Poor Man's Covered Call vs. Covered Call: Which Strategy Is Better?

When it comes to options trading, few strategies are as widely used or as well understood as the covered call. It's straightforward to manage, generates consistent income, and for investors who already own shares, it puts existing stock positions to work.

The Poor Man's Covered Call does the same job differently. Instead of buying 100 shares and selling calls against them, you buy a LEAPS call option and sell calls against that. The income structure is identical. The capital requirement, the return on capital, and the diversification potential are not.

This article runs both strategies through five comparison categories using real Microsoft numbers, then shows you exactly what the math looks like when the stock reaches your strike.

The Core Mechanics

A traditional covered call requires owning 100 shares of the underlying stock. You collect premiums from the calls you sell, reduce your effective cost basis over time, and participate in capital appreciation up to the strike price. Simple. Time-tested. Effective.

The Poor Man's Covered Call substitutes a LEAPS call option for those 100 shares. LEAPS are options with at least one year to expiration. When purchased deep in the money, a LEAPS typically carries a delta of 0.75 to 0.85, meaning it behaves almost like owning stock. You then sell the same short-term calls against the LEAPS that you would against shares, and collect the same premiums.

The difference? A LEAPS position for MSFT at a $330 strike costs approximately $12,500. Buying 100 shares of MSFT at $412 costs $41,200. That is a capital reduction of 69.7%, and that gap is where the PMCC's advantages compound.

Five Categories, Head to Head

1. Capital Requirements

The covered call demands $41,200 to enter a Microsoft position. The PMCC demands $12,500. That is not a minor efficiency gain. For many traders running moderate-sized accounts, the capital requirement of the traditional covered call limits them to one or two positions total. The PMCC opens up genuine diversification.

Winner: Poor Man's Covered Call.

2. Income Potential

Both strategies collect the same premium on the same short call. But return on capital tells a different story. On $41,200, a $350 premium is a 0.85% return. On $12,500, the same $350 is a 2.8% return. The premium did not change. The denominator did.

Winner: Poor Man's Covered Call.

3. Flexibility

Covered call positions are anchored by a large share holding. Adjusting, rolling, or exiting requires moving capital that is already heavily committed. The PMCC, by contrast, carries a smaller position that can be rolled at different strikes and expirations with far less friction. The capital efficiency creates room to adapt.

Winner: Poor Man's Covered Call.

4. Risk and Ownership

The covered call offers full stock exposure, including dividends and capital appreciation. If a special dividend gets announced, you collect it. If the stock doubles over three years, you participate fully. The PMCC gives up dividends and sees its LEAPS gain value through delta exposure rather than actual ownership.

If dividend income is part of your plan, or if you want to hold the underlying stock for reasons beyond income generation, the covered call wins here. If pure income efficiency is your goal, the PMCC still serves you well.

Winner: Depends on your goals. This one is genuinely a draw.

5. Tax Efficiency

Long-term stock holdings can qualify for favorable long-term capital gains treatment. The LEAPS and short calls in a PMCC are typically taxed as short-term options gains. This is the one area where the traditional covered call has a genuine structural advantage. Consult your tax advisor to understand the net impact in your specific situation.

Winner: Covered Call.

The MSFT Numbers: A Direct Statistical Comparison

Microsoft is trading at $412. Both strategies sell the $430 call for $3.50, collecting $350 in premium. The question is what that $350 means relative to each position's capital base.

The covered call enters with $41,200 in shares. If Microsoft reaches $430 at expiration, the position generates $350 in premium and $1,800 in capital appreciation, for a total profit of $2,150 and a return of 5.2%.

The PMCC enters with $12,500 in LEAPS. The same $430 move at a 0.80 delta generates $350 in premium and approximately $1,500 in LEAPS appreciation, for a total profit of $1,850 and a return of 14.8%.

The covered call generated $300 more in total profit. It also required $28,700 more in capital to do it. That capital efficiency gap, not the total dollar profit, is what determines which strategy is actually performing better for the investor running it.

The ROI Tells the Full Story

14.8% on $12,500 versus 5.2% on $41,200. Both positions used the same short call. The gap comes entirely from the capital used to generate it.

One more number worth sitting with: the $28,700 freed by the PMCC does not have to sit in cash. It can fund two to three additional PMCC positions in other names. If each of those generates a comparable 14.8% cycle return, the income multiplication becomes clear in a way the traditional covered call structure cannot match without dramatically more capital.

Who Should Use Which Strategy

The covered call is the right choice when you already own the shares and have no interest in restructuring the position, when dividend income is part of the thesis, or when the tax treatment of long-term equity gains meaningfully affects your after-tax returns. Many investors in this category are already running covered calls on existing holdings and should continue doing so.

The PMCC is the right choice when capital efficiency matters, when you want to run income positions across multiple stocks or sectors without concentrating $40,000 to $50,000 in a single name, or when you are working with a smaller account and want the same kind of income generation that larger accounts access through traditional covered calls.

Neither strategy is universally superior. What matters is matching the structure to your capital base, your tax situation, and your income goals.

Key Takeaways

Both strategies sell the same calls and collect the same premium. The PMCC wins on capital efficiency, return on capital, and flexibility. The covered call wins on tax treatment and dividend access. Risk exposure depends entirely on your objectives.

The math is not close when the criterion is return on capital deployed. A 14.8% cycle return on $12,500 beats a 5.2% cycle return on $41,200, and the freed capital compounds the advantage further when deployed across additional positions.

Start with one position. Learn the mechanics of rolling the short call and managing the LEAPS. After one or two cycles, the choice between these two structures becomes obvious for your situation.

Trade Smart. Trade Thoughtfully.

Andy Crowder

📚 Related Reading: Poor Man’s Covered Calls: The Definitive Guide

🎯 Ready to Elevate Your Options Trading?
Subscribe to The Option Premium, a free weekly newsletter delivering:
✅ Actionable strategies.
✅ Step-by-step trade breakdowns.
✅ Market insights for all conditions (bullish, bearish, or neutral).

📩 Get smarter, more confident trading insights delivered to your inbox every week.

📺 Follow Me on YouTube:
🎥 Explore in-depth tutorials, trade setups, and exclusive content to sharpen your skills.

📘 Join the conversation on Facebook!