Intel Corporation closed at USD 92.80, down 4.02 %.

Intel’s sharp decline came alongside an unusually active large-options tape. A single short strangle collected a net credit of $15.10 million by selling both the January 2028 $100 put and $100 call, while a separate $2.28 million in-the-money put purchase showed a more explicitly bearish stance. The mix of premium-selling and long downside protection created a cautious tone, with bearish bulk flow exceeding bullish flow by $6.56 million.

>>>Click to claim your commission-free cards before trading!

Options Indicators

INTC’s implied volatility stands at 64.93%, while its IV percentile is 33.47%, which places current volatility conditions in a broadly neutral zone rather than an extreme. At the same time, the IV/HV ratio of 0.84 suggests implied volatility is running below historical volatility, indicating that despite the relatively high absolute IV level, current option premiums are not especially stretched and can be viewed as leaning slightly inexpensive rather than richly priced.

The Call/Put volume ratio is 1.81.

Large Trades

A combination option trade with a $15.10 million net credit was the standout block, structured as a two-leg short strangle by selling the January 21, 2028 $100.0 put and selling the January 21, 2028 $100.0 call. With INTC referenced at $92.8, the put leg was in the money while the call leg was out of the money, and the defining feature of the position is the premium intake rather than outright premium spending. This kind of short volatility structure points to a premium-collection strategy, typically expressing the view that the stock will remain relatively contained over time or that implied volatility is rich enough to sell, while also potentially reflecting a willingness to take assignment risk on either side around the $100 level.

A PUT buy worth $2.28 million was the other key large trade, involving the purchase of 1,600 contracts of the September 4, 2026 $106.0 put. With the stock at $92.8, this strike was in the money, making it a relatively expensive bearish position with meaningful intrinsic value already embedded. The use of long in-the-money puts suggests a more deliberate downside stance or a hedge against continued weakness, as the buyer paid substantial premium for downside exposure with a longer-dated maturity and a strike comfortably above the current stock price.

Overall, the bulk-order flow leaned bearish, with $8.97 million in bullish activity versus $15.53 million in bearish activity, for a bearish imbalance of $6.56 million. The directional conclusion is clearly negative: while there was some supportive flow from repeated put selling and selective upside call buying, the largest trade on the tape was a sizeable premium-selling combination with risk on both sides, and the second-largest displayed trade was a meaningful long in-the-money put purchase that directly signaled downside protection or bearish conviction. Taken together, the large-trade profile suggests cautious-to-bearish institutional sentiment rather than a confident upside chase.

Strategy Reference

For traders with a neutral-to-bearish view and limited margin appetite, a put debit spread using the September 2026 $106/$90 strikes offers defined risk while aligning with the institutional put-buying signal, whereas a short strangle seller could consider a wider January 2028 $80/$120 structure to reduce assignment probability around the $100 level.