual stocks you are already up on that you don't see as a long term investments for you it can give you some immediate cash, but it shouldn't be a significant part of your investment strategy at all.
Good video. I hear about covered call ETFs on Prof G's podcast. I think people are drawn to them because it sounds like a "free" way to generate income. But there's still no such thing as a free lunch. I like how Ben Felix's videos basically always end with the same takeaway: "you're probably best off with a low-cost index fund..."
Can you respond to the concept of life cycle investing, that is using leverage, when cost effective, to more evenly distribute risk over one’s life time and therefore improving risk adjusted returns for retirement and other long term investments via the “free lunch” of diversification (in this case time diversification).
I'm all in for that one Paul. I'm retired and have many CC's in my RRSP and TFSA. Adriano put it as "Buying income", if there is some capital erosion, so be it. But I would posit, how is that different than owning a stock that doesn't pay dividends and declines in value and you are forced to sell in a downturn?. I would rather manual DRIP or not , my choice
Greetings Ben! I've been your subscriber for many years now and appreciate the work you do. There's one topic that has been bothering me very much about Index investing which is that of the impact of arbitrageurs on the actual returns of the index investing. Since index construction and timing of rebalancing is public information, arbitraguers can predict the composition and weights of securities in the indexes before the index is actually rebalanced. This would in theory allow them to take positions just before a index is rebalanced, going long on entrants and short on exits, and before the fund managers of index funds and ETFs rebalance, thereby profiting from the price movements. Doesn't this reduce the expected returns of ETFs and Index funds? This I guess is more pronounced in market cap based index funds/ETFs but I can see the same problem can affect any factor based funds. Thank you in advance if you decide to take on this subject.
I've gone in on Covered Call ETF's because I'm in a part of my life where monthly income is more valuable to be than total return. I'm pretty happy with how things have gone to this point and can only hope it continues.
@@BenFelixCSI Not if you weren't financially literate for your youth and find yourself in retirement needing a steady...ish income. If I were to do it all again, I'd of course look to total return but as I said, I'm in a part of life where income is more valuable to me now than any potential future total returns.
I would really appreciate a deeper dive into this topic. Covered call etfs arent my favorite in the first place but this didnt feel like it actually explained much other than give a vague hand wavy feeling of "CC ETF bad because skewness". My understanding of the reason is that covered call strategies cant take advantage of up swings which happens more often than not if you look backwards. Wouldnt that mean that cc etfs still have a niche in a diverse portfolio? Essentially my idea is that you want a portfolio that takes advantage of the way the market moves which would mean having a proportional amount of assets that would be able to take advantage of the few but existent times that the market is flat. I have no credentials in anything related to this field i just want to know why i would be wrong.
More is lost in good markets than is gained in flat markets. Add in high fees, transaction costs, and tax inefficiency and the argument for cc strategies is weak at best unless you are expressing a view about how the market will perform. For most investors the trade-off does not make sense. The behavioral side of the argument is more interesting - catering to the mental accounting bias to help investors spend down a portfolio.
@@BenFelixCSI i definitely fall into that. I like getting a quarterly or even monthly dividend deposited into my account. It makes it easier for me to spend more money buying stocks. I got that way of thinking from dividend bull here on youtube. I still invest in indexes but i have nothing concrete to look forward to in the short term with those. I figure money spent on assets that accrue value outside of my boring yet optimal investments is still better than spent elsewhere.
sell and buy options should be equivalent. Otherwise one side should always get premium in expense of other. But if sell option is suboptimal strategy, can we say that buying option is suboptimal too? Is options in general are suboptimal in all ways?
It's a bit more complicated. There are asymmetries in the way options work. Options are all about convexity, after all, and the convex curve isn't always symmetric. Evaluating optimal vs. suboptimal depends on what the basis for comparison is. Options trading is necessarily active trading, and since active trading is known to be suboptimal compared to passive indexing, in that sense all options trading is suboptimal. But if the basis for comparison is within the bubble of buying options vs. selling options, arguments can be made either way about which is optimal. Ultimately, the optimal option trading strategy is the one that best exploits mispricing of volatility.
i got a question. if selling covered calls is expected to underpreform the underlying asset in the longrun due to the upside skewness of returns, maybe it makes more sense to buy those calls instead. What if i were to buy deep in the money calls on a globally diversified market cap weighted index portfolio. Well since its deep in the money the return of the option should mimic exactly the return of the underlying with some extra leverage. As the option starts to get closer to maturity we can just roll it over, sell it and buy another one farther out in the future, perpetually. We can choose super long term options like LEAPS, to minimize transaction costs. I call this the Perpetually rolling deep in the money leaps strategy, and i think might provide a cheaper access to leverage, and offer investors access to leverage that doesnt have to reset daily in registered accounts. Instead of paying a margin interest rate, i pay for the cost of the LEAP and I feel like that might be cheaper. would love to see an analysis on this
Wow, very interesting - I would love to see more details on this strategy. I think options strategies are dismissed without going into the the different sub strategies that can be used (ie. Wheel strategy)
Not sure to understand everything but it would be interesting to compare the performance of the professor with the one of the non student. At some point the market will change of direction this doesn't mean that the investor has to stick rigidly to a strategy that stops performing. But maybe I didn't understand correctly.
The downside with covered calls is you're getting the worst of everything: equity volatility, generally terrible pricing on the OTM calls (OTM is very typical and all but required to achieve tax benefits if you're in the US), plus short gamma on the call If you have the capital, a conversion offers better pricing dynamics. You sell the call and also buy the corresponding put. It's a lot more negative delta, so probably investors might want only one of these instead of several short call contracts. What do you get in return? - if the asset shoots up, you still end up worse off... Just like adding covered calls - if the asset falls, the long put replaces the missing gamma on the short call, so you continue gaining on the hedge where the CC stops contributing - the bonus: if the stock falls, the put tends to lose extrinsic value much less than the short call, so you end up getting an improvement which is not obvious from the outset The position likely earns the most by choosing an at-the-money strike (it doesn't take much above ATM before it gets expensive). A good time to enter is on ex-dividend or at least one month before the next ex.
I believe we are in a stagflation environment. In my view this will level off and/or decease earnings over the next few years causing stock prices to flatten out or fall. This seems to be a good environment to invest in ETFs like XYLD. What are your thoughts on this?
The comparison seems flawed, you would have to compare it to a normal ETF where you sell the same amount as the cc etf pays out. Obviously this paid out money doesn't participate in the market anymore, so this will always underperform compared to a growing ETF. If you are still growing your portfolio cc etfs would be a bad option, but it might be a good option for retirement (well, you would need to compare it to selling the stocks, I don't know if it would be actually better)
Covered call writing requires active management - given the implied vol vs historical vol, liquidity and sentiment of the market, you need to choose the appropriate strike, tenor and underlying. It can be alpha generating but takes a lot of work! I am not sure if passive ETF is the right way to go for covered call writing
This may be a dumb question, but I’m going to ask it anyway. If selling covered calls tends to underperform just holding the underlying asset, does that mean that buying covered calls should tend to over perform (ignoring taxes and fees)?
Not a dumb question. Selling covered calls reduces your exposure to the underlying equity. Buying calls can give you leveraged exposure to the underlying. Leverage increases expected returns.
why are you compare with cc income etf vs growth etf, its like you are compare to a 20 years old person vs a 67 years old person. they both have its own pro and con.
That prof was quoting out of the money Put options.. which is same as In the money Covered Call writing. That gets a fat premium but not on upside of the underlying.
Skewing toward income is also useful to avoid needing to sell assets when markets are down. Other approaches include large cash or bond allocations, which are in turn reducing the potential return of the entire portfolio. Oh, and by the way, risk is not the same as volatility, and all computations which assume risk is volatility are ignoring real world risks for an idealized simplification. This is a cognitive flaw that affects sharpe ratio and many related computations.
I’m so glad you brought this up, because it’s so wrong! The only way to get a 1956 breakeven is if you ignore dividends and look at nominal returns. With dividends and real returns the recovery was much, much sooner.
Thats a good point and that view option is not available on a 100 year DOW chart. At least from what i can find online. I read an interesting book last year :The great Depression: A diary by Benjamin Roth--what a nightmare-- the govt and banks were brutal to the average investor and saver back then. @@BenFelixCSI
That’s one of my all time favourite books. Incredible perspectives. My main takeaway from it is that people are collectively resilient when faced with extreme circumstances.
I am new to the financial markets and just started investing since January 2022. I have been following your content for a while and (being a engineer/scientist myself) I appreciate the references to academical research that you quote. However, this suggests that all your statements are cut in stone. Particularly the "market is perfectly priced" hypothesis appears to still be in debate in the scientific cumminity. There is also the behavioural side to markets that seems to have just as much (or maybe even more) merit and scientific support, as I found out by listening to several people from the academic finance world. It would be nice if you would point out that you are in one of the possible scientific camps instead of asserting that there is only one valid way of looking at this. Can you comment on this? Again, I really appreciate your videos as it provides a lot of valuable information to dive in to. Thank you!
I’m not sure what you mean. This video that you are commenting on includes a clip from an interview with one of the founders of behavioural finance, and references academic literature that assesses covered calls from a behavioural perspective. I don’t really consider myself to sit in either camp.
@@BenFelixCSI OK, I am sorry for the confusion. I might have gotten that impression from one of your older videos. Glad you pointed out that you have not taken sides of either camp. Thanks again!
Oh well …here I was thinking I will buy SPYI as they have the taxation part taken care of with fancy accounting and ROC income…..but I am wiser now ….great video.
This video is just a high fluting diatribe. Clearly evident is the construction of arguments to prove a per-disposed point of view. A weekly covered call strategy on SPY and QQQ has the potential to provide a consistent yield of 30% to 50% annually when calls are written at or just above the share price. Even if you apply taxes at 50%, that's a net gain of 15% to 25%. Show me market period when it has grown at this rate consistently. And lets not forget that on the growth, we do have to pay long term capital gains some day. With covered call strategy, if the markets drop by 20%, I am still sitting pretty.
While covered call *ETFs* are bad, you shouldn't overlook that people much prefer having a higher chance of profit at the price of reduced max gain. Everyone's risk tolerance is different, and it's completely rational to cater to that, by picking the appropriate strike of the covered call. This is why they corresponding ETFs are bad: they take away this decision from the investor.
While it's easy to say the market goes up and to the right, past performance is not a guarantee for future results. I will gladly trade less portfolio volatility by giving up 'unlimited gains' for a higher probability of success.
Every time I think I found a good investment product Ben ruins my plans, I'll thank you in 20 years
I think everybody who like covered calls ETF understand that they give up upside in exchange for getting dividends now, every month. Instead of waiting years when (ever?) portfolio grows enough to be able to take profit.
I like it for my mid-to-near term bucket. Pays significantly more than bonds & CDs
If you are not going to reinvest the income from the call option, might as well just have an allocation of the underlying asset and bonds, and sell small portions of it every month. That will get similar total returns, monthly income, and downside risk, while having a lower expense ratio and more tax efficient.
I swear that this video and the "relevance of dividend irrelevance" video should be forced and required watching for anyone purporting themselves to be "finance experts". Great job!
Spoiler alert: Dividends are incredibly relevant to an income-based investor
@@itsalltakenup income-based investors are not investors who require income. They are biased or error-prone investors who need help figuring out how to spend from a portfolio. It's an important difference. Investors who require income should still be focusing on total returns.
It is always easy to talk in terms of rationality and logic. It is however, in terms of investing and money in general, a short sighted view of the "most efficient" way to invest if there is no consideration on psychological factors.
It is easy to tell people to eat healthy. It is hard to craft a plan and stimulate them to do it right, you will find most of the time telling them to just eat healthy and exercise is not actually of any help and will achieve nothing.
I understand this is not David Ramsey show lol. But just saying, maybe we should not tell people they are 'wrong' for certain decisions which fit their idea of handling money their own not super efficient way if there are other factors to consider around thr financial markets, and not personal factors necessarily.
@@roknrolla01 100%. There’s a difference between “this is an optimal strategy” vs “this is the only strategy”
@@roknrolla01 Not really the point for actual experts and advisors to literally lie just so you can feel cozy with the mental gymnastics you need to apply in order to feel correct.
"Income based" investors or whatever you call it follow sub-optimal strategies and in doing so accidentally trick/mislead their followers into thinking they are getting "free cash flow". If one truly and really cared about fixed income, other approaches would need to be taken into cosideration... and it would not be to build a portfolio of SCHD's galore.
Every one of your videos has great citations, but this one is phenomenal! What a gold mine of information. The insights about the skewness of equity outcomes vs. covered calls (or any structure that caps the upside of equities long term), and how the Sharpe Ratio is abused without accounting for lost skewness, were fantastic! Your podcast guests were amazing, even if what they ultimately were doing is explaining to the CC crowd that Santa Claus doesn't exist.
Thanks!
I'm invested heavily in CC ETF's, I'm Canadian. My thoughts are that I'm purchasing income. I'm retired and require cash flow. If I held only non-dividend paying stocks, I would potentially be forced to sell in a downturn. With manual DRIP I can choose to reinvest the dividends or withdraw for living expenses. In Canada we have RRSP and TFSA (like Roth IRA), between them both I generate a substantial amount of income, more than I need. And my situation is unique in that I'm single with no dependents so long term, not an issue for me if stock prices decline. The other point I think is that the bull market days are over for the next decade. There is so much debt out there, the system is imploding, so why not capture some income on the way down?. Just my thoughts, I'm no expert but this works for me. Good video
what about other options with less risk like reits and dividend etfs.
Can you tell me what income cc etfs do you buy in Canada? Asking for my aunt.
You are suffering, the mental accounting bias, that treats dividends, and returns separately when it should all be together as total returns
@steftrando Seems like a logical course of action based on their current situation, in a volatile market moving to fixed income seems far more intelligent if you're near or at retirement age
@@A_man_not_your_man equities, outperform, fixed income, and pretty much every 30 year.
The condescendence is palpable. CC are a good tool. Not for everyone, but still usefull. I make a living out of them.
Both covered calls and writing puts are often sold as safe strategies but this video really openend my eyes to the incompleteness of the sharp ratio. I highly recommend reading Nassim Taleb as he really focuses on the idea of tail risk.
I agree that CC ETF's have high MER's, however I write Covered Calls on my own stocks. It's a good income strategy, and if the stock gets called away, I'm also happy to take the gain.
In theory just investing in stocks, ETFs, etc. yields better returns in the long run - and I’m saying this in all seriousness - but you could also die or get ill before you ever get there. This is a way of getting approximately 10% a month that is useable now (and tax sheltered depending on how you use it) and you don’t have to worry about market fluctuations when you want to use the money. I’m mostly in stocks but I have put aside some portion for covered call investments so that I can use it to go on vacation whenever I want. I also use the cash to reinvest on opportunities that pop up, like when my favourite stocks are low.
The income/capital gain mental separation is too powerful. I know full well they shouldn’t have any affect but sometimes I turn off the rational voice just to bath in the warmth of “certain predictable” income
I hear ya'! I used to get triggered by some of my closer-to-retirement-than-me buddies and their insistence on "cash flow" generated by their dividends, and then me banging my head against the wall trying to explain how total return is more important... but I honestly lay off them now. I get it. The brain needing to be cozy is indeed powerful. It's also why some people hold more cash than they (probably) should. Understanding that "pace of mind" is important.
Heck, my portfolio has a slight REIT lean - which is also completely idiosyncratic risk - in a tax advantaged account! (Does not lead to higher expected returns) But I do it because it's a small enough slice and it being there fools my brain into thinking I am a "real estate investor"... whatever the heck that means. :)
@@Omar-et7sb REITs have important differences that I believe classify them as a distinct asset class. They are synthetic, since they incorporate the physical asset of a commodity, with a stable income similar to bonds (3-5% per month), and the variability and liquidity of equities. They are also decently different than market returns to justify their inclusion for reducing risk. And logically, people require real estate in a way they don't require other goods and services. People can change their diets, transportation, entertainment options, etc. to save money. But they can't refuse to pay rent or they simply become homeless or no longer have a place to conduct business. That's a powerful forced income for REITs owners during most market conditions (Covid aside, which generated an enormous dip that has largely built my current portfolio's returns this past year).
I'm glad the plain bagel gave you a shout-out... I'm enjoying the content so far!
While you are certainly correct, I do use certain specific funds that do some limited covered call strategies that don't experience capital erosion, but I am biased and I KNOW that I'm biased and choose to roll with it and "pay the psychology premium". There's a cost associated with it, but considering that I don't experience much more expensive biases like FOMO and panic selling, the psychological tradeoff is acceptable to me. There is something to be said for a reasonable investing strategy that fits an investor's psychology. Also, the dividends pay out even during a market crash, when I specifically DON'T want to sell total market index for cash.
Love the channel by the way. You do a great job.
Yep. This. Funds that generate cash flow without capital erosions do wonders for psychology, especially during hard times when you do not want to sell!
In that podcast episode with Meir Statman that I showed a clip from, he also talked about the difference between an error and a want.
Someone investing in a cc strategy because they think it has superior risk-adjusted returns is making an error.
Someone who recognises that they are making a sacrifice in terms of expected returns and portfolio quality, but still wants to invest in an asset for other reasons (behavior improvement, expression of values, non-standard preferences etc.) is expressing a want.
@@BenFelixCSI Thanks for reply, and again, great work, love the channel.
My investment in Qyld has done better than my investment in BND total bond ETF and SCHP . I use it more as a bond in my IRA. Comparing Qyld to QQQ is like comparing apples and oranges.
Was waiting for this one!
What about implementing the strategy yourself, without the need to rely on an ETF? Do these learnings also apply to Selling Puts? What about Selling puts + Selling Calls (also known as the Wheel strategy)?
The last example is terrifying, people reaching these levels and not getting that is really bad… Happy with my diversified simple passive ETFs…
In periods where the index are flat over time it seems the income is better. e.g. S&P500 last 18mo, 2007-2013, 2000-2006, 93-94, many other time periods.
Good info .
So for those that are retired, and depend on income from their portfolio , what do you recommend ?
( The problem with just owning index funds, is if the market is down 20-30% in a year, you still have to sell to live off the proceeds .
Putting you in a hole that is difficult to ever catch back up. )
This is a good video. One item I may add is that the sales pitch of the buyers of call options being speculators and by writing covered call option, you are the "house" for that speculative activity by taking the opposite position. The problem with this logic is that the prices the option based on supply and demand and if everyone can become the "house" you eventually over supply the market to the point that you're better off being the buyer. The market's collective wisdom is what sets a fair price. Aside, the real house is the market itself which comes in the form of bid-asked spread and commission. Whether you buy or sell a call or a put option, you are _never_ truly the house. The retail investor always pay more than the market value and you always sell below market value at any given point in time. This is true even if you place a limit order as your order will not execute until it is no longer at market value. This is true even with individual stocks but with options, the short term nature makes the negative effects more pronounced when you repeat the process for many years.
This is why you sell high IV out of the money options further out in time 😎
It’s like selling some of your stocks to buy bonds. You give up the upside potential of the stocks you’re selling to obtain the steady income from the bonds you’re buying, resulting in lower total returns.
Exactly
Or you can just sell the amount of stock shares equal to the income you're looking for, but be better ahead because the return on stocks are higher in the long run over bonds.
What? Have. you compared the yields on most CC vs Bonds - they is the major difference. You are giving up some of appreciation for high yielding. monthly CF (10% or greater)
@@erranzimmermann1207 The problem is with an investor's emotional ability to 'sell off' a portion of their pie - whereas with distrubitons its 'forced' monthly (mainly)....its consistent and doesn't really timing the market.
@@MStar10 and that links with what Ben mentioned - it's mental accounting, which leads to sub-optimal portfolio selection. If someone needs monthly cashflow by selling off shares, there shouldn't be any market timing anyway.
Excellent video once again Ben. Keep up the good work!
Covered Call ETF's are starting to be spruiked within Australia - an article recently from our flagship financial newspaper I think gave a realistic assessment of their use. The head of an ETF provider in Australia gave this comment:
“The strategy can succeed as a tactical play in a range-bound market. However, long-term investors are better off investing in ETFs that don’t put a ceiling on potential capital growth.”
Hi Ben, we all need a friend like you who saves us before we lose everything on these tricky illusions.
As soon as he mentions "long-term", tells me he doesn't understand the benefit of CC ETFs. this video is biased :(
Thank you for the explanation and the advice. Will continue to embrace the income illusion, though.
After reading the income factory I have to say its up to the style. If you want returns and growth then investing in cc etfs most likely not your route. But for those that want CASH flow being diverse in a few of these cover calls and reinvest divs provides growth through cash. Some people like to be more liquid 🤷🏾♂
Just read the Income Factory description and I would have to imagine they would fundamentally disagree with each other (having watched all of Ben's material).
CASH flow is a mental account. Total returns are what matter. Catering to mental accounting is fine to the extent that it helps people behave better, but it will almost always lead to suboptimal portfolios.
@@BenFelixCSI depending on how much you can contribute and how much time you have. Also you ignored the fact that makes a huge point, total return has no true value until you sell. Where as an income investor has cash flow and real liquid being built monthly . I personally never have to sell and that mental state of never having to sell and only worry about what the cash flow does means more then you like to give it. Every business is about cash and what it can create. Total return to a certain degree is waiting to agree or see what the market says. Each style plays a pro and con. All about what you want. someone invested in certain blue chip long term like Intel are not doing as well like someone in a cover called etf allowing you to grow with reinvesting 👍
@@AntBoogieWorld What Ben implied is that you will both have better expected "cash flow" and total returns if you use normal passive index funds and sell part of the shares for your "cash flow". Even after selling parts of the position, you're expected to have more money in the position than with a covered call ETF, with the same "cashflow". "Cashflow" is just a mental concept that has no impact on technical properties of an investment (bar negligible transaction costs) and how much money you can have available at any point in time. You can emulate any "automatic cashflow" via selling parts of a position and still be better off.
Sorry you are just wrong .. for one selling stock for income is the worse way to get income. Read the income factory your style is one way and it's an old school way of doing things. With CC etfs paying higher then ever it makes no sense buying index to sell for cash flow. New ways are coming learn to check other styles... that style is dated. @@simonp6339
My belief is that the market will have low relative returns for the next decade which is why I think a cc etf will be decent monthly income hedge. Also, selling on a monthly basis runs the risk of completely missing out on the few days/weeks of high performance that typically account for a funds overall yearly return.
Good Vid; the truth is in the performance numbers of the strategy vs objective, not all are created equal, and the future is unpredictable.
We love Ben!!!! I don’t understand the hype for covered call ETFs.. especially for young investors
I think risk aversion differs across generations
I agree but JEPI/JEPQ still seem to be performing quite well (unlike other covered call ETFs). 🤔
We needed that rational reminder!
4:36 - when I make this point about tax inefficiency, the rebuttal I often get is, "I only do covered calls in a tax advantaged retirement account." So after I wince, I refer them to the previously solved problem about active trading underperforming passive indexing over retirement time horizons.
Exactly...
Great video - thanks. It would be great to work through an example of best / worst case to understand if the core ETF price will go up/down in the near or LT future. (and what circumstances would drive it)-ie projecting total return
Very well-researched and informative as always 👏
Thank you, Ben, for the continued education. I appreciate these videos along with the podcast that you and Cameron provide. I have missed a few of the last podcasts, but I am one of three. What are your blind spots when it comes to your investment theory?
@Callme_pamyla That's what we need, fake FA bot spam.
If I knew what my blind spots were, they wouldn't be blind spots! I do my best to get information from diverse sources, including those that disagree with my prior beliefs.
I use a mix of both traditional dividend ETFs and covered call ETFs and do very well. They both invest in traditional dividend stocks.
Have you held the through a bull market to compare their performance when upside is being limited?
Zero alpha when implementing Selling Options, very interesting - would love to hear more content on that topic one your guests was talking about.
My opinion, when you are near retirement covered call ETF's are great. Picking some all in one covered call ETF's on market dips are hard to beat. Ben if you can point out some better ideas for those nearing retirement who need income that pay monthly dividends in the 10-15% I'd love to hear your thoughts, Is there a better option?
Love it! Thank you Ben
What about the wheel strategy when working with options? If your covered calls are exercised, you then sell a covered put
Excellent vid Ben. I already listened to the podcast but wanted to see the vid too.
Depends what you're investing in and where you live. In Canada the majority of our stocks are dividend stocks. Our returns will be subject to US withholding tax if we just buy US stocks. However some funds I've invested in actually do have high returns as well as paying dividends. Usually they don't do covered calls on the entire portfolio, but for instance if you look at qqqy (the one on the TSA not the US one) it has kept up with or even surpassed QQQ. Or compare Yamz to AMZN. Pretty close performance.
When I boil things down and look at the price of an ETF over time and the distribution to its investors over time I fail to see a flaw in the investment despite all the technical stuff. Am I missing something? take XYLD for example. In 2014 it was $46, its at a low now of about $39 and if its paid its distraction monthly investors have been paid handsomely have they not? I fail to see the risk compared to holding the underlying equities.
It's amazing to hear that there are funds out there with that kind of aum being run by people who don't understand how risk works :o
We really really need those videos in french!
What if one were willing to give up Alpha for consistent income? Is there a better strategy in that vein?
Hello cat Felix, it was a great idea to include these podcast shorts at the end. You should do this more.
Thanks! I wasn't sure if it was a good idea. I'm glad you liked it.
Do skewness or kurtosis explain factor outperformance? For small cap investing, for example, why not think the risk/return premium is explained by the longer or fatter tail on the downside (e.g., a liquidity crunch comes along and puts smaller firms out of business while larger firms can weather it)?
This is not the same as selling covered calls, which I thought the title meant. This is in reference to a fund that generates alpha via covered calls. FNGU or TECL are pretty decent in lowering interest rate environments.
You can dismiss most exotic ETFs simply because the fees are north of 1-2%, twice that of an actively managed ETF.
This will trigger some people! 😂
Great video, as always.
Ben, do you mind sharing some good books that you recommend or that are behind you on the podcast? I’d love to hear some recommendations from you.
Thanks!
Thanks for "covering" this subject!
Nice call out!
Ben Felix just doesn’t want us to retire early
How about ETF with 50%(in average) covered call position like QQQX that also come with tax treatment? In long terms it seems better than SPY. Thanks for your time in advanced.
I have only one covered-call ETF (SPYI) in my portfolio representing about 10% of my holdings. I am curious to see for myself how it performs over time. There is nothing to disagree with in Ben’s video; however, as someone who is just now retiring, dividends and distributions are important to me. Sure, I would like there to be at least some decent growth of the underlying assets, but the dividend and distribution income is equally important to me. I really don’t want to have to sell off any of my holdings (especially in a down market).
Explain why rolling forward and out is not an effective strategy to not lose upside potential and still capture premium. Thanks!
Good question! How rare is it for a stock to increase so much and so steadily that you will be unable to catch up rolling forward and out? If you're patient you could play that game for years and eventually catch up with the stock while in the mean time pocket the time-decay extrinsic value on the premiums and be better off than someone who simply held the stock. I would like to see an example on how that would play out negatively, and how likely that would be. Early assignment is no argument since you can counteract that by re-buying the stock and re-selling the same call option. Every time you do that you pocket an additional time-premium, so that is even a good thing. The only problem is if the stock pays a divident and you get assigned just prior to the ex-dividend date. In that case you may potentially be set back by the dividend amount (worst case scenario). Then again you can work around ex-dividend option periods by either selecting a higher extrinsic value than the dividend amount, or skip selling options for that month altogether.
I have been writing a couple covered calls on positions I have made money on, but am looking to exit sooner rather than later. It's something I have been trying out, but it's not at all my whole investment strategy. So far I've made pretty good returns on it. As soon as the option is executed though I'm not planning on doing a lot of options in the future. I think if you do it on a small scale on individual stocks you are already up on that you don't see as a long term investments for you it can give you some immediate cash, but it shouldn't be a significant part of your investment strategy at all.
That is a Video I instantly need to watch, this is too Important Not to do it directly
What if you also hold the underlying assets?
Good video. I hear about covered call ETFs on Prof G's podcast. I think people are drawn to them because it sounds like a "free" way to generate income. But there's still no such thing as a free lunch. I like how Ben Felix's videos basically always end with the same takeaway: "you're probably best off with a low-cost index fund..."
Can you respond to the concept of life cycle investing, that is using leverage, when cost effective, to more evenly distribute risk over one’s life time and therefore improving risk adjusted returns for retirement and other long term investments via the “free lunch” of diversification (in this case time diversification).
FYI there are some strategies that work better in Australia with higher income returns for for tax reasons. Not sure if there are any in Canada/US.
Thank you. Well timed and needed objective view esp for any age in retirement. Don’t chase yield?
Would be cool to see you and Adriano from passive income investing debate this!
I'm all in for that one Paul. I'm retired and have many CC's in my RRSP and TFSA. Adriano put it as "Buying income", if there is some capital erosion, so be it. But I would posit, how is that different than owning a stock that doesn't pay dividends and declines in value and you are forced to sell in a downturn?. I would rather manual DRIP or not , my choice
The difference is one has financial credentials, the other doesn't. How would this be a fair debate to begin with?
@@TheBreamer999 What's the difference between manual DRIP and choosing not to sell?
Adrians only debate is you dont understand covered calls..lol. he doesn't understand himself. Cc 🤡
Greetings Ben! I've been your subscriber for many years now and appreciate the work you do. There's one topic that has been bothering me very much about Index investing which is that of the impact of arbitrageurs on the actual returns of the index investing. Since index construction and timing of rebalancing is public information, arbitraguers can predict the composition and weights of securities in the indexes before the index is actually rebalanced. This would in theory allow them to take positions just before a index is rebalanced, going long on entrants and short on exits, and before the fund managers of index funds and ETFs rebalance, thereby profiting from the price movements. Doesn't this reduce the expected returns of ETFs and Index funds? This I guess is more pronounced in market cap based index funds/ETFs but I can see the same problem can affect any factor based funds. Thank you in advance if you decide to take on this subject.
Yes. This is well-documented and it's one of the reasons that my firm does not use typical market cap weighted index funds. Great idea for a video!
Is it then possible for us to play the same game if we know when the rebalancing is made?
@@KrishnanV9 Yes but, it would take a lot of work without the use of a computer program.
Many covered call ETFs have a total return that outperforms the underlying. You can’t make a general statement that covered call ETFs are an illusion.
I've gone in on Covered Call ETF's because I'm in a part of my life where monthly income is more valuable to be than total return. I'm pretty happy with how things have gone to this point and can only hope it continues.
Total return is what matters. “Income” is the same as just selling parts of your total portfolio.
Income never matters more that total return. Total returns put food on the table. Income is a mental account.
@@steftrando My income matters to me in retirement regardless of total return if that's a better way for you to look at it.
@@BenFelixCSI Not if you weren't financially literate for your youth and find yourself in retirement needing a steady...ish income. If I were to do it all again, I'd of course look to total return but as I said, I'm in a part of life where income is more valuable to me now than any potential future total returns.
@@aaronhall5715 just sell shares if you need income?
Excellent learned allot. Ben keep up the good work hope you make more videos more often.
Great video, thank you, thank you, thank you.
❤
Do an interview with Adriano of Passive Income Investing.
Been waiting for this one...
same!!
I would really appreciate a deeper dive into this topic. Covered call etfs arent my favorite in the first place but this didnt feel like it actually explained much other than give a vague hand wavy feeling of "CC ETF bad because skewness". My understanding of the reason is that covered call strategies cant take advantage of up swings which happens more often than not if you look backwards. Wouldnt that mean that cc etfs still have a niche in a diverse portfolio? Essentially my idea is that you want a portfolio that takes advantage of the way the market moves which would mean having a proportional amount of assets that would be able to take advantage of the few but existent times that the market is flat. I have no credentials in anything related to this field i just want to know why i would be wrong.
More is lost in good markets than is gained in flat markets. Add in high fees, transaction costs, and tax inefficiency and the argument for cc strategies is weak at best unless you are expressing a view about how the market will perform. For most investors the trade-off does not make sense. The behavioral side of the argument is more interesting - catering to the mental accounting bias to help investors spend down a portfolio.
@@BenFelixCSI i definitely fall into that. I like getting a quarterly or even monthly dividend deposited into my account. It makes it easier for me to spend more money buying stocks. I got that way of thinking from dividend bull here on youtube. I still invest in indexes but i have nothing concrete to look forward to in the short term with those. I figure money spent on assets that accrue value outside of my boring yet optimal investments is still better than spent elsewhere.
@@BenFelixCSIyou can subtract the tax inefficiencies in an IRA.....
Yes but tax efficiency is more of a side note anyway. Lots of other issues.
I love these so much!!! I can’t believe how great the incomes are.
sell and buy options should be equivalent. Otherwise one side should always get premium in expense of other. But if sell option is suboptimal strategy, can we say that buying option is suboptimal too? Is options in general are suboptimal in all ways?
It's a bit more complicated. There are asymmetries in the way options work. Options are all about convexity, after all, and the convex curve isn't always symmetric. Evaluating optimal vs. suboptimal depends on what the basis for comparison is. Options trading is necessarily active trading, and since active trading is known to be suboptimal compared to passive indexing, in that sense all options trading is suboptimal. But if the basis for comparison is within the bubble of buying options vs. selling options, arguments can be made either way about which is optimal. Ultimately, the optimal option trading strategy is the one that best exploits mispricing of volatility.
i got a question. if selling covered calls is expected to underpreform the underlying asset in the longrun due to the upside skewness of returns, maybe it makes more sense to buy those calls instead. What if i were to buy deep in the money calls on a globally diversified market cap weighted index portfolio. Well since its deep in the money the return of the option should mimic exactly the return of the underlying with some extra leverage. As the option starts to get closer to maturity we can just roll it over, sell it and buy another one farther out in the future, perpetually. We can choose super long term options like LEAPS, to minimize transaction costs. I call this the Perpetually rolling deep in the money leaps strategy, and i think might provide a cheaper access to leverage, and offer investors access to leverage that doesnt have to reset daily in registered accounts. Instead of paying a margin interest rate, i pay for the cost of the LEAP and I feel like that might be cheaper. would love to see an analysis on this
Wow, very interesting - I would love to see more details on this strategy. I think options strategies are dismissed without going into the the different sub strategies that can be used (ie. Wheel strategy)
Not sure to understand everything but it would be interesting to compare the performance of the professor with the one of the non student. At some point the market will change of direction this doesn't mean that the investor has to stick rigidly to a strategy that stops performing. But maybe I didn't understand correctly.
The downside with covered calls is you're getting the worst of everything: equity volatility, generally terrible pricing on the OTM calls (OTM is very typical and all but required to achieve tax benefits if you're in the US), plus short gamma on the call
If you have the capital, a conversion offers better pricing dynamics. You sell the call and also buy the corresponding put. It's a lot more negative delta, so probably investors might want only one of these instead of several short call contracts.
What do you get in return?
- if the asset shoots up, you still end up worse off... Just like adding covered calls
- if the asset falls, the long put replaces the missing gamma on the short call, so you continue gaining on the hedge where the CC stops contributing
- the bonus: if the stock falls, the put tends to lose extrinsic value much less than the short call, so you end up getting an improvement which is not obvious from the outset
The position likely earns the most by choosing an at-the-money strike (it doesn't take much above ATM before it gets expensive). A good time to enter is on ex-dividend or at least one month before the next ex.
20% total return on my covered call etfs last year is nothing to sneeze at. I’m fine with them
Risk-adjusted you're losing
@@samsonsoturian6013 20% total return no loss. What are you taking about?
The sp500 is up 30% lol
I believe we are in a stagflation environment. In my view this will level off and/or decease earnings over the next few years causing stock prices to flatten out or fall. This seems to be a good environment to invest in ETFs like XYLD. What are your thoughts on this?
The comparison seems flawed, you would have to compare it to a normal ETF where you sell the same amount as the cc etf pays out. Obviously this paid out money doesn't participate in the market anymore, so this will always underperform compared to a growing ETF. If you are still growing your portfolio cc etfs would be a bad option, but it might be a good option for retirement (well, you would need to compare it to selling the stocks, I don't know if it would be actually better)
Covered call writing requires active management - given the implied vol vs historical vol, liquidity and sentiment of the market, you need to choose the appropriate strike, tenor and underlying. It can be alpha generating but takes a lot of work! I am not sure if passive ETF is the right way to go for covered call writing
This may be a dumb question, but I’m going to ask it anyway. If selling covered calls tends to underperform just holding the underlying asset, does that mean that buying covered calls should tend to over perform (ignoring taxes and fees)?
wow that's an interesting question
I agree, definitely an interesting question!
Not a dumb question. Selling covered calls reduces your exposure to the underlying equity. Buying calls can give you leveraged exposure to the underlying. Leverage increases expected returns.
New to your channel! Liked and subscribed! 😊
why are you compare with cc income etf vs growth etf, its like you are compare to a 20 years old person vs a 67 years old person. they both have its own pro and con.
Good stuff mate, as always.
is that mean by covered call etf out performance when market drops, therefore, should prevent from all covered call etf
That prof was quoting out of the money Put options.. which is same as In the money Covered Call writing. That gets a fat premium but not on upside of the underlying.
It's not supposed to. It's an income thing, not growth
Skewing toward income is also useful to avoid needing to sell assets when markets are down. Other approaches include large cash or bond allocations, which are in turn reducing the potential return of the entire portfolio.
Oh, and by the way, risk is not the same as volatility, and all computations which assume risk is volatility are ignoring real world risks for an idealized simplification. This is a cognitive flaw that affects sharpe ratio and many related computations.
Buying the DOW in 1929 got you back to the same level a few generations later in 1956.
Stocks markets always go up is so dumb it hurts
I’m so glad you brought this up, because it’s so wrong!
The only way to get a 1956 breakeven is if you ignore dividends and look at nominal returns. With dividends and real returns the recovery was much, much sooner.
Thats a good point and that view option is not available on a 100 year DOW chart. At least from what i can find online. I read an interesting book last year :The great Depression: A diary by Benjamin Roth--what a nightmare-- the govt and banks were brutal to the average investor and saver back then. @@BenFelixCSI
That’s one of my all time favourite books. Incredible perspectives. My main takeaway from it is that people are collectively resilient when faced with extreme circumstances.
Hi guys. I have never hear Ben talking about commodities. Do u think water is a good investment? It seems non volatile and steady increasing.
I am new to the financial markets and just started investing since January 2022. I have been following your content for a while and (being a engineer/scientist myself) I appreciate the references to academical research that you quote. However, this suggests that all your statements are cut in stone. Particularly the "market is perfectly priced" hypothesis appears to still be in debate in the scientific cumminity. There is also the behavioural side to markets that seems to have just as much (or maybe even more) merit and scientific support, as I found out by listening to several people from the academic finance world. It would be nice if you would point out that you are in one of the possible scientific camps instead of asserting that there is only one valid way of looking at this. Can you comment on this? Again, I really appreciate your videos as it provides a lot of valuable information to dive in to. Thank you!
I’m not sure what you mean. This video that you are commenting on includes a clip from an interview with one of the founders of behavioural finance, and references academic literature that assesses covered calls from a behavioural perspective.
I don’t really consider myself to sit in either camp.
@@BenFelixCSI OK, I am sorry for the confusion. I might have gotten that impression from one of your older videos. Glad you pointed out that you have not taken sides of either camp. Thanks again!
Not Worried LONG TERM ,I Want INCOME NOW.
Oh well …here I was thinking I will buy SPYI as they have the taxation part taken care of with fancy accounting and ROC income…..but I am wiser now ….great video.
This video is just a high fluting diatribe. Clearly evident is the construction of arguments to prove a per-disposed point of view. A weekly covered call strategy on SPY and QQQ has the potential to provide a consistent yield of 30% to 50% annually when calls are written at or just above the share price. Even if you apply taxes at 50%, that's a net gain of 15% to 25%. Show me market period when it has grown at this rate consistently. And lets not forget that on the growth, we do have to pay long term capital gains some day. With covered call strategy, if the markets drop by 20%, I am still sitting pretty.
How does this strategy work? When it gets called away, at what point do you buy back in?
Fidelity is promoting this thinking with "Income Strategies powered by OptionsPlay" which comes with a charge of $35/m.
Legend is back
While covered call *ETFs* are bad, you shouldn't overlook that people much prefer having a higher chance of profit at the price of reduced max gain. Everyone's risk tolerance is different, and it's completely rational to cater to that, by picking the appropriate strike of the covered call.
This is why they corresponding ETFs are bad: they take away this decision from the investor.
While it's easy to say the market goes up and to the right, past performance is not a guarantee for future results.
I will gladly trade less portfolio volatility by giving up 'unlimited gains' for a higher probability of success.
@@kle2451I agreed 100%
I see JEPI euphoria everywhere
covered call etfs usually sell ATM options though, and these don't have any higher moments
Covered calls are great for income
Ever since Ben made that article and responded to a comment on Reddit I've been hoping that he'd make a video on it.
Link? Would love to see the article and reddit post if it's not under blackout!
www.reddit.com/r/PersonalFinanceCanada/comments/13pu0zf/i_made_a_mistake_on_investment_covered_call_etfs/jlbnqdd/?context=3