Seeking Alpha

fritz68

fritz68
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View fritz68's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • May 31st - Its Never "Easy" Is It  [View instapost]
    Great series of instablogs F&G, objective analysis free of hyperbole with fantastic combination of breadth and depth.
    May 31, 2015. 04:00 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    The 130 puts only have a higher return if it stays below 135. Above 135 and owning stock wins. You also have capital gains on your trade. And what do you do if you´re assigned stock but prefer to trade puts? Yes, you´re in at a lower price but if you want to keep on selling puts you can get whipsawed, taking a big hit on the way down then not fully participating in the recovery. Same goes for flipping over and selling a call against your stock, limited upside.

    A $5 move is nothing for AAPL over 3 months. And if it tanks like it did in 2012 the $5 won´t be much solace.

    But I agree, options have a lot of advantages, hence they´re a major part of my portfolio. But if you have a long-term perspective and want to avoid capital gains for compounding then stock is a decent way to go.

    Here´s what Reel Ken wrote recently:-

    "After many attempts to use options on AAPL I finally gave up. I just bought and am holding. I think it's too good a company to not own and too hard a stock to try to figure out. Everyone is entitled to some indulgence and this is mine"
    May 25, 2015. 12:38 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    Sure, but as I can see you have a very short-term outlook (average holding period 14 days). For large accounts this type of trade is too risky unless you have a very small allocation. I´ve more faith, for example, in placing a large Jan 2017 150/170 bull call spread believing that EPS will be 10+ and the market will give it a 15-17 PE. I have absolutely no idea what´s going to happen in 2 weeks, even if market makers are giving me the odds and would never put a large short-term call spread on (of course I don´t know where it will be in 2 years but fundamentals are more likely to affect outcome over a longer period as compared to 14 days)

    I noticed that you thanked Reel Ken on your Anchor Trades page, note that the one stock that he owns and doesn´t trade or hedge is AAPL, and that´s after trying and writing about multiple option strategies designed to outdo simple buy-and-hold (you´ve prob seen his article on whether AAPL is suited to calendar trades or not).
    May 25, 2015. 08:20 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    I´ll take your word for it, you also had an ETF option.

    But it´s still an issue of cherry-picking results for your performance page. The 11% return on the stocks wasn´t any less real than the 30% with the ETFs so why choose the latter ? If you say "Well because that´s what we´re doing now" then it becomes too easy to run multiple set-ups then pick the best as ´representative´of historical returns.

    It was the same with the condors, the ´real´result wasn´t there until you modified it. If the original set-up got badly whipsawed (the achilles heel of these trades) and you learn how to manage it, you can´t erase the losses and provide "what might have been if..." results.
    May 25, 2015. 08:14 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    Quote "Our data just confirms the simple fact that we list all our trades on the performance page, winners and losers. Yet you keep accusing me of being a fraud"

    You were deliberately misrepresenting returns on your condors service, changed it when I pointed it out, then blamed me saying you only changed it to prevent people like me accusing you of fraud.

    You´re still claiming a 31.2% return in 2013 on anchor trades, despite the fact the evidence explicitly states you achieved a 11.6% return, and that the ETF results are backtested.

    Quote: "As of 2014, I switched over to an ETF only model. Here are the backtesting results for the ETF model"

    http://bit.ly/1Lu89mR

    Why would you backtest and present 2013 with an ETF if you were actually running it?

    Regarding non-directional trades, the bulk of my account is short SPX puts hedged with short ES futures, so I´m familiar with the benefits of this type of trading. My point is the trading style you use is suited to small accounts (i.e, not more than 10k on any AAPL trade). It all depends on your goals, account size and beliefs. Would you seriously get into an argument with Carl Icahn saying that even if he (rightly) believed AAPL was severely undervalued he'd have been better trading a butterfly?

    There´s a lot of people who have a lot more than 10k to put into AAPL, who believe in the long-term fundamentals, who don´t want to monitor trades and who want to minimise commissions and capital gains (myself included).

    It´s not as simple as "Apple fanboys" versus your style.
    May 24, 2015. 04:08 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    Ok, if you want to take in your 2011 trades (3 wins, 1 loss) you now have a total of 6 profitable trades and 6 losing trades. After commissions, I´d guess you´re around breakeven for a period that AAPL went from $49 to $133 with one broker fee and no capital gains (although you´d avoid those since there was no gain).

    I fail to see how your ´non-directional´approach is superior for trading AAPL as compared to buy and hold. Evidence is to the contrary.
    May 24, 2015. 02:17 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    I thought you only counted verified trades? That´s what you told Willy above. Verified is closed out, not just suggesting a trade with a high probability of success. Of course it will swing in and out of the profit zone during the life of the trade and you can write "The trade is currently up 4%" or whatever. Your verifiable trades, i.e, those you documented on your subscription service, have shown there´s a clear difference between initiating a trade and actually collecting profits.

    As I quoted you on last time we had this discussion:-

    "The butterfly trade is worth now $19.25, a whopping 50% gain, while the stock moved just 1.8%. Too bad I didn't execute the trade".
    May 24, 2015. 02:07 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    @streadyoptions:-

    You write "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"

    Here´s a reminder of your verified AAPL trading record:-

    04/01/14 AAPL calendar loss 16.7%
    02/20/14 AAPL calendar 20.5%
    11/21/13 AAPL calendar loss 48.8%
    11/13/13 AAPL calendar loss 11.4%
    11/06/13 AAPL calendar 16.4%
    09/13/13 AAPL calendar loss 39.9%
    05/31/13 AAPL calendar loss 35.0%
    03/20/13 AAPL calendar 25.8%

    Total losses around $1520
    Total gains around $625
    Balance: $900 loss (not including broker commissions and subscription fees).

    This was in a period AAPL has more than doubled.

    With this track-record why on earth do you even assume you should be suggesting trading strategies to "Apple fanboys"? (especially in your condescending tone).

    If you´re being accused of being a fraud we both know it´s absolutely nothing to do with suggesting trading strategies other than 100% long. You have an immense yet all too transparent capacity for bending the truth.
    May 24, 2015. 11:17 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    @steadyoptions: If there was a free-lunch by placing trades that weren´t dependent on market direction then many of us would have retired by now.

    Non-directional strategies have a profit zone, just like calls and puts do. Sure you can adjust, but as you know you´re taking a loss and starting a new trade. Selling theta helps, but you can also buy both calls and puts with no intrinsic as a stock/short stock replacement.

    The strong fundamentals of AAPL have allowed many to make huge gains with simple buy and hold. Sure, Dec 2012 to June 2013 was a bad period to buy calls or own stock, but there are also plenty of other times when non-directional strategies will get burned (as you found out).
    May 23, 2015. 11:58 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    @steadyoptions,

    I see that both the condor performance pages has now been changed to reflect the 14.9% loss it took in 2013. Good, that´s transparent.

    I don´t get how you introduced the condor service in Oct 2013 yet you report "real" results from Oct 2012 but that´s another matter. Assume that´s a private trading account and subscribers didn´t achieve these results.

    The ´Anchor´service is still incorrect. You write:

    "The strategy went "live" using real money, on March 30, 2012 -- here's the table of results" (Under there´s a table where it states the strategy returned 11.69% in 2013 vs. 29.6% SPX)

    http://bit.ly/1Lu89mR

    Then under that it states you switched over to an ETF in January 2014 (due to poor actual performance).

    "As of 2014, I switched over to an ETF only model. Here are the backtesting results for the ETF model"

    Under which it states that BACKTESTING with an ETF achieved a 29% return.

    Then on the overall site performance page you´ve written that it returned 31%.

    http://bit.ly/1z7jJLP

    These aren´t "real" and live results.
    May 23, 2015. 11:45 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    I caught you lying about your AAPL trading performance. You answered by talking about how great your ´steadyoptions´ service is. When I asked you to simply say if you had actually made or lost money trading AAPL you replied I wouldn´t believe you if you told me so why bother.

    I then noticed you were fudging your results on your ´steady condors´ service by falsely advertising performance (understand your motive given how badly it performed) in an attempt to confuse and mislead. You answer by saying that ALL results are REAL results, which is obviously NOT the case. You publish a combination of backtested, real and fake results.

    I then notice you´re also printing fake results for your ´steady anchor´service. Now you´re saying the fake results are the results using stocks whereas you´ve now switched to ETFs. Dare I guess which results are the real results? Obviously the stocks.

    Your continual attempts to switch the goalposts and deny your dishonesty with theoretical ramblings about how your services are supposed to work are blatantly transparent.

    If you had an ounce of humility you´d think twice before posting your typical condescending diatribes directed at authors and posters (or ´apple funboys´as you call them) who have in fact been much more successful than you with simple buy and hold. At least they´re honest. To think you actually disciplined the author about his lack of´responsibility to his readers´. But as you say, any chance to flog your subscription service is a good one.

    Apologies to the author for taking this off-course.
    May 23, 2015. 02:01 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    So would you care to explain how another one of your subscription services "Anchor Trades", returned 31.2% in 2013 according to this link:

    http://bit.ly/1z7jJLP

    But only returned around 11% according to this link:

    http://bit.ly/1Lu89mR

    S&P was around 30% for 2013 so both ´reports´are underperformance vs. S&P, even without capital gains and subscription fee. I´m just not sure how bad it was.
    May 22, 2015. 04:38 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    You´re seriously comparing S&P from 2011-2014 with your backtested results? Results which obviously didn´t extrapolate to reality given that as soon as it went ´live´your real results were worse than the backtest predicted in the 2008 crash. Not to mention capital gains tax, subscription fees and the need to adjust trades.

    As for SteadyOptions returning 62%, yes, you never miss an opportunity to mention that. But these returns are for a very small account that´s actively traded (again you don´t figure in capital gains and commissions), we both know you wouldn´t be here fishing for subscribers if you could get the kind of returns these short term trades in names like Twitter in a large account.

    I care little about you or your subscription service, I just find your posts hypocritical, transparent & pathetic.
    May 22, 2015. 04:10 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    You´re publishing a table with a "Subscribe now" link below where you deliberately mislead investors with your 2014 returns.

    You charged subscribers a monthly fee to take an annual 14.6% loss when simply buying SPY would have returned around 14% without subscription.

    As you wrote earlier, the truth hurts. At least we agree on one thing:- there are lot of charlatans about.
    May 22, 2015. 02:47 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple To $140 By End Of May: It's A Mathematical Problem [View article]
    http://bit.ly/1LtcHtA

    @steadyoptions.-

    Why are you reporting a 14.6% profit for 2014 when in fact you had a 14.9% loss (not including subscription fees)? You state in the small print under "actual results may differ". Not correct, actual results DID differ.

    It seems like you sold subscriptions based on back-tested results, then also altered the actual results to give the impression they were also backtested, i.e, your subscribers lost and your posting results of what might have been if you´d done things differently.

    There´s a link to the real losses you incurred, why not be honest and put these figures in so potential subscribers can see what really happened?

    First you wrote you made loads of money trading AAPL, when in fact I easily verified you actually lost, and now this.
    May 22, 2015. 11:23 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
278 Comments
630 Likes