> There are low risk strategies […] that basically guarantee you income for doing nothing
Listen to yourself.
Listen to yourself.
You can essentially guarantee yourself an income. The risk comes from anytime you're holding stock and the stock value decreases, but you can sell calls on that and earn an income on that until a company goes out of business. This type of wheel strategy is inherently less risky than merely buying stock. There's obviously a lot of nuance to even simple options trading and I don't want to write out 100 paragraphs for some casual comment.
There Ain't No Free Lunch in options. Covered calls give up potential upside gains for income now. You still have the same downside risk as the underlying stock.
Taken as a whole, it's not the same exact downside risk because the premium you collect can make up for whatever downside that exists anytime you're holding a stock.
I'm not here to tell you what to do with your money, but all I'd say is that using a wheel strategy is inarguably less risky than buying stock outright.
You're hoping to see a specific number? What number are you even asking for? To me, your comment doesn't make even a tiny bit of sense because we're not talking about a specific quantity of a stock at a specific price for a specific time period, we're just talking about the general principles of basic option strategies.
It feels like you're going off vibes, which is fine, but what's irking people is that "basically" and "essentially" are weasel words that make it seem like you're trying to launder gambling as investing.
Maybe a better question to start with is, which measures of quantitative risk are you familiar with and how to they play into your strategy?
...or the buyer of the contract exercises the option. And yes, there's a lot of nuances, there exercise of options being just one of the nuances. That's why "you can essentially guarantee yourself an income" simply isn't true. Starting with the obvious fact that if it were true, everyone would do it.