Systematic option selling requires a disciplined weekly workflow. After placing orders on Monday morning, Tuesday becomes the follow-up day where you log executed transactions, update cost basis calculations, manage collateral tracking, and verify account balances. This follow-up process takes 15-20 minutes but ensures perfect accuracy across all positions.
This tutorial demonstrates the complete weekly follow-up workflow using real positions in NVAX, RUM, GRAB, and MO. You'll see how to download transaction history from Robinhood, process each transaction type (covered calls, cash-secured puts), manage collateral for put positions, track cost basis changes, and reconcile account balances to catch data entry errors.
The systematic approach prevents the errors that plague manual tracking: missed transactions, incorrect collateral calculations, forgotten positions, and cost basis confusion. Following this workflow week after week builds the accurate historical data that enables confident decision-making about strike selection, position sizing, and portfolio management.
The weekly follow-up starts with downloading transaction history from your brokerage. Robinhood provides a transaction history page where you can select date ranges and download CSV files containing all executed orders. This standardized data format makes processing transactions systematic and repeatable.
The first transaction was a new cash-secured put on GRAB. The $2.50 strike, December 16th expiration, sold for $0.05 ($5 total for one contract). Weekly options weren't offering enough premium, so extending to three weeks provided meaningful income even though the premium per day was lower than ideal.
Processing this transaction required entering: ticker symbol (GRAB), transaction type (sell to open put), quantity (1 contract), expiration date (December 16th), strike price ($2.50), and premium received ($5). After saving, the position appears in active tracking with the new put obligation recorded.
The next GRAB transaction was selling two covered calls at the $3.50 strike, December 16th expiration, for $0.05 each ($10 total). Same three-week duration to generate worthwhile premium. Both the put and call positions now appear in active tracking, showing GRAB as a bilateral position where income can be collected whether the stock moves up or down.
The MO position involved selling one covered call at the $45.50 strike, December 2nd expiration (weekly), for $0.14 ($14 total). This stock generates reliable weekly income with strikes placed just above current price to maximize probability of expiring worthless while collecting premium.
Higher-priced stocks like MO generate better absolute premium per contract compared to lower-priced stocks. A $14 premium from a single contract represents nearly 1% weekly return on the underlying capital, demonstrating why dividend aristocrats and blue-chip stocks work well for systematic covered call strategies.
NVAX had two new positions opened. First, a cash-secured put at the $16.50 strike, December 2nd expiration (weekly), for $0.50 ($50 total). This put creates the opportunity to acquire 100 additional shares at $16.50 if assigned, which would lower overall cost basis on an already-held position.
Second, three covered calls at the $28.00 strike, December 16th expiration (three weeks), for $0.10 each ($30 total for three contracts). The $28.00 strike sits right at the simple cost basis without premium, representing a breakeven exit if assigned. However, the premium-adjusted cost basis is significantly lower at $26, meaning assignment at $28 would actually generate profit.
This demonstrates the importance of tracking both cost basis numbers. Simple cost basis (average purchase price) tells you where you break even ignoring premium. Premium-adjusted cost basis (average cost after premium collection) tells you where you actually break even after accounting for all income collected. The $2 difference between these numbers in NVAX represents hundreds of dollars in collected premium reducing effective cost.
RUM had two positions opened. First, two covered calls at the $12.00 strike, December 9th expiration (two weeks), for $0.07 each ($14 total). Second, one cash-secured put at the $9.00 strike, December 2nd expiration (weekly), for $0.40 ($40 total).
The put strike at $9.00 sits well below current price, offering high probability of expiring worthless while still collecting $40 in premium. If assigned, it would add 100 shares at $9.00, further lowering cost basis on an existing position. The bilateral approach (calls above, puts below) creates income regardless of price movement within the range.
After logging all transactions, the tutorial revealed a critical step that's easy to forget: updating collateral requirements for cash-secured puts. Every put contract requires $100 of collateral per dollar of strike price (one contract controls 100 shares). Failing to track this collateral creates inaccurate buying power calculations and portfolio utilization metrics.
The RUM position included one put contract at the $9.00 strike. This requires $900 in collateral (100 shares × $9.00 strike price). Before updating collateral, the system showed 300 shares and no collateral. After updating to 400 shares (300 actual + 100 potential) and $900 collateral, the cost basis calculations automatically adjusted.
This collateral tracking matters because it shows your true exposure. The 300 actual shares might represent $3,000 in capital. The additional $900 in collateral for the put brings total capital committed to this position to $3,900. Without tracking this, you might think you have more available capital for new positions than you actually do.
NVAX had one put contract at the $16.50 strike, requiring $1,650 in collateral. Updating from 300 shares to 400 shares (with $1,650 collateral) showed how this proposed assignment would affect cost basis. The premium-adjusted cost basis would drop to approximately $25 if the put is assigned, demonstrating how systematic put selling below current positions reduces average cost over time.
GRAB had one put at the $2.50 strike, requiring $250 in collateral. Updating from 200 shares to 300 shares (with $250 collateral) showed the proposed cost basis dropping to the low $3 range. Since covered calls are being sold at $3.50, there's a clear profit margin built into the strategy even accounting for potential assignment.
The NVAX position demonstrates the bilateral cost reduction strategy. With simple cost basis at $28 and premium-adjusted cost basis at $26, selling calls at $28 and puts at $16.50 creates multiple paths to improvement.
If NVAX stays below $16.50 through December 2nd, the put is assigned and 100 shares are purchased at $16.50. This brings total shares to 400 (300 current + 100 new) and lowers the simple cost basis because shares were added at $16.50, well below the $28 average.
The premium-adjusted cost basis drops even further because you collected $50 premium on the put plus whatever premium the $28 calls generated. Each dollar of premium collected reduces the effective cost per share across the entire position.
If NVAX rallies above $28 by December 16th, the calls are assigned and 300 shares are sold at $28. With premium-adjusted cost basis at $26, this generates $2 profit per share ($600 total) plus you keep all premium collected from both calls and puts.
This exit at $28 represents breakeven on simple cost basis but profit on premium-adjusted cost basis. The strategy is designed to either reduce cost through put assignments (accumulating shares cheaper) or exit with profit through call assignments (selling shares above premium-adjusted cost).
If NVAX trades between $16.50 and $28.00, both positions expire worthless. You keep the $50 from the put plus $30 from the calls ($80 total). This $80 further reduces premium-adjusted cost basis without any share count changes, improving your position for the next week's premium collection.
Over many weeks, collecting $50-$100 in premium while the stock consolidates in a range can reduce premium-adjusted cost basis to zero. At that point, you effectively own the shares for free after accounting for all income collected. Any sale above $0 becomes pure profit.
After processing all transactions and updating collateral, checking the dashboard revealed a critical error: portfolio utilization showed negative 8%, meaning the system calculated more capital committed than the account actually contained. This impossible number indicated missing or incorrect data.
Systematically reviewing each position revealed the problem: RIG showed $800 in collateral despite no active positions. This $800 represented an old put position that had expired or been closed, but the collateral hadn't been removed from tracking.
Cleaning up this error meant zeroing out both shares and collateral for RIG. Immediately, the portfolio utilization jumped from negative 8% to a realistic 0.21%, showing that only 21 cents of every dollar was currently deployed in positions.
A second error appeared in MVIS: 200 shares with put collateral tracked, but no actual put position existed. Only covered calls were active on MVIS, which don't require collateral tracking (you own the shares outright). Removing the phantom collateral corrected the position.
These errors weren't obvious until dashboard reconciliation revealed the impossible portfolio utilization number. Without systematic checking, the errors would persist and compound. You might think you have less available capital than reality (missing opportunities) or more available capital than reality (overextending positions).
The reconciliation process catches these errors immediately. When tracked balance matches brokerage balance exactly, you know every transaction is logged correctly. When they diverge, you know something was missed or entered wrong, and you can fix it before making decisions based on bad data.
The dashboard showed approximately $200 in premium collected for the week. While lower than some previous weeks, this represented realistic expectations when holding positions through consolidation periods rather than constantly trading in and out.
The tutorial mentioned averaging around $1,500 in monthly premium collection across the portfolio. This provides a clear income target: $1,500 per month represents $18,000 annually, or approximately 24% return on a $75,000 account (the tracked account balance shown).
Breaking this down to weekly targets: $1,500 monthly ÷ 4.3 weeks = approximately $350 per week average. Some weeks generate $500+, other weeks generate $200. The key is consistency over time, not perfection in every individual week.
The tutorial highlighted Robinhood's 3.75% interest rate on uninvested cash (compared to the historical 0.25%). With approximately $75,000 in the account but only $160 actively deployed in positions (0.21% utilization), roughly $74,840 was earning 3.75% interest.
This interest compounds the option selling income. The $75,000 earning 3.75% generates approximately $2,800 annually in interest. Combined with $18,000 in option premiums, total account income approaches $20,800 annually (27.7% total return) without taking excessive risk or maintaining high capital utilization.
The low utilization (0.21%) represents a conservative approach where capital preservation matters more than maximum income. This philosophy prioritizes having cash available for opportunities, avoiding overextension that could force position closures at inopportune times, and maintaining flexibility to adjust strategies as markets change.
The tutorial included commentary about which positions to maintain and which to exit. This strategic thinking demonstrates how systematic traders evaluate underlyings not just for current profitability but for long-term premium generation potential.
MO (Altria) had a covered call at $45.50 with current price at $45.10. If the stock rallies just $0.40 by Friday, the shares get called away at $45.50, creating a profitable exit. After exiting, the plan is to avoid re-entering MO because the premiums don't justify the capital required for a $45 stock.
This calculation matters: if MO requires $4,500 per 100 shares but only generates $14-20 in weekly premium, that's 0.31-0.44% weekly return. Compare this to lower-priced stocks with higher volatility that might generate $30-50 weekly premium on $1,000-2,000 in capital (1.5-5% weekly return). Capital allocation matters.
The tutorial mentioned wanting to get back into TLRY (Tilray) and FUBO once capital becomes available. These stocks offer better premium-to-capital ratios because they're lower-priced with higher option volume and volatility.
TLRY specifically was noted as highly traded in options markets, meaning tight spreads and consistent liquidity for weekly strikes. High options volume creates better pricing (narrower bid-ask spreads) and ensures you can enter and exit positions without significant slippage.
BBIG had previously generated good income but dropped too low in price to maintain bilateral trading. When a stock gets down to $0.50 or $1.00, there's nowhere to place puts below current price. The only strikes available might be $0.50 and then $0, eliminating the downside income opportunity.
This explains the preference for stocks in the $5-50 range: enough price to allow strikes both above (calls) and below (puts) with meaningful premium, but not so expensive that capital requirements become prohibitive. The "sweet spot" underlyings balance volatility, liquidity, and capital efficiency.
The tutorial showcased several MyATMM platform features that make systematic weekly options trading practical. These features transform chaotic position management into organized strategy execution.
The ability to download brokerage transaction history as CSV and process it systematically saves time and reduces errors. Rather than manually typing each transaction from memory, you're working directly from brokerage data, ensuring accuracy.
Tracking both simple cost basis (purchase average) and premium-adjusted cost basis (purchase average minus premium collected) provides the two numbers needed for decision-making. Simple basis shows where to place calls for breakeven exits. Premium-adjusted basis shows your true breakeven after income collection.
Many traders only know their simple cost basis, leading to overly conservative call strikes that leave money on the table. Knowing your premium-adjusted basis is $2-5 lower enables selling calls at higher strikes that still guarantee profit.
The platform's collateral tracking for puts shows proposed cost basis if puts are assigned. This forward-looking calculation answers the question: "If I sell this put and get assigned, what will my new cost basis be?" Without this calculation, you're guessing whether a put assignment helps or hurts your position.
All open options display with days to expiration, strikes, and premium collected. This consolidated view ensures you never forget about a position or miss an expiration. When managing 5-10 underlyings with weekly and monthly expirations staggered, this visibility prevents costly mistakes.
The portfolio utilization percentage (capital committed ÷ total capital) shows how much of your buying power is deployed. This metric helps maintain discipline—if you target 30% utilization but drift to 60%, you know you're overextended and should let positions expire before adding new ones.
Comparing tracked balance (sum of all logged transactions) against brokerage balance catches errors immediately. Perfect accuracy requires these numbers to match exactly. Any divergence signals a missed transaction or data entry error that needs investigation.
Consistent option income doesn't come from brilliant market predictions or complex strategies. It comes from systematic execution of a simple workflow: place orders, follow up on executions, log transactions accurately, manage collateral, reconcile balances, and repeat weekly.
This tutorial demonstrated the Tuesday follow-up process in detail: downloading brokerage data, processing each transaction type, updating collateral for puts, verifying cost basis calculations, catching data errors through reconciliation, and reviewing overall portfolio status. The entire workflow takes 15-20 minutes but ensures perfect position tracking.
The value of this discipline compounds over time. Accurate historical data enables informed decisions about strike selection (knowing your true breakeven points). Systematic position tracking prevents forgotten expirations or missed opportunities. Regular reconciliation catches errors before they cascade into serious problems.
The positions reviewed—NVAX, RUM, GRAB, MO—demonstrate various tactical approaches within the overall strategy. NVAX shows bilateral cost reduction with puts below and calls near breakeven. RUM shows wide-strike bilateral income collection. GRAB shows extended duration to capture meaningful premium on lower-priced stocks. MO shows the exit decision when premiums don't justify capital requirements.
MyATMM provides the infrastructure that makes this systematic approach practical. Without organized transaction logging, cost basis tracking, collateral management, and balance reconciliation, you're essentially flying blind—hoping your mental model of position status matches reality. With systematic tracking, you know exactly where you stand on every position at every moment.
The modest $200 weekly premium from this follow-up represents realistic sustainable income rather than aggressive overtrading. Combined with 3.75% interest on cash and low portfolio utilization (maintaining capital safety), this approach prioritizes consistency and capital preservation over maximum extraction.
Start with this weekly workflow: download transactions, process systematically, update collateral, verify balances, review dashboard. Repeat every Tuesday. The habit builds accurate data, which enables confident decisions, which generates consistent income over months and years.
Options trading involves significant risk and is not suitable for all investors. Selling cash-secured puts obligates you to purchase shares at the strike price if assigned, which can result in substantial losses if the underlying stock declines significantly. Covered calls cap upside potential and do not protect against downside risk beyond the premium received.
The positions discussed (NVAX, RUM, GRAB, MO) involve stocks with varying levels of volatility and risk. Past premium collection does not guarantee future income. Market conditions can change rapidly, affecting option premiums and assignment probability.
Maintaining low portfolio utilization reduces risk but also limits income potential. The 3.75% interest rate mentioned is subject to change without notice. This content is for educational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice or a recommendation to trade any specific security.
MyATMM logs transactions, tracks dual cost basis (simple and premium-adjusted), manages put collateral, and reconciles balances automatically—eliminating the errors that plague manual tracking.
Track up to 3 tickers completely free. No credit card required.
Start Your Weekly Follow-Up Workflow TodayJoin systematic traders who never miss a transaction or forget a position