InspirationLearnNewsTrade Options

Options as Insurance: Why I Often Prefer Spreads Over Naked Positions

When I first started trading options, I was fascinated by the asymmetry: pay a premium, and suddenly I had almost unlimited upside with a fixed, limited downside. Buying a naked put felt like holding a lottery ticket against the market — if gold collapsed, I could make a fortune.

But experience has taught me that the market rarely gives you the extreme move you’re dreaming of. More often, you get a moderate correction or a sideways drift. In those cases, the naked put bleeds premium every single day.


Why I Don’t Always Stay Naked

When I bought my recent XAU/EUR 3,600 put, the logic was clear: fixed cost, potential big reward. But I also asked myself: do I really need “full insurance” all the way down to 0? The answer is often no. What I really want to capture is the next 100–200 points lower, not a total collapse.

That’s where the bear put spread comes in. By selling a lower-strike put against my long put, I reduce my upfront cost. Yes, I give up the chance of an outsized payday if gold crashes to 3,050. But I make my insurance more affordable and more efficient if the market only falls to 3,500 or 3,300.


Spreads Feel More Like Real Insurance

Think of it this way: a naked put is like insuring your house against every possible disaster — fire, flood, earthquake, you name it. The premium is huge.
A bear put spread is more like saying: I’ll insure against the common damages, but I don’t need protection if the entire house is swallowed by the earth. It’s cheaper, and it still covers the scenario I actually expect.


The Key Trade-Off

  • Naked put: Unlimited potential if the market implodes, but very expensive to hold.
  • Bear put spread: Lower cost, faster path to profit if the move is moderate, but capped gains.

After enough trades, I realized I’d rather collect steady, efficient returns on realistic moves than always swing for the fences. The spreads give me exactly that balance.


My Rule of Thumb

If I truly believe in a tail risk — an event that could break the market — then I’m happy to run naked puts or calls. But if I’m simply playing a probable correction or bounce, I’ll structure it as a spread. It feels more disciplined, more like real insurance, and less like buying lottery tickets.

FAQ: Options as Insurance in Trading

Just like paying for car or home insurance, when I buy an option I pay a fixed premium to protect myself. A put insures me against downside, and a call insures me against missing upside.
I buy naked options when I believe in a true tail risk event. The premium can be high, but it gives me full protection or unlimited upside if the extreme scenario plays out.
Spreads let me lower my insurance cost. By selling another option against the one I buy, I give up extreme payoff but get cheaper, more efficient protection for realistic moves.
Naked options give me maximum convexity but are expensive. Spreads are more affordable, but my profit is capped. It’s a balance between paying for “full coverage” or just the protection I really need.
If I expect only a moderate correction, I prefer spreads like a bear put spread. If I see real risk of a crash or explosive rally, I may buy naked options to capture that tail risk.

Leave a Reply