LEAPS are options with more than a year left until expiration. The name stands for Long-term Equity AnticiPation Securities, which nobody actually says out loud — traders just call them LEAPS and move on. I spent my first year in the market avoiding them entirely, because everything I read about options was about weeklies and short-dated calls, and long-dated contracts sounded like something for people with more capital than I had. That was backwards. LEAPS were the first options I traded that stopped feeling like a countdown clock and started feeling like an actual position.
Year one, I lost $11,400 mostly on short-dated contracts — trades where I was right about direction and still lost because the clock ran out before the stock got there. That’s the specific problem LEAPS solve, and it’s worth understanding exactly why before you use one.
What makes a LEAPS contract different
Mechanically, a LEAPS contract is identical to any other option. Same strike, same premium, same right to buy or sell at that strike before expiration. The only thing that changes is how far out that expiration sits — typically nine months to two and a half years, listed in January cycles most of the time, so you’ll see LEAPS chains dated a year or two ahead sitting right next to the monthly and weekly chains on the same ticker.
That extra time changes everything about how the contract behaves. Time value, the part of an option’s premium that isn’t intrinsic value, decays fastest in the final 30 to 45 days before expiration. A short-dated option lives entirely inside that fast-decay window. A LEAPS contract with 18 months on it barely feels theta at all in month one or month two — the decay curve is nearly flat that far out. You’re not fighting the clock the way you are on a monthly contract. You’re mostly just watching the stock.
Why LEAPS behave more like owning the stock
This is the part that took me longest to actually feel in a live position, not just understand on paper. A deep in-the-money LEAPS call, one with a strike well below the current stock price, carries a delta close to 0.70 or higher. Delta measures how much the option’s price moves for every dollar the stock moves. At 0.70 delta, a one dollar move in the stock moves your contract about seventy cents. That’s most of a share’s worth of movement, for a fraction of the capital it would take to own 100 shares outright.
Push the delta higher — into the 0.80s, which deep ITM LEAPS regularly sit at — and the contract starts tracking the stock almost dollar for dollar. At that point you’re not really trading optionality anymore. You’re renting stock-like exposure with leverage and a defined maximum loss, which is a completely different risk profile from a 0DTE contract or a weekly, where you’re betting on a specific move happening inside a specific, narrow window of time.
The trade: a real LEAPS position start to finish
In year four I bought a MSFT January 2028 $320 call, about 17 months out from entry, for $58.40 per contract when MSFT was trading around $368. That put the strike deep in the money, and the contract had a delta of 0.78 at entry — for every dollar MSFT moved, my position moved roughly seventy-eight cents. Total cost for one contract: $5,840, against what would have been about $36,800 to own 100 shares outright at that price.
Over the next five months MSFT drifted from $368 to $402, a move of $34. My contract’s delta wasn’t static the whole way — it climbed toward 0.85 as the stock moved further in the money, which meant the position captured more than a flat 78-cent-per-dollar rate over that stretch. By month five the contract was worth $91.20, up $32.80 from my entry, a gain of roughly 56% on the premium I paid. MSFT itself was up about 9% over the same period. That gap is the leverage LEAPS give you — real, and it cuts both directions if the stock moves against you instead.
I didn’t hold to expiration. I sold with 12 months still left on the contract, because the whole point of buying that much time was never to use all of it — it was to give the trade room to be early without getting killed by decay while I waited to be right.
LEAPS versus short-dated options: when each one fits
Short-dated options are the right tool for a specific, time-bound catalyst — an earnings report next week, a setup you expect to resolve in days. You’re paying less per contract, and you’re accepting a much narrower window for the trade to work. LEAPS are the right tool for a thesis, not a trigger — a stock you believe will be meaningfully higher a year or two out, where you want leveraged exposure without tying up the full capital of owning shares, and without the decay clock working against you every single day you hold it.
The tradeoff nobody skips past fast enough: LEAPS cost more upfront in absolute dollars than a weekly on the same stock, because you’re buying a lot more time value. And that capital sits tied up for months, sometimes over a year, which is real opportunity cost if the stock does nothing for a long stretch. A LEAPS contract that’s slightly out of the money can still lose the majority of its value if the stock stalls out below the strike as expiration finally approaches — the flat part of the decay curve isn’t flat forever, it just starts late.
Picking a strike and expiration that actually make sense
Deep in-the-money strikes are the closest thing to a stock substitute, because that’s where delta lives above 0.70 and the contract tracks the underlying most closely. Strikes closer to the current price cost less but carry more of the bet on a big move happening, and at-the-money or out-of-the-money LEAPS behave less like stock and more like a longer-dated speculative wager — cheaper, but with a lower delta and more of the premium exposed to time decay if the move takes too long to show up.
On expiration, further out isn’t automatically better. More time costs more premium, and if your thesis plays out in six months you’ve paid for eighteen you didn’t need. I generally buy 12 to 18 months of runway on a real conviction trade, enough time to be early and still be fine, without paying for a horizon I don’t have a specific reason to want.
Where the discipline problem still shows up
LEAPS remove the clock pressure that got me in year one, but they don’t remove the decision-making pressure, and that’s the part I still had to fix separately. A position that’s up 40% with a year left on it creates its own temptation — to hold for more, to add size because it’s “working,” to ignore the plan I had going in because the trade feels good right now. That MSFT contract could have sat in my account another five months waiting for a better exit that may or may not have shown up. I’ve made worse decisions than that exact one, holding a winner too long because I didn’t have a rule forcing my hand.
That’s the actual reason I run my account through Alertsify now instead of managing every exit myself. It copies the entries and exits of a trader I follow, on the same schedule they’re placing them, so a position that’s working doesn’t sit in my account purely because I got attached to the number on the screen. It doesn’t change anything about how LEAPS work mechanically — the delta, the decay curve, the capital efficiency are all the same regardless of who’s pulling the trigger. What it changes is whether my own second-guessing gets to override a plan that was already sound before the position started moving.
Disclosure: that’s an affiliate link — I may earn a commission if you sign up for a paid plan, at no extra cost to you. There’s a free trial if you want to look around first.