AAPL tape — desk read
AAPL’s fresh tape was constructively bullish, driven primarily by aggressive call buying and near-term put selling. The strongest flow accompanied the 10:00–12:00 rally. Momentum faded during the afternoon, but the bearish counterflow was not large enough to reverse the full-day signal.
AAPL moved from $316.85 to $319.87, up $3.03 or 0.95%. It traded down to $315.60 shortly after the open, rallied to $322.27 at 11:47, and then surrendered about $2.40 from that high.
Core tape statistics
- 98,874 trades
- 557,731 contracts
- $258.3 million gross option premium
- Calls: $200.8 million, or 77.7%
- Puts: $57.5 million, or 22.3%
- Explicit spread premium: $87.9 million, or 34.0%
- Raw classified single-leg delta: +1.73 million shares
- Exact-deduplicated delta: +1.67 million shares
- Continuous quote-location estimate: +1.75 million shares
- Clearly classified bearish-premium share: 37.4%
- Bid/ask side unknown: 57.5% of premium
Raw, deduplicated and continuous estimates all agree. That alignment makes the bullish directional conclusion considerably stronger than the gross call/put ratio alone.
Session progression
| Session | AAPL move | Classified delta | Read |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09:30–10:00 | −$0.48 | +67,000 | Calls accumulated into the early weakness |
| 10:00–12:00 | +$4.60 | +1.57 million | Dominant bullish impulse |
| 12:00–14:00 | −$1.82 | +234,000 | Constructive flow persisted during the pullback |
| 14:00–15:30 | −$0.03 | −195,000 | Profit-taking and defensive hedging appeared |
| 15:30–16:00 | +$0.32 | +51,000 | Mild positive stabilization |
| Last 30 minutes | +$0.02 | +14,600 | Essentially neutral; below the materiality threshold |
The key event was the morning. Call purchases totaled approximately $30.4 million between 10:00 and noon versus $10.6 million in classified call sales. Put sales also exceeded purchases by roughly two to one during that phase.
The midday divergence is noteworthy: AAPL fell $1.82 from noon to 14:00, yet classified option delta remained +234,000. Buyers continued accepting upside exposure during the retreat from $322.
Principal bullish campaigns
The bullish activity was concentrated around the $317.50–$325 area across several near-term expirations:
- September 2 $317.50 calls: +272,000 delta. Approximately 5,191 bought versus 408 sold, representing $2.07 million in classified purchases. Deduplicated result remained +265,000.
- August 31 $322.50 puts: +337,000 from put selling. Approximately 8,790 sold versus 3,118 bought, with $2.54 million sold. Deduplicated result remained +333,000.
- September 4 $322.50 calls: +178,000; 4,682 bought versus 990 sold.
- September 4 $325 puts: +160,000 from put selling; $2.12 million sold versus $653,000 bought.
- September 2 $325 calls: +157,000; 5,594 bought versus 660 sold.
- September 18 $325 calls: +98,000; 2,524 bought versus 342 sold.
- October $320 calls: +48,000.
- December 2028 $450 calls: nearly 1,000 bought against six sold, representing $2.71 million in classified purchases.
That combination—buying calls near and above spot while selling puts around $322.50–$325—is consistent with traders expressing bullish exposure from both sides of the option surface.
The expiration results were similarly broad:
- September 2: +481,000 delta
- September 4: +367,000
- August 31: +335,000
- September 18: +229,000
Only three minor expirations finished negative, and none exceeded −5,000 delta. The directional concentration was therefore not isolated to one contract.
Bearish opposition
The most important counterflows were:
- August 31 $320 puts: −100,000 delta, beginning at 13:06 and continuing through the close. Approximately 3,626 were bought versus 1,424 sold. This looks like afternoon downside protection and remained −93,000 after deduplication.
- October $360 calls: −99,000, with 10,618 sold versus 710 bought. This is strong upside-overwriting evidence, though it is far above spot.
- September $350 calls: −45,000 from call selling.
- September 4 $320 calls: −42,000, but nearly half the contract’s activity was spread-tagged, making the outright interpretation less clean.
- January 2027 $360 calls: −27,000, though 78% of that contract was spread-related.
The opposition therefore consisted of afternoon hedging and selling of farther-out upside. It did not erase the much larger buying around $317.50–$325.
Spread and package read
Most large spread packages could be linked structurally but not assigned a reliable direction because their legs printed at midpoint or inside the market.
Notable campaigns included:
- September 4 $320/$330 calls: approximately 2,275 matched contracts and $1.06 million gross premium; likely a vertical campaign, but direction unknown.
- December $230/$235 calls: $1.33 million gross; side unknown.
- December $220/$225 calls: $1.06 million; side unknown.
- March 2027 $250/$260 calls: 59 matched and approximately $904,000 gross; side unknown.
- September $310/$330 calls: 414 matched and $764,000 gross; side unknown.
The largest high-confidence defensive package was only a 26-lot purchase of September 25 $330 and $340 puts, producing about −3,700 delta. It was too small to change the broader read.
Bottom line
My diagnosis is:
A broad bullish accumulation session, led by near-term call buying and put selling, with afternoon hedging and upside overwriting after the morning rally became extended.
The flow suggests $317.50–$320 attracted bullish interest, while $322.27–$325 is the immediate area the stock must reclaim to confirm continuation. The close was stable but not emphatic, so this is better described as constructive positioning than a closing breakout signal.
The primary risk to the bullish interpretation is continued buying of the August 31 $320 puts combined with renewed selling of the $320–$325 calls. Conversely, continued $317.50–$325 call buying and put selling would confirm that the afternoon fade was consolidation rather than distribution.
Data caveats: 6,703 exact duplicate-excess rows were present, and 23 contracts reached exactly 1,000 prints, indicating possible export caps. The full-day bullish conclusion survives exact deduplication. Bid/ask classification does not establish customer identity, and without open-interest changes the tape cannot prove whether trades opened or closed positions.