Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

SteadyOptions  

View SteadyOptions' Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • 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 | Likes 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 | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why You Shouldn't Put Too Much Weight On Dividends [View article]
    C stock = Citigroup.

    It's all nice and clear in hindsight. I still remember many pundits going on CNBC and recommending buying Citigroup after it dropped from 50 to 20, describing it as a bargain.

    Just to remind you that Citigroup has not recovered yet.

    So my question once again: you say you don't concern about price fluctuations. But if a stock drops by 30-50%, how does a 2% dividend help you? You can tell yourself that it is a paper loss - there is no such thing as paper loss. A loss is a loss.

    Yes, people buy AAPL for growth, they expect to make much more than 2% per year with dividend.

    Also, people forget that dividend comes from company money and is reflected in the stock price. If you believe that the stock will grow, and it does, why not just sell 2-3% of it each year if you need income? It's exactly the same thing.
    May 20, 2015. 08:43 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why You Shouldn't Put Too Much Weight On Dividends [View article]
    The author is making very good points.

    For example, what is the importance of 2% dividend for a stock like AAPL that can move 2% per hours (both up and down)? When C stock lost 99% in 2008, how did 5% dividend help you?
    May 19, 2015. 08:26 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    fritz68,

    I think everyone who looks on my track record can see how successful my overall trading has been. My AAPL trading has always been part of well balanced options portfolio. The same portfolio that continues to provide triple digit returns 4 years in a row (up 62% already in 2015).

    Please note that my comments have been restricted to this article only. It was you and Richard who started to attack me personally. Truth hurts, I know.
    May 19, 2015. 06:27 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Carl Icahn Is Wrong, Apple Is Not Worth $240 Today [View article]
    a good time to buy? Maybe, assuming the markets will recover. Japanese markets are still 50% lower than 20 years ago.
    May 19, 2015. 06:14 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
2,423 Comments
1,121 Likes