Categories
Results

Case Study: How A Bearish S&P 500 Trade Turned Into A Multibagger

Before the 2022 equity market decline, investors foresaw weakness in response to the coming monetary tightening. They repositioned and hedged their equity downside with allocations to commodities and options, colloquially referred to as volatility.

The commodity exposure worked well, while the volatility exposure did not work well. Consequently, the 2022 equity market decline was unlike many before; the monetization and counterparty hedging of existing customer options hedges and the sale of short-dated options, particularly in some of the single names where implied volatility or IVOL was rich, lent to lackluster volatility performance. Some may have observed tameness among IVOL measures such as the Cboe Volatility Index or VIX.

“One-year variance swaps or implied volatility on an at-the-money S&P 500 put option would trade somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 to 30%,” said Michael Green of Simplify Asset Management. “That implies a level of daily price movement that is difficult to achieve.”

Eventually, entering August 2022, entities were getting squeezed out of these trades that did not work. The market advanced as participants rotated out of options and commodities; a macro-type re-leveraging ensued on improvements in inflation data, an earnings season that was better than expected, and “crazy tax receipts,” among other things. In August of 2022, the advance climaxed the week of monthly options expiry or OpEx, as shown below.

Graphic: Retrieved from Cboe Global Markets Inc (BATS: CBOE).

Why did the advance climax the week of OpEx? Well, heading into that particular week of OpEx, markets were rising quickly, and call options (i.e., bets on the market upside) were highly demanded.

Graphic: Updated 8/15/2022. Retrieved from SqueezeMetrics.

Those on the other side of the call option trades (i.e., counterparties) thus hedged in a supportive manner (i.e., counterparties sell calls to customers and buy underlying to hedge exposure).

Eventually, traders’ activity in soon-to-expire options concentrated at specific strikes – particularly $4,300.00 in the S&P 500 – while IVOL trended lower. The counterparty’s response, then, did more to support prices and reduce movement. That is because, with time passing and volatility declining, options Gamma (i.e., the sensitivity of an option to direction) became more positive; the range of spot prices across which Delta (i.e., options exposure to direction) shifts rapidly shrunk. When options Gamma exposure is more positive, market movements may positively impact the counterparty’s position (i.e., movement benefits them). However, if the counterparty is not interested in realizing that benefit, it may hedge in a manner that dulls the market’s movement. This is, in part, what happened, in the late stages of the August rally. After the S&P 500 hit $4,300.00, the near-vertical price rise sputtered. Soon, follow-on support, both from a fundamental (e.g., liquidity) and volatility perspective, would worsen following OpEx.

Graphic: Via Physik Invest. Data compiled by @jkonopas623. Fed Balance Sheet data, here. Treasury General Account Data, here. Reverse Repo data, here. NL = BS – TGA – RRP.

Why the removal/weakening of support? OpEx would trigger “a big shift in market positioning,” Nomura Holdings Inc’s (NYSE: NMR) Charlie McElligott explained at the time.

In short, participants’ failure to roll forward their expiring bets on market upside coincided with a message that the Federal Reserve (Fed) would stay tough on inflation. After OpEx, those same bets prompting counterparties to stem volatility and bolster equity upside were removed (i.e., expire). We can visualize this by the drop in Gamma exposures post-OpEx, as shown below.

Graphic: Created by Physik Invest. Data by SqueezeMetrics.

Accordingly, August OpEx, combined with technical and fundamental contexts prompting funds to “reload[] on short sales,” shocked the market into a higher volatility, negative Gamma environment. In this negative Gamma environment, put options, through which the vast majority of participants speculate on lower prices and protect their downside, solicited far more pressure from counterparties. If markets continued trading lower, traders would likely continue rotating into those put options, further bolstering pressure from counterparties. This happened, as shown below.

Graphic: Retrieved from SpotGamma. “There was a huge surge in large trader put buying in the equities space last week as per the OCC data.”

Demand for put options protection was bid IVOL. To hedge against this demand for protection and rising IVOL, counterparties sold underlying. This compounded bearish fundamental flows.

Graphic: Retrieved from SqueezeMetrics. Learn the implications of volatility, direction, and moneyness.

In late August, new data suggested September would have “a very large options position as it is a quarterly OpEx,” SpotGamma said. With positioning “put heavy,” a slide lower, and an increase in IVOL was likely to drive continued counterparty “shorting” with little “relief until Jackson Hole.”

Based on this information, Physik Invest sought to initiate trades expecting markets to trade lower and more volatile.

Call option premiums appeared attractive in mid-August, partly due to interest rates, while IVOL metrics seemingly hit a lower bound. This was observable via a quick check of skew, a plot of IVOL for options across different strike prices. Usually, skew, on the S&P 500, shows a smirk, not a smile. This meant it was likely that short-dated, wide Put Ratio Spreads had little to lose in a sideways-to-higher market environment. Additionally, call Vertical Spreads above the market were relatively more expensive.

Graphic: Retrieved from Cboe Global Markets Inc (BATS: CBOE). Updated August 17, 2022. Skew steepened into $3,700.00 and below $3,500.00 in the S&P 500.

Given the above context, the following analysis unpacks how Physik Invest traded options tied to the S&P 500 leading up to and through the August 19 OpEx, into the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium.

Note: Click here to view all transactions for all accounts involved.

Sequence 1:

Through August 12, 2022, after a volatility skew smile was observed, the following positions were initiated while the S&P 500 was still trending higher for a net $7,616.68 credit.

Positions were structured in a way that would potentially net higher credits had the index moved lower.

  • SOLD 10 1/2 BACKRATIO SPX 100 (Weeklys) 26 AUG 22 3700/3500 PUT @ ~$0.13 Credit
  • SOLD 3 VERTICAL SPX 100 21 OCT 22 [AM] 4300/4350 CALL @ ~$25.10 Credit

Sequence 2:

While the S&P 500 was trading near $4,300.00 resistance, by 8/19/2022, all aforementioned Ratio Put Spread positions were rolled forward for a $452.26 credit.

The resulting position was as follows:

  • -17 1/2 BACKRATIO SPX 100 (Weeklys) 16 SEP 22 3700/3500 PUT
  • -3 VERTICAL SPX 100 21 OCT 22 [AM] 4300/4350 CALL

From thereon, the market declined and, by 9/1/2022, all positions were exited for a $6,963.84 credit.

  • BOT 17 1/2 BACKRATIO SPX 100 (Weeklys) 16 SEP 22 3700/3500 PUT @ ~$4.94 Credit
  • BOT 3 VERTICAL SPX 100 21 OCT 22 [AM] 4300/4350 CALL @ ~$4.57 Debit

Summary:

The trades netted a $15,032.78 profit after commissions and fees.

The max loss (absent some unforeseen events) sat at ~$6,790.00 if the S&P 500 closed above $4,350.00 in October. Because the Ratio Put Spreads were initiated at no cost, any loss would have resulted from the trade’s Vertical Spread component if the market went higher.

Overall, this trade netted more than a 200% return; the trade’s profit was more than two times the initial debit risk, a multi-bagger.

Reflection:

Heading into the trades, it was the case that IVOL performed poorly during much of the 2022 decline. This would likely remain the case on any subsequent drop; hence, the ultra-wide and short-dated Ratio Put Spread.

Despite the Ratio Put Spread exposing the position to negative Delta and positive Gamma (i.e., the trade makes money if the market moves lower, all else equal), if implied skew became more convex (i.e., implied volatilities grow more rapidly as strike prices decrease), the position could have been a giant loser. So, if the flatter part of the skew curve (where the position was structured) became more convex (i.e., rose), which is not something that was anticipated would happen, then the only recourse would have been to (1) close the position or (2) sell (i.e., add static negative Delta in) futures and correlated ETFs. In the second case, the trade would have allowed time to work (i.e., let Theta work) and become a potential winner.

Additionally, under Physik Invest’s risk protocol, more Short Put Ratio Spread units could have been initiated on the transition into Sequence 2. These units could have been held through Labor Day and monetized for up to an additional ~$4.00 credit per unit.

Though additional units of the Vertical Spreads could not have been added due to the strict limits to debit risks, there were still months left to that particular trade component. With lower prices expected, there was little reason the Verticals should have been removed fast.

Going forward, should the context from a fundamental and volatility perspective remain the same, only on a rally could Physik Invest potentially re-enter a similar position.

Categories
Results

Case Study: Trading Skew With Ratio Spreads

What Happened: On June 23, 2021, shares of Tesla Inc (NASDAQ: TSLA) surged on news the company opened a Chinese-based solar-powered charging station with on-site power storage.

Prior to the development, the stock endured months of corrective activity during which negative narratives were out in full force. From calls against Tesla’s biggest bull – ARK Invest – to famed Michael Burry’s synthetic short position on the stock, it seemed as though the end was near.

However, as evidenced by Tesla’s June 23 breakout from consolidation and subsequent upside continuation in light of a 300,000 vehicle recall in China, it is obvious the fear was unwarranted.

Those who understand that markets are most influenced by credit and positioning knew this all along.

Taking a look at market liquidity metrics – such as those offered by services like HFT Alert – market participants had been aggressively accumulating shares of the company from its mid-May low.

Graphic 1: Buying accelerates (as evidenced by the purple line), in Tesla, after its mid-May bottom, via HFT Alert

Still, with skepticism out in full force, there was a heightened demand for protection, as evidenced by metrics like volatility skew, in options at and below the current stock price.

Skew: The difference in implied volatility (IV) – an estimate of potential price changes given the fear of movement – between option strikes that are close and far from the underlying stock price. 

To put it simply, the fear of corrective activity in Tesla fueled demand for protection via put option strikes farther below the stock. This, in turn, bid volatility in downside strikes, more than upside strikes. Because volatility is input in option pricing models, put options, further down the chain, were valued more relative to their call-side counterparts.

Graphic 2: June 23, 2021 screenshot implies increased demand for put options, further below (left of) the stock price, relative to calls (right) for the expiries traded. 
Graphic 3: Notice the increased volume and open interest in put option strike prices at and below $500. This dynamic results in skew, as observed in Graphic 2. 

Given this dynamic, the following sequence analysis unpacks how Physik Invest traded options tied to the carmaker leading up to, and through, the June 23, 2021 upside consolidation break.

Note: Click here to view all transactions. Adding, positions were structured in a way that would potentially net higher credits had the stock moved markedly lower or higher.

Sequence 1: After skew was observed, through 6/18/2021, the following positions were initiated against the $500 support level for a $1,011.00 credit.

  • June 11 Expiry 500P+1, 450P-2
  • June 25 Expiry 490P+9, 440P-18 
  • June 25 Expiry 550P+2, 500P-4
  • June 25 Expiry 300P+2

By 6/21/2021, all aforementioned positions were closed for a $271.00 debit, netting a $691.58 credit after commissions and fees.

Sequence 2: Through 6/29/2021, skew improved and the following positions were initiated for a $5,651.38 credit.

  • July 2 Expiry 500P+3, 450P-6 
  • July 2 Expiry 525P+7, 475P-14
  • July 2 Expiry 545P+1, 495P-2 
  • July 9 Expiry 850C+2, 900C-4 
  • July 9 Expiry 580P+11, 530P-22 
  • July 9 Expiry 350P+3 
  • July 16 Expiry 850C+4, 900C-8

Through 7/12/2021, the above structures were removed for a $90.00 debit, netting a $5,443.93 credit after commissions and fees.

Sequence 3: Through 7/6/2021, skew remained and the following positions were initiated for a $3,566.00 credit.

  • July 16 Expiry 575P+11, 525P-22
  • July 16 Expiry 600P+1, 550P-2
  • July 16 Expiry 350P+3 

Through 7/14/2021, the above structures were removed for a $473.00 debit, netting a $3,043.29 credit after commissions and fees.

Summary: In total, the sequence of trades net a $9,178.80 credit after commissions and fees. 

The above strategies were employed per Physik Invest’s core edge: the trade of ratioed, multi-leg strategies that combine short and long positions to reduce risk and increase returns. 

By leveraging the dynamics of time and volatility, through complex spreads, Physik Invest was paid to express a neutral stance on underlying Tesla stock with the potential to further capitalize on an expansion of range in either direction.

Disclaimer: There is a $0.77 discrepancy between the transaction sheet and the numbers provided in this case study. This is attributable to differences in rounding.

Categories
Results

Case Study: Trading A Balance-Breakout Failure In The Nasdaq 100

What Happened: On April 29, 2021, market participants attempted to move the Nasdaq 100 stock index from balance, an area of recent price acceptance, above a developing ledge, or flattened area on the composite volume profile.

Further, participants failed to find acceptance beyond the balance area, given the Nasdaq 100’s move back into the prior range. As a result, odds favored (1) sideways or (2) lower trade, as low as the balance area low (BAL) near $13,700.00.

Adding, a weak reaction by heavily-weighted index constituents to blowout earnings, as well as poor structure left behind prior price discovery, among other factors, such as the will to raise the Capital Gains Tax, suggested an increased potential to trade below the $13,700.00 BAL, into prior poor structures, or low volume areas (LVNodes), that ought to offer little-to-no support.

In response, the following sequence analysis unpacks how Physik Invest traded options tied to both the cash-settled Nasdaq 100 (INDEX: NDX) and Nasdaq 100 (CME: /NQ) future, leading up to the May 12, 2021 swing low. 

Note: Click here to view all transactions.

Sequence 1: On April 29, 2021, Physik Invest applied the balance-break and gap scenarios, monitoring for acceptance (i.e., more than 1-hour of trade) outside the balance area. 

To preface, gaps ought to fill quickly. 

Should they not, that’s a signal of weakness; leaving value behind on a gap-fill or failing to fill a gap (i.e., remaining outside of the prior session’s range) is a go-with indicator. 

Auctioning and spending at least 1-hour of trade back in the prior range suggests a lack of conviction.

After a confirmed balance-breakout failure, Physik Invest bought the following structures for a $203.00 debit. At this point, if all legs were to remain out of the money (i.e., expire worthless) by May 21, 2021, the maximum loss would have been $203.00, approximately 1/5 of a standard risk unit, or the debit risked in a typical position.

  • 13500+1/13300-2/13100+1 NDX long put ratio spread
  • 14100+3/14110-6/14140+3 NDX short call ratio spread
  • 14400-1 /NQ short call

By 5/10/2021, the aforementioned position was closed for a $1,855.00 credit, an 813.80% return on the initial debit outlay.

The above put-side structure was initiated against the $13,300 high volume area, also a prior balance area boundary. The reason being, a structurally sound market will build on past areas of high volume. Should the market trend for long periods of time, it will lack sound structure (identified as a low volume area which denotes directional conviction and ought to offer support on any test). If participants were to auction and find acceptance into areas of prior low volume, then future discovery ought to be volatile and quick as participants look to areas of high volume for favorable entry or exit.

Summary: After a failed balance-breakout setup presented itself, Physik Invest financed long put-side structures targeting a test of $13,300, with short-call exposure, risking ⅕ of a standard risk unit in debit, over a timeframe of one month.

In total, the sequence of trades net a $1,621.71 profit after commissions and fees.

The above strategies were employed in accordance with Physik Invest’s core edge: the trade of ratioed, multi-leg strategies that combine short and long positions to reduce risk and increase returns.

Yes, in hindsight, one could have opted for static short exposure (e.g., selling stock to open a position). However, the risks tied to such strategies are immense in a regime characterized by increased volatility and uncertainty.

By leveraging the dynamics of time and volatility, through complex spreads, unwanted directional risks were reduced.

Reflection: Hindsight is 20/20.

Though the entry was perfectly timed, the exit was not; 1-day prior to expiry, the 13500/13300/13100 ratio spread – which was removed for a $21.11 credit – priced at nearly $90.00. 

The correct move would have been to initiate the position with up to four 13500/13300/13100 ratio spreads. Thereafter, as prices moved lower, the position would have been pared down enough to at least cover the cost of any remaining spreads.

Those remaining spreads would have been kept on as so-called “lottery tickets.”

Categories
Results

Case Study: Trading Tesla’s S&P 500 Inclusion

What Happened: On November 17, 2020, shares of Tesla Inc (NASDAQ: TSLA) surged on news that S&P Dow Jones Indices would include the stock in the S&P 500, the most liquid index in the world.

Since markets are most influenced by credit and positioning, news of the inclusion was impactful. Funds tied to the S&P 500 would purchase Tesla shares from a dealer by the addition date. This means that dealers would look to purchase shares of the stock heading into the event, to later supply funds at the close of Friday, December 18, the last session before the inclusion.

In the simplest of terms, the event was a positive since it meant that (1) speculative derivatives activity and associated hedging, (2) short-term traders, as well as (3) dealers and index funds would now support the stock.

The following sequence analysis unpacks how Physik Invest traded equity and derivatives tied to the carmaker’s stock leading up to the December 21, 2020 index inclusion.

Note: Click here to view all transactions.

Sequence 1: On news of the inclusion, market participants initiated shares of Tesla out of balance, beyond trend resistance. Thereafter, in accordance with a typical give and go scenario, the stock faded, filling 50% of the low-volume area left after the initial move higher, before aggressive buying resurfaced to continue the new trend.

Through November 19, the following positions were added for a $61.00 debit, in total. At this point if all legs were to remain out of the money (i.e., expire worthless) by November 20, the maximum loss would be $61.00, approximately 1/10 of a standard risk unit, or the capital risked in a typical position.

  • 500+1/530-2 call ratio spread
  • 490+2/505-3 call ratio spread
  • 525+1/550-2 call ratio spread
  • 510+1/525-2 call ratio spread
  • 445-1 put
  • 460-1 put

By November 20, all aforementioned positions were closed for an $827.00 credit, a 1,255.74% return on initial investment.

All the above call-side structures were initiated against the $500 high open interest strike. Reason being, option expiries mark an end to pinning (i.e, the theory that market makers and institutions short options move stocks to the point where the greatest dollar value of contracts will expire worthless) and the reduction dealer gamma exposure.

On November 20, nearly 40% of Tesla’s gamma was to roll off. 

Pictured: November options gamma by Spot Gamma
Pictured: Speculative call-side options activity after the index inclusion announcement 

Moreover, since derivatives exposure was rolled into farther dated expiries, the stock would now be supported by dealers buying to hedge their derivatives exposure and facilitate the index inclusion.

Noting, at a simplistic level, prices often encounter resistance at prior highs due to the supply of old business. These areas take time to resolve. Breaking and establishing value (i.e., trading more than 15-minutes above this level) portends continuation.

Sequence 2: On November 20, the following structures expiring on December 4 were initiated for a $644.00 credit.

  • 450-1 put
  • 520+1/550-1 call ratio spread
  • 570+1/600-2 call ratio spread
  • 490-1/475+1 put ratio spread

Through November 24, the above structures were removed for a $876.00 credit.

Sequence 3: On November 24, the cost basis from November 19 ($61.00 debit) was reduced via an intraday long stock delta hedge that bought 10 shares at an average of $539.50.

The initial cost basis, after this particular trade, was brought down to a $0.20 debit.

Sequence 4: On November 25 the following positions were opened and closed the same day for a $179.30 credit.

  • Bought stock at $550.14 average
  • 480+1/500-2 call ratio spread

Sequence 5: On November 27, the following positions were initiated and closed by December 3 for a $117.10 debit.

  • Bought stock at $595.55 average
  • 475+1/437.5-2 put ratio spread

Sequence 6: On December 1 through December 3, the following positions were initiated, and then exited from by December 7 for a $1.77 debit.

  • Bought stock at $589.20 average
  • Bought stock at $563.77 average
  • 740+1/780C-2 call ratio spread

Sequence 7: Through December 17, the following positions were initiated and closed for a total $452.30 credit.

  • 720+1/820-2 call ratio spread
  • 740+1/830-2 call ratio spread
  • Bought stock at $632.17 average
  • 720+1/820-2 call ratio spread
  • Bought stock at $606.88 average
  • 800+1/860-2 call ratio spread
  • 500+1/480-2 put ratio spread

Sequence 8: From December 17 through December 23 the following positions were entered and exited from for a $322.00 credit.

  • 500+2/450-4 put ratio spread
  • 800+2/850-4 call ratio spread
  • 670+1/685-2 call ratio spread

Summary: In total, the above sequence of trades net a $3,098.29 credit after commissions and fees.

The strategies employed were in accordance with Physik Invest’s methodology: the trade of ratioed, multi-leg strategies that combine short and long positions to reduce risk and increase returns. 

Yes, in hindsight, one could have opted for something as simple as risk-reversals (e.g., buying calls and selling puts). However, the risks tied to such strategies are immense. By leveraging the dynamics of time and volatility, through complex spreads, risk was reduced.

Note: There were many times, during these sequences, that positions were structured in a way that would net no loss had the security moved sideways or lower into expiry.

Adding, per Fibonacci principles, one core aspect of Physik Invest’s market structure analysis, an upside target of $675.10 was established early on in the process. Tesla spent the majority of its December 18 session at this level.

Disclaimer: There is a $0.11 discrepancy between the transaction sheet and numbers provided in this case study. This is attributable to differences in rounding.