Strategies
Strategies.
How-to explainers for the strategies Closelook actually uses — covered calls, the barbell, position sizing, hedging, rotation. Each piece pairs the mechanics with current market data and a Closelook-portfolio application. Diary, not advice.
-
Sell to Own, or Sell to Never Own — The One Decision Behind Every Put
A sold put is one instrument that does two opposite jobs. Whether assignment is your win or your failure — and which strike expresses it — is the whole game. The same put pays 9% on Apple and 41% on Nebius, and the gap tells you exactly what you're being paid for.
A sold put is one instrument that does two opposite jobs. Whether assignment is your win or your failure — and which strike expresses it — is the whole game. The same put pays 9% on Apple and 41% on Nebius, and the gap tells you exactly what you're being paid for.
-
The Buyer Needs Three Things to Go Right. The Seller Needs One.
Most option buyers lose and most option sellers win — and it isn't luck, it's the structure of the bet. With the fear gauge near its lows and money pouring into cheap calls on the AI run, here's the math that says be the house.
Most option buyers lose and most option sellers win — and it isn't luck, it's the structure of the bet. With the fear gauge near its lows and money pouring into cheap calls on the AI run, here's the math that says be the house.
-
The Barbell Architecture — Why the Middle Is Decay
Two structurally orthogonal poles, zero in the middle. A portfolio shape structurally consistent with the Bessembinder evidence — and where every "balanced" alternative tends to optimise the wrong object.
Most portfolio architectures still in use — Markowitz mean-variance, 60/40, Risk Parity, Dividend Aristocrats, Defensive Equity — were built for a return distribution that no longer dominates. The Bessembinder evidence (64,738 stocks, 43 markets, 31 years) shows compound returns are positively skewed: roughly 2% of firms create 100% of public-market net wealth, the median individual stock loses to cash, the median listed stock in Germany destroyed 31.9% of capital over three decades. A portfolio shape structurally consistent with this evidence is a barbell — a strategic pole of 66-75% in the broadest cap-weighted index vehicles (QQQ + VEU), a tactical pole of 25-34% in signal-driven thesis exposure (Rubin/HALO/Euro-AI/AW25 + Pattern 03), and zero in the middle. A caveat the piece itself flags: the Bessembinder math assumes public markets capture wealth creation, and the current Databricks/OpenAI/Anthropic/SpaceX trend points the other way. This is Part 1 of two; Part 2 covers sizing math and rebalancing rules per leg.
-
Sizing and Rebalancing the Two Legs — Decision Rules for the Barbell
The architecture is the easy part. Sizing the QQQ-vs-VEU split, weighting the four Closelooknet indices inside the tactical pole, choosing the cadence on each leg, and recognising the five failure modes that quietly collapse a barbell back into a balanced portfolio.
Part 1 set the architecture: a strategic pole of 66-75% in QQQ + VEU, a tactical pole of 25-34% in Rubin/HALO/Euro-AI/AW25 + Pattern 03, zero in the middle. Part 2 covers the sizing math and the rebalancing discipline. The strategic pole splits between QQQ and VEU on a roughly 60/40 internal weight, drift-tolerant, not tactically rebalanced. The tactical pole is signal-driven: enter when a wave is in Dawn or Early-Ramp under the Money Temperature framework, weight across the four index sleeves by current-cycle conviction, exit when the wave matures. Single-name Pattern 03 exposure rides on top of the index allocations within the tactical pole's budget. Five failure modes — tactical drift past 34%, premature exit on tactical drawdowns, the "one more story stock" bloat, the 60/40-rebound-to-balance temptation, and single-name concentration without exit discipline — are where most real-world barbell implementations actually break.
-
Covered Calls for Premium Harvest — Quantum, AI, and the High-Beta End
When implied vol is 80%+, a 30-day call sells for 5–10% of the underlying. The income looks irresistible. The drawdown risk explains why most people lose money trying.
On a high-beta name with 80% implied <a href="/glossary/vix/">volatility</a> — quantum-computing stocks like IONQ, RGTI, QBTS, recent AI IPOs, small-cap thematic plays — a 30-day call struck 10% out of the money can pay 5–10% of the underlying in premium. That's a 60–120% theoretical annualised yield on the option overlay alone. The catch: the same names move 30% in a week in either direction. This is Part 2 of two; Part 1 covers the slow, conservative end. Here the question is not 'is the premium worth it' (it usually is, mathematically) but 'can you survive the realised-vol path that justifies the implied vol you're selling.'
-
Covered Calls for Income — the Dividend Aristocrats Approach
Stack a 10% out-of-the-money 6-month call premium on top of a 2–4% dividend yield. The conservative end of covered-call writing — how the math works, when it pays, what it costs.
A covered call on a Dividend Aristocrat — say KO, JNJ, PG — at a 10% out-of-the-money strike with 6 months to expiry is the slow, conservative end of options income. The premium is modest, the cap on upside is wide, the underlying is famously dull. Combined with the existing dividend yield, the total cash-return profile lands in the 6–8% annualised range on low-vol blue-chips, with a 10% cap on capital appreciation over each six-month window. This is Part 1 of two; Part 2 covers the opposite end of the spectrum — high-beta quantum and AI darlings where the premiums are massive but the drawdown risk is too.
6 explainers on file.