Actually, you would be incorrect on both those interpretations since you fail to look at the audience to whom Christ is addressing the story, and the occasion why he was speaking.
If you read Luke 16 you would see, just as I have stated that Jesus had first commended a dishonest manager for his shrewd dealings with how he gave wealth to influence others. I would say that this is hardly a statement that one is saved by works or not saved by works. The Pharisees hearing this parable mocked Jesus because they were lovers of money. What is Jesus response? You are those who JUSTIFY YOURSELVES before men, but God knows your hearts. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the law to become void.
He then castigates these men who were so careful to do works before men though their hearts were not on God. He demonstrates this by repudiating their teachings on divorce which allowed for the dissolution of marriage for any reason (refer to Matthew 5 and 19 for further clarification on Pharisaic teaching about marriage). It is then that Jesus discusses the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, once again, supporting my original statement that Jesus was teaching about placing one’s faith in riches. The contrast that Abraham makes saying that in life the rich man was comforted and Lazarus was in anguish, but now this all has been reversed again punctuates the issue here, which is the placing of one’s faith in riches, just as Luke indicates earlier when stating that the Pharisees loved riches.
The very next chapter highlights faith as we see in the parable of the persistent widow, the tax collector and the Pharisee at the temple, and the ten lepers who were healed.
Once again, your eisegesis makes a mess of the text, and causes your interpretation to be in direct contradiction with those passages that are actually meant to address the issue of how salvation is effected.