Perhaps ban is too strong. I think Canada has had a really positive result in how it has dealt with tobacco. Cigarettes are by no means illegal, you can get them at any gas station, grocery store, 7-11 or pharmacy. But they are heavily taxed, the packages have to be covered in graphic warnings, the branding has to be plain and just use a generic font of the brand name. Commercials aren't allowed. Advertising isn't allowed. As a result, a lot less people just take up smoking, and it's almost completely fallen off culturally.
That might be the best solution to gambling. At least in Canada, casinos are very well advertised and glamorized. They're often run by the government, but they still market themselves to attract customers in a way you wouldn't expect of say, a safe opioid consumption site. Their slot machines are just as addictive. Sure, there's lip service paid to preventing gambling addiction, eg a piece of paper on the wall instructing patrons to play responsibly. But if we took the same attitude towards it as we do to tobacco, it might just fade away without all the downsides of prohibition.
Yeah this confused me - I thought that my browser language settings had gotten messed up especially after see thing the CTA in the top right with "le chat"
This doesn't make sense from the hiring side to me. I have a small agency with 10 employees and it's just common sense to put salary info in the job listing.
Otherwise we both waste each other's time if it's not up to their expectations. What is the benefit of obscuring it until it's time to present an offer?
Yeah I don’t understand why they are so cagey. I’ve been flown out, stayed at hotels, burned hours of their employees time in interviews, and then get a ridiculous low ball and things grind to a halt. Maybe I have a very punchable face and they think they can get me on the cheap? No idea
inconsistent incumbent pay scales is the main limiting factor for publishing pay scale. Basically, there are a lot of employees in a lot of employers that have pay all over the map, due to lack of compensation policy / hiring manager (in)discretion.
Let's say I own a bunch of SPLK and want to make some passive income. I am the counterparty to the call purchaser in this example.
I can sell call options 10% out of the money each week and make some nice cash. If my plan was to hold the stock long term, there's no downside risk because if the stock goes down, I get to keep the cash (premium) from selling the calls. If it goes sideways or slightly up I get to keep it as well.
The only "downside" is it goes up >10% in which case i've made that 10% + premium, but I've now had my stock taken away from me.
In this case, I lose out on an additional 10% in upside because it went up 20% overnight.
That still seems like a pretty good deal. You missed out on capturing the entire upside, but lost no real money.
Loss aversion and all that, but it feels like a reasonable strategy where you still come out ahead in the worst case. In the typical case, you can continue to collect those pennies.
> In the typical case, you can continue to collect those pennies.
Top notch comment, considering options trading is often described as "picking up pennies in front of a steamroller."
> Loss aversion and all that, but it feels like a reasonable strategy where you still come out ahead in the worst case
You don't come out ahead in the worst case – the option you wrote can settle deep ITM and you are compelled to sell a stock at a loss. Worst case you could lose a major chunk of change.
Suppose I buy 100 shares of $ABC for $10 (total cost for me is $1000) and then sell a call option for $1 with a strike price of (say) $50. The absolute worst case scenario is that the value of my *shares* goes to $0, in which case I've lost $999.
On the other hand, if the price shoots up to, say, $85, I'm still obligated to sell them at $50. Since I bought them at $10, I've still made $4001 profit, but I'm still dissatisfied because I would have made $7500 if I hadn't sold the call option.
What you're describing is what happens if I don't already own those shares and the price skyrockets. If the counterparty exercises their $50 option when the current price is $85, then yes, I'm obligated to buy the shares at market price and sell for a total loss of ($STRIKE_PRICE * 100) - $5000 - 1.
Clearly I am not an option trader, but so long as you own the option you are selling (covered) doesn’t that make your maximum loss the stock itself (+potential profit from the positive movement). I thought ruin can only happen if you are selling naked?
But you were offering it based on the market price when you offered it. The "loss" is merely one of opportunity, you're not actually losing any value you had when you sold the option, right?
Correct, but this sub-section of the thread veered off into the naked options territory and I was simply trying to clear up the confusion of the person I was replying to.
reply