Custom analysis
Send a question. Get a quote before any work starts.
If the standard breakdown does not answer what you are trying to work out, ask the question. We reply with what we would measure, what the document would contain, and a fixed price. Nothing is charged unless you accept the quote.
How it works
- You send the question and the ticker or structure it is about.
- We reply with a scope and a fixed price, usually inside one business day. If it is not something we can answer well, we say so instead of quoting.
- You accept and pay by a payment link for that quote, and the document follows on the date in the quote. Change your mind before paying and nothing happens.
Sample, cut down
What one looks like
Taken from a real working dated 29 October 2026 and cut down for this page. Everything about the original reader's own positions has been removed. The figures were marked from delayed option prices on that date and are out of date now. This is an example of the format, not advice and not a recommendation to trade any of it.
The question
How does a long-dated call spread on GLD behave if gold falls further before it recovers, and which strike pair pays on a partial recovery rather than only on a new high?
Verdict, in three lines
- The wide, higher-strike spread (A) is a new-high bet. It breaks even at expiry only if GLD rises about 24%, and pays in full only above gold's previous closing high.
- A drops to about half its cost on an immediate 10% fall, and loses more than a third of its cost if the price is flat for six months. The lower pair (B) breaks even at about +13% and decays at about half A's weekly rate.
- B gives up upside to get there: about 3.2x cost at best against A's 5.9x. Which one fits is a question about the path you expect, which only the reader can answer.
The two structures side by side
| structure | breakeven at expiry | best case | decay per week, flat price |
|---|---|---|---|
| A (wide, higher strikes) | +24.3% | 5.9x | 0.9% of cost |
| B (lower strikes) | +12.7% | 3.2x | 0.4% of cost |
Scenario matrices
Each cell is the spread's modelled value as a multiple of what it cost, by GLD's move from the starting price (columns) and by date (rows). 1.00x is breakeven. The marks are a standard option model with each leg held at its own implied volatility; they are models, not forecasts. The original also ran each matrix with volatility five points lower, which is left out here.
Structure A: wide call spread, strikes about 22% and 36% above the price, 15 months
| date / price move | -15% | -10% | -5% | 0% | +5% | +10% | +15% | +20% | +25% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| today | 0.33x | 0.49x | 0.69x | 0.93x | 1.21x | 1.50x | 1.82x | 2.15x | 2.48x |
| +1 month | 0.29x | 0.45x | 0.65x | 0.89x | 1.17x | 1.47x | 1.80x | 2.14x | 2.48x |
| +3 months | 0.23x | 0.37x | 0.56x | 0.80x | 1.08x | 1.40x | 1.75x | 2.11x | 2.48x |
| +6 months | 0.13x | 0.24x | 0.40x | 0.63x | 0.91x | 1.25x | 1.64x | 2.05x | 2.48x |
| +12 months | 0.00x | 0.01x | 0.03x | 0.10x | 0.26x | 0.55x | 1.00x | 1.61x | 2.33x |
| expiry | 0.00x | 0.00x | 0.00x | 0.00x | 0.00x | 0.00x | 0.00x | 0.00x | 1.29x |
Structure B: lower call spread, strikes about 9% and 22% above the price, same expiry
| date / price move | -15% | -10% | -5% | 0% | +5% | +10% | +15% | +20% | +25% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| today | 0.41x | 0.57x | 0.75x | 0.94x | 1.15x | 1.35x | 1.56x | 1.75x | 1.93x |
| +1 month | 0.38x | 0.54x | 0.72x | 0.92x | 1.14x | 1.35x | 1.56x | 1.76x | 1.95x |
| +3 months | 0.33x | 0.49x | 0.67x | 0.88x | 1.11x | 1.34x | 1.57x | 1.79x | 1.99x |
| +6 months | 0.23x | 0.38x | 0.57x | 0.80x | 1.05x | 1.31x | 1.58x | 1.83x | 2.06x |
| +12 months | 0.02x | 0.06x | 0.18x | 0.39x | 0.71x | 1.13x | 1.59x | 2.03x | 2.41x |
| expiry | 0.00x | 0.00x | 0.00x | 0.00x | 0.00x | 0.36x | 1.55x | 2.73x | 3.22x |
What the original went on to cover, left out of this cut: today's tape and the levels that matter, base rates from past years starting on the same date, what would make the view wrong, and a wider table of alternative strike pairs ranked by cost, liquidity and decay.
Pricing
Quoted per question. The price depends on how many instruments are involved and how much has to be built from scratch, so there is no list price. You see a fixed number before you pay anything, and it does not change after you accept.
Ordering the standard breakdown on one or more tickers instead? Those have list prices on the pricing page.
Send a question
Write it the way you would ask a colleague. Do not send account details, position sizes or what you paid: we do not need them and the analysis will not use them.
What we will not do
We analyse the instrument or structure in the question. We do not tell anyone what to buy or sell, how much to put in, or whether something suits their situation, and we decline a question that can only be answered that way.
Not investment advice. Not a recommendation. No prediction of future prices. Technical indicators disagree with each other routinely, including in this document. Securities can and do move opposite to every indicator on this page at the same time. You can lose money, including your entire position. We publish no performance record and claim none. No figure in this document should be read as evidence that following it would have produced a profit.