Skip to main content
Track Long put
13 / 22
Search the archiveLibrary
Library

2014issue C0241

A defined-risk option case for the mid-February to mid-July energy window

The archive treats mid-February to mid-July as a recurring energy seasonal window and expresses that window as a purchased crude-oil option, so an early adverse swing limits loss to the premium rather than to an open futures path.

  • Mid-February to mid-July is handled as one seasonal-window procedure, with summer fuel demand described as being priced before spring.
  • A defined-risk option purchase is used so that an early adverse swing cannot force the exit that an open futures path might require.
  • Commodities, exchange-traded funds, and energy stocks can list options on the same seasonal idea, but those contracts are not interchangeable.
  • Supply, demand, and implied-volatility shocks are treated as regime shift, so the next window is unknown even when a historical review is used as background.
Entries in this reading2 entries
Current trackLong put26 readingsSeasonal trading90 readings

The seasonal window

Mid-February to mid-July is identified as a recurring energy-market seasonal window. It is described as bottoming near mid-February and topping around summer.

The window is attributed to summer fuel demand being priced before spring. The path is said to shift each year with supply, demand, and implied volatility, so the calendar is not treated as the whole regime.

A purchased option in place of the futures path

In the 2013 crude-oil illustration, the window opened near 98 and included an adverse swing of about 11 points off that entry before prices later moved into triple digits ahead of early July.

The case expresses the window as an August crude-oil option with a 97.50 strike purchased at 5.40, or 5,400 in premium, so that loss stays limited if the underlying keeps moving against the position.

A standalone long-option purchase is presented as an alternative to holding the futures path through a large adverse swing, because the premium paid is the defined loss.

Expiration payoff of the long August 2013 crude 97.50 call

A purchased August 2013 crude 97.50 call, entered 15 February at 5.40, cannot lose more than the $5,400 premium no matter how far futures fall. At expiry the call is still a total loss at or below 97.50 and only gets the debit back at 102.90; above that, profit rises one-for-one with the futures. The path is the listed payoff implied by the snapshot’s entry, $10-per-0.01 multiplier, and printed 102.90 breakeven.
A purchased August 2013 crude 97.50 call, entered 15 February at 5.40, cannot lose more than the $5,400 premium no matter how far futures fall. At expiry the call is still a total loss at or below 97.50 and only gets the debit back at 102.90; above that, profit rises one-for-one with the futures. The path is the listed payoff implied by the snapshot’s entry, $10-per-0.01 multiplier, and printed 102.90 breakeven.CLQ13 AUG13 97.50 call · Payoff at August 2013 expiry · 2013-02-15T00:00:00.000Z to 2013-07-17T00:00:00.000Z

The $3,440 profit on the snapshot is the 15 July mark (option 8.84 with two days left), about $20 above this expiration value at the same 106.32 futures print.

Three venues, not one listed option

The same seasonal idea is mapped to three option venues: commodities, exchange-traded funds, and energy stocks. Listed options are not equivalent across those venues.

TradersWeek editorial: venue inequality is a reason to enter or stand aside, not a reason to copy one contract's terms onto another.

Background, not the next window

A 15-year historical review is used only as background for how often the mid-February to mid-July energy-market rise has appeared. The next year's occurrence is treated as unknown.

Educational research material, not investment advice. Historical source context does not establish present-day performance.
13 of 22 in the Long put track
201418-19 pp.Next on Long putLong put versus vertical debit spread on a Treasury ETFA 20-year Treasury bond ETF was used as a bond-etf-proxy so an equity-options process could express a Treasury view without futures.
All readings on this track · 22 readings
  1. 1984A long silver put as a prepaid loss cap
  2. 1984Spectral window gates for index long puts
  3. 1990Breadth nonconfirmation as the gate for a volume fade and long-put case
  4. 2002Volatility-first construction for a bearish put or debit
  5. 2002Name the regime and the season before choosing a long put
  6. 2005Critique of put spreads versus outright long puts
  7. 2007Sector put hedges, automatic exercise, and pin risk
  8. 2008Margin shock, defined-debit options, and selective premium
  9. 2008Ranking in-the-money puts by breakeven rather than cheapest premium
  10. 2012Evaluating long-put moneyness when implied volatility shifts
  11. 2012Sizing a long butterfly for early assignment and a long option for gamma
  12. 2013Gold after the April break: option-spread vehicles and a long-put hedge
  13. 2014A defined-risk option case for the mid-February to mid-July energy window
  14. 2014Long put versus vertical debit spread on a Treasury ETF
  15. 2015Defined debit call spread on a health-insurer worksheet
  16. 2015Overbought technology index: a long put via an inverse proxy
  17. 2018Replace futures stops with short-dated long puts
  18. 2018Constructing short-dated long puts around weekly expiration
  19. 2018Four decisions before a portfolio protective put
  20. 2018Incremental producer hedging with puts and risk reversals
  21. 2019Put butterfly versus long put in a volatility spike
  22. 2020Scenario-first SPY put hedge: butterfly versus long put
By fieldSeasonality and regimes130 readingsBy year201496 readings
All 26 readings tagged Long put
Also on Long put5 readings
1984A long silver put as a prepaid loss cap1984Spectral window gates for index long puts1990Breadth nonconfirmation as the gate for a volume fade and long-put case1991Constructing synthetic option positions with puts and spreads2002Name the regime and the season before choosing a long put