Poor Man’s Covered Call: The Diagonal Explained
Year 1 I lost $11,400 trying to run a covered call on a stock I couldn’t actually afford 100 shares of. I bought fewer shares than the strategy needed, sold calls against a made-up number, and confused myself for three months before I noticed the math never worked. The idea was fine. The capital wasn’t there. That’s the entire reason the poor man’s covered call exists, and it took me way too long to find it.
A traditional covered call needs 100 shares of stock. On a $150 stock that’s $15,000 sitting in the position before you’ve sold a single option. The poor man’s covered call, or PMCC, replaces those 100 shares with one deep-in-the-money LEAPS call — a long-dated option, usually 12 to 24 months out, with a delta close to 1.00 so it moves almost dollar-for-dollar with the stock. You still sell short-dated calls against it for income, the same way you would against real shares. The difference is what’s doing the “owning.”
Why the LEAPS stands in for the stock
A call with a delta near 1.00 behaves like a leveraged version of the shares. It gains and loses value at almost the same rate as the stock itself, but it costs a fraction of what the stock costs, because you’re only paying for the option’s intrinsic and extrinsic value, not the full share price. That’s the entire trick. You get share-like exposure without tying up share-like capital. The freed-up cash either sits idle, earns interest, or funds other positions — that flexibility is the whole appeal of the structure, and it’s worth being honest that it’s also the only appeal. Everything else about a PMCC is a compromise you’re accepting in exchange for it.
This is different from just owning a LEAPS call on its own, which is a directional bet with no income layer. It’s also different from a plain covered call, which owns the actual shares and never expires. The PMCC sits between them: it borrows the leverage of a LEAPS and the income mechanic of a covered call, and it inherits a piece of both of their problems too.
A worked example, illustrative math only
Say a stock trades at $100. Buying 100 shares outright costs $10,000. Instead, you buy one LEAPS call expiring 15 months out with a $70 strike — deep in the money — for a hypothetical premium of $34.00, or $3,400 for the contract. That’s roughly a third of the capital of owning the stock, for a position that will track most of the stock’s moves because of the high delta.
Against that LEAPS, you sell a call expiring in 30 days at the $105 strike for a hypothetical premium of $2.10, or $210. If the stock stays below $105 through expiration, that $210 is yours and the short call expires worthless — you sell another one the next month, the same way you would with a real covered call. If the stock rises above $105, the short call gets tested and you either roll it up and out or let it cap your gain on that cycle, exactly like a normal covered call does when the stock runs past your strike.
Run that same $210 monthly premium next to the $10,000 covered call and the $3,400 PMCC, and the PMCC is earning a similar dollar amount of income on roughly a third of the capital. That’s the number that gets people excited about PMCCs, and it’s real. It’s also not the whole picture, which is exactly why the next section exists.
What you’re giving up for that capital efficiency
The LEAPS decays too. It has less time value than a 30-day option because it’s so deep in the money, but it isn’t zero, and that decay works against you the entire time you hold it — something 100 actual shares never experience, because shares don’t have an expiration date or a time-value component. A covered call position can sit unchanged for years if you want it to. A PMCC has a clock built into its foundation, and eventually you have to close it, roll it to a later expiration, or let it run out.
The bigger risk shows up if the stock drops hard. Shares lose value dollar for dollar and nothing more — you’re down exactly what the stock is down. A deep ITM LEAPS starts with a delta near 1.00, but as the stock falls, that delta drifts lower. The option starts moving less than the stock does, and on top of that it’s losing extrinsic value as it does. In a sharp selloff, the LEAPS can lose a larger percentage of its own value than 100 shares would lose relative to their cost — not because the option is inherently unstable, but because the small premium you paid gives a bad move more room to eat through it, and because a falling deep-ITM call sheds delta at the exact moment you need it not to. That is not a footnote. It’s the tradeoff you’re accepting for putting up a third of the capital.
There’s also the choice of strike and expiration for the LEAPS itself, which is where most PMCC mistakes actually happen. Buy a LEAPS that isn’t deep enough in the money and its delta is lower to start with, so it tracks the stock worse from day one. Buy one too close to expiration and you’re rolling it more often than the structure is designed for, eating transaction costs and reintroducing the decay problem you were trying to avoid. The whole strategy depends on getting that long leg right before you ever sell the first short call against it.
Where this fits next to a plain covered call and the wheel
If you’ve read a straightforward covered call breakdown, you already know the version where you own 100 real shares and sell calls against them for income — full capital, no clock, no delta erosion, just a capped upside and a floor that’s exactly the stock’s own downside. The PMCC is the same income mechanic wrapped around a different, cheaper, and more fragile foundation. Neither is strictly better; they’re solving different capital problems.
The wheel is a different animal entirely — it’s a cycle of selling cash-secured puts to get assigned stock, then selling covered calls against those shares until you get called away, then starting over. The wheel needs the capital to actually buy shares if you get assigned, which is the same capital constraint the PMCC is built to avoid. You could run a wheel and a PMCC on different tickers with the same account, but they’re not the same tool solving the same problem — the wheel is about cycling through ownership, and the PMCC is about avoiding ownership altogether while still getting most of its benefits.
None of this works if you’re placing the short-call leg by hand on a schedule you’ll forget to check. The whole point of running income against a LEAPS is that it’s a repeatable, mechanical decision — roll it, take assignment risk into account, close it if the thesis breaks. That’s the part I stopped doing manually years ago, and it’s the difference between year 1’s $11,400 lesson and years 3 through 6 actually working.
Curious how mirroring works on a real account? The 7-day free trial connects your account so you can check the fills yourself.
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.
Related reading