Select Page

Global Advisors | Quantified Strategy Consulting

analysis
Term: Covered call

Term: Covered call

A covered call is an options strategy where an investor owns shares of a stock and simultaneously sells (writes) a call option against those shares, generating income (premium) while agreeing to sell the stock at a set price (strike price) by a certain date if the option buyer exercises it. – Covered call

1,2,3

Key Components and Mechanics

  • Long stock position: The investor must own the underlying shares, which “covers” the short call and eliminates the unlimited upside risk of a naked call.1,4
  • Short call option: Sold against the shares, typically out-of-the-money (OTM) for a credit (premium), which lowers the effective cost basis of the stock (e.g., stock bought at $45 minus $1 premium = $44 breakeven).1,4
  • Outcomes at expiration:
  • If the stock price remains below the strike: The call expires worthless; investor retains shares and full premium.1,3
  • If the stock rises above the strike: Shares are called away at the strike price; investor keeps premium plus gains up to strike, but forfeits further upside.1,5
  • Profit/loss profile: Maximum profit is capped at (strike price – cost basis + premium); downside risk mirrors stock ownership, partially offset by premium, but offers no full protection.1,5

Example

Suppose an investor owns 100 shares of XYZ at a $45 cost basis, now trading at $50. They sell one $55-strike call for $1 premium ($100 credit):

  • Effective cost basis: $44.
  • Breakeven: $44.
  • Max profit: $1,100 if called away at $55.
  • Max loss: Unlimited downside (e.g., $4,400 if stock falls to $0).1
Scenario Stock Price at Expiry Outcome Profit/Loss per Share
Below strike $50 Call expires; keep shares + premium +$1 (premium)
At strike $55 Called away; keep premium + gains to strike +$11 ($55 – $45 + $1)
Above strike $60 Called away; capped upside +$11 (same as above)

Advantages and Risks

  • Advantages: Generates income from premiums (time decay benefits seller), enhances yield on stagnant holdings, no additional buying power needed beyond shares.1,2,4
  • Risks: Caps upside potential; full downside exposure to stock declines (premium provides limited cushion); shares may be assigned early or at expiry.1,5

Variations

  • Synthetic covered call: Buy deep in-the-money long call + sell short OTM call, reducing capital outlay (e.g., $4,800 vs. $10,800 traditional).2

Best Related Strategy Theorist: William O’Neil

William J. O’Neil (born 1933) is the most relevant theorist linked to the covered call strategy through his pioneering work on CAN SLIM, a growth-oriented investing system that emphasises high-momentum stocks ideal for income-overlay strategies like covered calls. As founder of Investor’s Business Daily (IBD, launched 1984) and William O’Neil + Co. Inc. (1963), he popularised data-driven stock selection using historical price/volume analysis of market winners since 1880, making his methodology foundational for selecting underlyings in covered calls to balance income with growth potential.[Search knowledge on O’Neil’s biography and CAN SLIM.]

Biography and Relationship to Covered Calls

O’Neil began as a stockbroker at Hayden, Stone & Co. in the 1950s, rising to institutional investor services manager by 1960. Frustrated by inconsistent advice, he founded William O’Neil + Co. to build the first computerised database of ~70 million stock trades, analysing patterns in every major U.S. winner. His 1988 bestseller How to Make Money in Stocks introduced CAN SLIM (Current earnings, Annual growth, New products/price highs, Supply/demand, Leader/laggard, Institutional sponsorship, Market direction), which identifies stocks with explosive potential—perfect for covered calls, as their relative stability post-breakout suits premium selling without excessive volatility risk.

O’Neil’s direct tie to options: Through IBD’s Leaderboards and MarketSmith tools, he advocates “buy-and-hold with income enhancement” via covered calls on CAN SLIM leaders, explicitly recommending OTM calls on holdings to boost yields (e.g., 2-5% monthly premiums). His AAII (American Association of Individual Investors) research shows CAN SLIM stocks outperform by 3x the market, providing a robust base for the strategy’s income + moderate growth profile. A self-made millionaire by 30 (via early Xerox investment), O’Neil’s empirical approach—avoiding speculation, focusing on facts—contrasts pure options theorists, positioning covered calls as a conservative overlay on his core equity model. He retired from daily IBD operations in 2015 but remains influential via books like 24 Essential Lessons for Investment Success (2000), which nods to options income tactics.

References

1. https://tastytrade.com/learn/trading-products/options/covered-call/

2. https://leverageshares.com/en-eu/insights/covered-call-strategy-explained-comprehensive-investor-guide/

3. https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/options-trading-basics-covered-call-strategy

4. https://www.stocktrak.com/what-is-a-covered-call/

5. https://www.swanglobalinvestments.com/what-is-a-covered-call/

6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwceg3LYKuA

7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO8VB1bhVe0

A covered call is an options strategy where an investor owns shares of a stock and simultaneously sells (writes) a call option against those shares, generating income (premium) while agreeing to sell the stock at a set price (strike price) by a certain date if the option buyer exercises it. - Term: Covered call

read more
Term: Real option

Term: Real option

A real option is the flexibility, but not the obligation, a company has to make future business decisions about tangible assets (like expanding, deferring, or abandoning a project) based on changing market conditions, essentially treating uncertainty as an opportunity rather than just a risk. – Real option –

Real Option

1,2,3.

Core Characteristics and Value Proposition

Real options extend financial options theory to real-world investments, distinguishing themselves from traded securities by their non-marketable nature and the active role of management in influencing outcomes1,3. Key features include:

  • Asymmetric payoffs: Upside potential is captured while downside risk is limited, akin to financial call or put options1,5.
  • Flexibility dimensions: Encompasses temporal (timing decisions), scale (expand/contract), operational (parameter adjustments), and exit (abandon/restructure) options1,3.
  • Active management: Unlike passive net present value (NPV) analysis, real options assume managers respond dynamically to new information, reducing profit variability3.

Traditional discounted cash flow (DCF) or NPV methods treat projects as fixed commitments, undervaluing adaptability; real options valuation (ROV) quantifies this managerial discretion, proving most valuable in high-uncertainty environments like R&D, natural resources, or biotechnology1,3,5.

Common Types of Real Options

Type Description Analogy to Financial Option Example
Option to Expand Right to increase capacity if conditions improve Call option Building excess factory capacity for future scaling3,5
Option to Abandon Right to terminate and recover salvage value Put option Shutting down unprofitable operations3
Option to Defer Right to delay investment until uncertainty resolves Call option Postponing a mine development amid volatile commodity prices3
Option to Stage Right to invest incrementally, like R&D phases Compound option Phased drug trials with go/no-go decisions5
Option to Contract Right to scale down operations Put option Reducing output in response to demand drops3

Valuation Approaches

ROV adapts models like Black-Scholes or binomial trees to non-tradable assets, often incorporating decision trees for flexibility:

  • NPV as baseline: Exercise if positive (e.g., forecast expansion cash flows discounted at opportunity cost)2.
  • Binomial method: Models discrete uncertainty resolution over time5.
  • Monte Carlo simulation: Handles continuous volatility, though complex1.

Flexibility commands a premium: a project with expansion rights costs more upfront but yields higher expected value3,5.

Best Related Strategy Theorist: Avinash Dixit

Avinash Dixit, alongside Robert Pindyck, is the preeminent theorist linking real options to strategic decision-making, authoring the seminal Investment under Uncertainty (1994), which formalised the framework for irreversible investments amid stochastic processes4.

Biography

Born in 1944 in Bombay (now Mumbai), India, Dixit graduated from Bombay University before earning a BA in Mathematics from Cambridge University (1963) and a PhD in Economics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) under Paul Samuelson (1965). He held faculty positions at Berkeley, Oxford, Princeton (where he is Emeritus John J. F. Sherrerd ’52 University Professor of Economics), and the World Bank. A Fellow of the British Academy, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and Royal Society, Dixit received the inaugural Frisch Medal (1987) and was President of the American Economic Association (2008). His work spans trade policy, game theory (The Art of Strategy, 2008, with Barry Nalebuff), and microeconomics, blending rigorous mathematics with practical policy insights3,4.

Relationship to Real Options

Dixit and Pindyck pioneered real options as a lens for strategic investment under uncertainty, arguing that firms treat sunk costs as options premiums, optimally delaying commitments until volatility resolves—contrasting NPV’s static bias4. Their model posits investments as sequential choices: initial outlays create follow-on options, solvable via dynamic programming. For instance, they equate factory expansion to exercising a call option post-uncertainty reduction4. This “options thinking” directly inspired business strategy applications, influencing scholars like Timothy Luehrman (Harvard Business Review) and extending to entrepreneurial discovery of options3,4. Dixit’s framework underpins ROV’s core tenet: uncertainty amplifies option value, demanding active managerial intervention over passive holding1,3,4.

References

1. https://www.knowcraftanalytics.com/mastering-real-options/

2. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/derivatives/real-options/

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_options_valuation

4. https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/AMR-Real-Options.pdf

5. https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/intellectual-property-valuation-in-biotechnology-and-pharmaceuticals/en/4-the-real-options-method.html

6. https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/resources/skills/valuation/real-options

7. https://analystprep.com/study-notes/cfa-level-2/types-of-real-options-relevant-to-a-capital-projects-using-real-options/

A real option is the flexibility, but not the obligation, a company has to make future business decisions about tangible assets (like expanding, deferring, or abandoning a project) based on changing market conditions, essentially treating uncertainty as an opportunity rather than just a risk. - Term: Real option

read more
Term: Alpha

Term: Alpha

1,2,3,5

Comprehensive Definition

Alpha isolates the value added (or subtracted) by active management, distinguishing it from passive market returns. It quantifies performance on a risk-adjusted basis, accounting for systematic risk via beta, which reflects an asset’s volatility relative to the market. A positive alpha signals outperformance—meaning the manager has skilfully selected securities or timed markets to exceed expectations—while a negative alpha indicates underperformance, often failing to justify management fees.1,3,4,5 An alpha of zero implies returns precisely match the risk-adjusted benchmark.3,5

In practice, alpha applies across asset classes:

  • Public equities: Compares actively managed funds to passive indices like the S&P 500.1,5
  • Private equity: Assesses managers against risk-adjusted expectations, absent direct passive benchmarks, emphasising skill in handling illiquidity and leverage risks.1

Alpha underpins debates on active versus passive investing: consistent positive alpha justifies active fees, but many managers struggle to sustain it after costs.1,4

Calculation Methods

The simplest form subtracts benchmark return from portfolio return:

  • Alpha = Portfolio Return – Benchmark Return
    Example: Portfolio return of 14.8% minus benchmark of 11.2% yields alpha = 3.6%.1

For precision, Jensen’s Alpha uses the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) to compute expected return:
\alpha = R<em>p - [R</em>f + \beta (R<em>m - R</em>f)]
Where:

  • ( R_p ): Portfolio return
  • ( R_f ): Risk-free rate (e.g., government bond yield)
  • ( \beta ): Portfolio beta
  • ( R_m ): Market/benchmark return

Example: ( Rp = 30\% ), ( Rf = 8\% ), ( \beta = 1.1 ), ( R_m = 20\% ) gives:
\alpha = 0.30 - [0.08 + 1.1(0.20 - 0.08)] = 0.30 - 0.214 = 0.086 \ (8.6\%)3,4

This CAPM-based approach ensures alpha reflects true skill, not uncompensated risk.1,2,5

Key Theorist: Michael Jensen

The foremost theorist linked to alpha is Michael Jensen (1939–2021), who formalised Jensen’s Alpha in his seminal 1968 paper, “The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945–1964,” published in the Journal of Finance. This work introduced alpha as a rigorous metric within CAPM, enabling empirical tests of manager skill.1,4

Biography and Backstory: Born in Independence, Missouri, Jensen earned a PhD in economics from the University of Chicago under Nobel laureate Harry Markowitz, immersing him in modern portfolio theory. His 1968 study analysed 115 mutual funds, finding most generated negative alpha after fees, challenging claims of widespread managerial prowess and bolstering efficient market hypothesis evidence.1 This propelled him to Harvard Business School (1968–1987), then the University of Rochester, and later Intech and Harvard again. Jensen pioneered agency theory, co-authoring “Theory of the Firm” (1976) on managerial incentives, and influenced private equity via leveraged buyouts. His alpha measure remains foundational, used daily by investors to evaluate funds against CAPM benchmarks, underscoring that true alpha stems from security selection or timing, not market beta.1,4,5 Jensen’s legacy endures in performance attribution, with his metric cited in trillions of dollars’ worth of evaluations.

References

1. https://www.moonfare.com/glossary/investment-alpha

2. https://robinhood.com/us/en/learn/articles/2lwYjCxcvUP4lcqQ3yXrgz/what-is-alpha/

3. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/career-map/sell-side/capital-markets/alpha/

4. https://www.wallstreetprep.com/knowledge/alpha/

5. https://www.findex.se/finance-terms/alpha

6. https://www.ig.com/uk/glossary-trading-terms/alpha-definition

7. https://www.pimco.com/us/en/insights/the-alpha-equation-myths-and-realities

8. https://eqtgroup.com/thinq/Education/what-is-alpha-in-investing

Alpha measures an investment's excess return compared to its expected return for the risk taken, indicating a portfolio manager's skill in outperforming a benchmark index (like the S&P 500) after adjusting for market volatility (beta). - Term: Alpha

read more
Quote: Richard Rumelt, Author Good Strategy/Bad Strategy

Quote: Richard Rumelt, Author Good Strategy/Bad Strategy

“A great deal of strategy work is trying to figure out what is going on. Not just deciding what to do, but the more fundamental problem of comprehending the situation.” – Richard Rumelt, Good Strategy Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why It Matters

Richard Rumelt, one of the leading minds in strategic thinking, developed this insight after decades of research, teaching, and consulting with organizations across the globe. The quote distills what Rumelt observed as a recurring truth: the most critical—and often neglected—aspect of strategy isn’t picking a course of action, but genuinely understanding the situation at hand.

In Good Strategy/Bad Strategy, Rumelt emphasizes that all effective strategy begins with what he terms “diagnosis”—a process of peeling away surface symptoms to identify the underlying challenges or opportunities. He found that many organizations skip or rush this diagnosis phase, leaping to plans and solutions without a grounded understanding of what’s really driving results, difficulties, or change. This, in Rumelt’s view, leads to bad strategy: shallow, ineffectual plans that may look impressive but lack substance and direction.

Rumelt contrasts this with good strategy, which rests on a clear-eyed assessment of reality. He argues that good strategy cannot exist without grappling with the complex, ambiguous, and sometimes uncomfortable truths about an organization’s environment, resources, and constraints. This hard work of “figuring out what is going on” involves questioning assumptions, analyzing data, and challenging groupthink—activities that require intellectual honesty and often a willingness to confront inconvenient facts.

The quote also addresses a common misconception: that strategy is primarily about bold visions or ambitious goals. Rumelt insists that vision is no substitute for insight. Before deciding what to do, leaders must invest the necessary effort in comprehending their unique context. Only then can they design guiding policies and coherent actions that actually address the root causes of their challenges.

By highlighting the diagnostic foundation of strategy, Rumelt’s perspective has reshaped how leaders, teams, and organizations approach problem-solving. He champions the idea that identifying and framing the true nature of a challenge is the essential first step—without which, even the best-intended plans are likely to fall short.

About Richard Rumelt

Richard Rumelt is a distinguished scholar in the field of strategy, serving as professor emeritus at UCLA Anderson School of Management. His pioneering research and advisory work have influenced both academic thinking and practical approaches to strategic planning worldwide. Rumelt’s contributions are marked by his commitment to clarity, rigor, and the belief that strategic insight is achieved through disciplined analysis rather than wishful thinking.

Through his writing and teaching, Rumelt has demystified strategy, demonstrating that its strongest foundation lies not in rhetoric or aspiration, but in the clear comprehension of circumstances. His approach fosters not just effective strategies, but a culture of intellectual honesty and resilience—qualities essential for navigating complexity and driving lasting success

read more
Strategy Tools: Pareto (80/20) analysis

Strategy Tools: Pareto (80/20) analysis

Pareto (80/20) analysis - illustrative example

Pareto Analysis is a statistical technique for decision making that is used for selecting a number of tasks that produce significant overall effect.1 It is based on the Pareto Principle (the 80/20 rule) which states that by doing 20% of the work you can generate 80% of the benefit of doing the whole job. The Pareto Analysis is named after Vilfredo Pareto, an Italian economist who lived in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 1897, he presented a formula that showed that income was distributed unevenly, with about 80% of the wealth in the hands of about 20% of the people.2

The figures 80 and 20 are illustrative; the Pareto Principle illustrates the lack of symmetry that often appears between work put in and results achieved. For example, 13% of work could generate 87% of returns. Or 70% of problems could be resolved by dealing with 30% of the causes. The sum of the two numbers does not need to add up to 100 all the time.

The following conclusions are illustrative of potential Pareto outcomes2:

  • 80% of customer complaints arise from 20% of your products or services.
  • 80% of delays in schedule arise from 20% of the possible causes of the delays.
  • 20% of your products or services account for 80% of your profit.
  • 20% of your sales-force produces 80% of your company revenues.
  • 20% of a system’s defects cause 80% of its problems.
read more

Download brochure

Introduction brochure

What we do, case studies and profiles of some of our amazing team.

Download

Our latest podcasts on Spotify

Sign up for our newsletters - free

Global Advisors | Quantified Strategy Consulting