Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

SteadyOptions  

View SteadyOptions' Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    Not only I never said it's a free lunch, but I'm always telling my members that it's a hard work that requires effort and time commitment. Whether you decide the results are worth the time, is up to you.

    Here is a direct quote from our home page: "SteadyOptions is not a get-rich-quick-without... kind of newsletter." We never promise or guarantee any results like other services do.

    We use a mix of Non-directional strategies. Some of them benefit from theta (calendars, condors), some from gamma (straddles, strangles). They are designed to balance the portfolio. No strategy works all the time. Sure you can buy calls as a stock replacement, but this is leverage and would work both ways (if the stock goes down, you lose more too). Buying AAPL calls in 2012 would produce 100% loss most of the time even if you went deep ITM.

    Our options strategies are designed to limit risk. It it very rare for those trades to lose more than 10-15%, and we allocated 10% per trade, so overall portfolio risk is no more than 1-2% per trade most of the time. But the gains are still in 15-20% range. You achieve similar risk/reward with stocks or directional options strategies.

    That said, I have been in this business for long enough and I know that there is more than one way to make money in the stock market. if being long AAPL works for you - good. The problem is that if each time I present any other strategy except for being 100% long AAPL, I become a fraud and enemy of the state. And this is the biggest issue I have with Apple fanboys.
    May 23, 2015. 01:04 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    Yes, we updated the page in order not to give people like you the slightest excuse to accuse us of not being fully transparent (although the previous presentation had a full disclosure of all the facts).

    Anchor traded live both models (ETFs and stocks) and members could select which model to follow. Both models are real and live from 2012 to 2015, and this is what we present on the performance page. When it's backtesting, we clearly mention that.

    The stock model performed much better than ETFs in 2012, but we present ETFs performance for all years for consistency. It shows you how to protect the long portfolio with minimal or no cost, and this is the main idea of the Anchor. Many members select to stay with their own stocks portfolio and follow only the hedging part. Members with 500k portfolios find 1k/year to be a very reasonable cost of sleeping well at night.
    May 23, 2015. 12:52 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    Willy Shoemaker,

    As expected, you ignored my question how your calls would perform in 2012.

    If buying calls on AAPL works for you, by all means continue doing it. My point is that it works - till it doesn't. If you can recognize the point when it stops working (in advance), good for you.

    My strategies work for me. They allow me not to be dependent on market direction, not to be afraid of corrections or crashes, not to care about fundamentals etc. it's definitely not for everyone, but the outperformance is obvious for everyone who looks on our website.

    Yes, I'm "really good at this game", and I can enjoy to generate income from my trading AND the service. What's wrong with that? I don't lead people away from AAPL and I don't force people to do anything. I teach my members how to trade options my way. No more, no less. You like it? Fine. You don't? Feel free to cancel anytime.

    Most our members do, and enjoy gains that most buy and hold investors can only dream of.
    May 23, 2015. 10:47 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    fritz68,

    ALL returns on our performance page are REAL and live results. Since some of our services are relatively new, but the strategies have been used for years, we present on individual strategies pages longer history. But we always mention when some of the results are backtested, like on SC page: "The following table presents a combination of backtested and actual results based on our current model of a $20k unit. Live trading started in September 2012 as reflected on the performance page." It cannot get any more transparent than that.

    In less than 4 years, SteadyOptions became one of the most successful options trading resources on the web. SteadyOptions is the highest ranked newsletter and is consistently ranked among the top five newsletters by Pro-Trading-Profits, producing over 400% return since inception. We achieved this with zero advertising and marketing. I assume we must be doing something right to get where we are today.

    As one of our members said: "I would be willing to bet that Kim and his site to be one of ... if not THE most accurate, concise, realistic and transparent sites out there, ESPECIALLY when it comes to performance reporting."

    If we were not transparent, we could attract members to join, but not to stay. With 10 days free trial, it's very easy to spot a fraud.
    May 23, 2015. 10:38 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    So I guess we are clear now about SteadyOptions and Steady Condors performance? At least have the decency to say that you are wrong.

    31% refers to the ETF model, 11% refers to stocks model (we were running both models till 2014). The stocks model significantly outperformed in 2012 but significantly underperformed in 2013. To eliminate the effect of stock selection, it has been decided to switch to ETF model in 2014, and all results on the performance page refer to live trading of ETF model.

    As for comparison to S&P - "The Anchor strategy's s primary objective is to have positive returns in all market conditions on an annual basis."

    In years where the market is operating in positive conditions the strategy targets lagging the S&P 500 by two to three percent. In neutral markets the strategy targets a five to seven percent return. And in negative market years the strategy targets a return of five to seven percent. In extreme down years (defined as a return on the S&P 500 of under -10%), could lead to outsized gains. In 2008 the strategy would return +4%.

    The impact of not experiencing losses in down market years, while only slightly lagging (if lagging at all) in positive and neutral years, is astronomical over any extended period of time. Even in prolonged bull markets, the returns should still be positive and lag negligibly behind. The peace of mind which comes with being fully hedged more than compensates for the potential of slightly underperforming the market as a whole in prolonged bull scenarios.

    Thank you for the opportunity to present and explain all our services.
    May 22, 2015. 06:43 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    And he is planning a fourth article. Who said that the holy grail doesn't exist?
    May 22, 2015. 06:29 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    The 2011-2014 results are for SteadyOptions service. Can't you even read? Those are fully live results, all trades included screenshots with my broker fills and can be verified.

    Very small account? Our recommended portfolio size is 10-100k. Even if you traded only 50k each year, you would double your account every 12-18 months (including commissions). Our results are fully verified by third party website pro-trading-profits.

    Twitter is really "good" example. In fact, we never traded it. But we do trade the most liquid stocks and ETFs (SPY, TLT, GOOG, AAPL, MSFT, VIX, TSLA, FB, SPX, NKE, RUT, INTC and much more). All results are on the performance page. Every single trade.
    May 22, 2015. 04:22 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    I also post a link to the performance page, with clear disclaimer that the results on the performance page are the real results.

    Nobody in his right mind would subscribe to a service before visiting the performance page. This is the first place people go.

    Comparison to S&P is irrelevant since those are non-directional strategies. They are designed to make money in any market. But if you want to compare - lets compare: the same condors service produced 32% return so far in 2015, while S&P returned how much? It erased the 2014 losses within 4 months.

    And our SteadyOptions service returned 62% so far in 2015, and 126% average annual return in 2011-2014. Still want to compare to S&P?

    Your hatred simply blinds you.
    May 22, 2015. 03:52 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why You Shouldn't Put Too Much Weight On Dividends [View article]
    mjs_28s,

    This article was just an example. I'm sure you can find many US companies, some of them pretty famous, that still haven't recovered from 2008 crisis. Citigroup is one example. How about BAC, 70% below 2008 levels?

    My issue is with ""Dividends are the only thing that matters, dummy," argument, not with well educated investors who look at dividends as a bonus, not the main thing.
    May 22, 2015. 03:35 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    You obviously missed (on purpose or not) the following part in the post:

    "Actual Steady Condors trading results prior to July 2014 on the performance page reflect an original unit size of $40,000 and more active risk management methodology that has since been updated to the current model."

    All our results on the performance page are REAL results. In fact, Steady Condors service reports performance on the whole account, based on real fills and include commissions. Very few (if any) services do that.
    May 22, 2015. 02:02 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why You Shouldn't Put Too Much Weight On Dividends [View article]
    It's not always easy to see in REAL TIME that the price decline is due to fundamentals and not some temporary market anomaly. How did you know that nothing changed in INTC fundamentals when it declined 30%? What was the reason for the decline?

    Many times you realize that fundamentals have changed after it's too late. Sometimes the decline is too sharp and quick that you don't have enough time to analyze. You just keep buying more all the way down.

    For example, in 2013, Over 45% of NSE stocks trading below 2008 lows - http://bit.ly/1AjWciJ. I don't know what the number are today, but I'm sure there are still a LOT of stocks that did not recover. For those stocks, those are not paper losses - they might not recover for decades.

    Dividends matter, but they are definitely not the only thing that matters. Stock price still matters very much.
    May 22, 2015. 01:50 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why You Shouldn't Put Too Much Weight On Dividends [View article]
    I think you guys are missing my point. I'm not saying dividends are not important. All I'm saying is that stock prices matter too. In the example of INTC, the stock went down 30% and recovered. Not all stocks recover. What if the stock goes down 30% and doesn't recover? Yes, theoretically it is still a paper loss. But in this case I assume the dividend would be at risk as well. So you are left with stock that is worth 30% (and might take years to recover) AND much less (or no) dividend.

    Sure, everyone says today that Citigroup is not a good example. But this is hindsight. Before 2007-2008 crisis, Citigroup was considered one of the safest stocks, with excellent dividend. It was in almost everyone's portfolio.
    May 22, 2015. 09:47 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    There is only one slight problem with this "Purchase History": there is absolutely no way to verify it. Start posting your trades on the web in REAL TIME like I do (all trades, not cherry picked), and then we can talk and compare performance.

    Did you buy AAPL calls in 2012 when AAPL was $705? That wouldn't end very well. Yea, I know - "this time it's different".
    May 22, 2015. 09:04 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: Carl Icahn Gets It Mostly Right [View article]
    The simple truth is that NOBODY including Icahn can predict how much any stock will be worth a year from now. A stock is worth exactly what the market is ready to pay for it. And the market is never wrong.

    Predictions is a fool game. Google "Why You Should NOT Trust Investment Gurus" and you will see what I mean. (cannot post link here)
    May 20, 2015. 10:29 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    "The way I see it, the only reason AAPL stock is not yet at $140 is because the market has a problem with math."

    The way I see it, when the author sets a price target that has less than 2% probability (according to the options markets), it's the author who has a problem with math, not the market.
    May 20, 2015. 09:00 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
2,472 Comments
1,221 Likes