Weekly Iron Condor Trade #2
Posted by Mark on July 13, 2015 at 06:57 | Last modified: July 16, 2015 11:09On June 10, 2015, I placed my second weekly iron condor (IC) trade. I placed this order at the midprice at 10:52 and caved $0.05 after two minutes (filled $0.075 better than the mark).
The market traded relatively sideways over the next nine trading days and this trade expired worthless.
This position made 5.4% in eight trading days.
Categories: Accountability | Comments (0) | PermalinkWeekly Iron Condor Trade #1 (Part 2)
Posted by Mark on July 10, 2015 at 06:33 | Last modified: July 2, 2015 10:12I previously described my trading plan for a new weekly iron condor (IC) strategy. I also explained how the put vertical was closed for a loss on June 5, which was the first time I attempted the strategy. I threw the challenge flag and after further review, THE CALL ON THE FIELD WAS REVERSED!
I can assure you that does not happen too often.
Unfortunately while I lived to see another day, the contingent order to close was again triggered at 1:30 PM on Monday. This order was based on a spread midprice > $1.70. Once I received e-mail notification for the trade just a couple minutes later, I logged into my account only to see a mark of $1.20 for the spread and the order filled at $1.15.
What?!
I had a second challenge flag ready to throw.
I called my brokerage and spoke with another trading desk representative. He said he has seen the bid/ask spreads widen dramatically for just a few moments on numerous occasions. For this reason he advised me to never set a contingent order based on spread price. I protested, saying this would make sense during the first 15 minutes of the day when chaos abounds (Friday’s occurrence). This should never happen in a relatively calm period like we were having on Monday. I once again asked for time and sales to see what the spread price was at the time this order was triggered.
I saw the report. This time, the call on the field was confirmed.
The customer service rep suggested rather than entering a contingent order based on spread price, I should calculate how low or high the market would need to move to cause the spread to hit max loss. I could then set alerts so I would know something needed to be done.
This trade lost 2.3% (based on gross margin) in 10 days.
Categories: Accountability | Comments (0) | PermalinkWeekly Iron Condor Trade #1 (Part 1)
Posted by Mark on July 7, 2015 at 05:53 | Last modified: July 2, 2015 10:00On June 3, 2015, I did my first weekly iron condor (IC) trade. The idea is to sell the 4-legged beast with 8-10 days to expiration around a 0.05 delta. I want to collect $0.40 per vertical spread.
My primary exit is to let the trade expire.
The only adjustment on this position is to close the distressed 15-point vertical if its premium reaches two times the credit generated by the whole trade. If I collect $0.40 per vertical spread then I will close either side if it reaches $1.60.
In theory, this is a high probability trade. If I sell a 0.07 (aggressive approximation) delta then the probability of touching is 28%. For calculation purposes, I will consider “touching” to be a loss but in reality I think the chance of losing is greater since I don’t believe touching is required to hit max loss. To account for that, I will consider a loss to be two times the average win.
Based on these assumptions, expectancy would be:
(0.80 * 0.72) + (-1.60 * 0.28) = 0.128
Since there is overlap of two trades on Wednesday through Friday, the weekly ROI is 0.417% on 30 points gross margin. This is 22.19% annualized.
If I were always able to close the losing vertical spread for 2x then my theoretical loss on the trade would only be $0.80 instead of $1.60. This would double the projected annualized return. I am taking a wait-and-see approach until I see how often it actually loses.
I will set a contingent limit order to close when a vertical spread reaches $1.60.
Given this trading plan, on June 3, 2015, I placed a JunWk2 2180/2165/2035/2020 IC for $0.85 credit.
At 9:35 on June 5, my contingent order to close the put spread fired. I called the trade desk and contested this trade because from what I could see, the spread was nowhere near the trigger price. I requested the time and sales report to verify. They could not get me this by EOD (customer service rep said the quotes provider “blew him off” despite repeated requests to get the information) so he told me to resell the spread. I did this after market close and the brokerage reimbursed me the difference.
Weekly IC trade #1 lived on…
Categories: Accountability | Comments (1) | PermalinkRUT Weekly Calendar Trade #10
Posted by Mark on July 2, 2015 at 06:28 | Last modified: July 2, 2015 08:51I opened my tenth weekly calendar trade Tuesday, June 16, at the 1260 strike. The market was 1261.61 at the time of fill. I placed the order at the mid and caved $0.10 over 16 minutes to get filled $0.15 off the then mark.
Two days later with the market just over 1280, I rolled one of the 1260 put calendars to a 1285 call calendar for a $0.20 debit. Later that day with the market at 1285, I rolled the other 1260 calendar to 1285 for a $0.65 debit. This would be my last adjustment for the position, which was now down 12%.
In two days, I had basically closed the initial trade and reopened another 25 points higher. For this trade to turn out well, the market pretty much had to stay calm for days.
On Tuesday, June 23, the position was down 3% and just a couple points away from the upper expiration breakeven. To have a chance at a profitable outcome, I figured I would have to hold into the last two days. As I have done previously in this case, I closed one of the calendars to decrease risk in case Wednesday were to welcome me with a big gap opening.
The market traded lower on Wednesday and my contingent order to close was triggered at 1:32 PM with the market at 1285. This position made about 10% in nine days.
Categories: Accountability | Comments (0) | PermalinkInvesting Meetup Report (Part 5)
Posted by Mark on July 1, 2015 at 07:58 | Last modified: July 2, 2015 08:26I’ll complete this review of the Meetup from three weeks ago by discussing a couple other attendees.
One attendee was a real estate investor who stated his reason for attending was to learn more for diversification purposes. The implication was clearly that he does well with real estate and has money to invest elsewhere. Also supporting my inference is the fact that he passed his business card out to everyone present. As we were leaving, he engaged me in conversation by asking if I or anyone I know might be interested in real estate. I said “not at this time.” He quickly dismissed me soon after saying his wife had texted telling him to come home for dinner.
Speaking of ulterior motives, this is something I have also commonly seen at Meetups: people in unrelated fields looking to market their wares. Was this guy really looking to learn about stock investing to put his real estate profits to work? Maybe. I think it’s also likely he was looking to advertise his real estate experience of buying and flipping houses to a group of people eager to make money. We’re attending a stock investing meetup because we want to make money, he figures. Why not try and make money through real estate and give him our cut instead?
The last person I want to discuss is another financial advisor in attendance. He was not with the company organizing the Meetup. With conflict of interest in mind (how could it not be?), I wonder why he chose to attend. He said he loves learning about investing and finance as a whole. I then asked the pointed question: what was he hoping to learn that he, being in the business himself, did not already know? I wonder if he was just checking out his competition (other advisors) or if he was looking to network and possibly find new clients himself? I’ll found out more as time goes by.
This Meetup was typical of others I have attended: arrogance, sales, marketing, ignorance, and a lack of useful connections. At least it was an excuse to get out for the night.
Free food, too… who can forget about that?!
Categories: Networking | Comments (0) | PermalinkInvesting Meetup Report (Part 4)
Posted by Mark on June 26, 2015 at 06:00 | Last modified: June 17, 2015 10:39I left off explaining what the Meetup presenters did that left me wanting.
I just asked whether Dimensional Fund Advisors was a company like Blackrock.
For the record, I am very skeptical about the supposed “DFA advantage” that Dimensional Fund Advisors advertises. It was never my intent to argue about whose funds were better.
Rather than just saying “yes, DFA is another fund company,” they gave me an unnecessary/lackluster attempt at sales. By pooh-poohing DFA out of ignorance, they implied superiority of their product. This certainly doesn’t sound like an objective Fee-Only advisor to me. A Fee-Only advisor should do what is in my best interest and that would require knowing what else is out there! If they were going to deliver a sales pitch then they should have had a politically correct response why Blackrock is as good for me or better than DFA. Their ignorance does not mean theirs is better if they are simply fools.
And their ignorance did suggest to me that they may simply be fools. DFA has been a subject for discussion in Forbes, by CBS, on CNBC and MSNBC: they are world renowned. Their list of “Academic Leaders” (board members) is a veritable Who’s Who of options, investing, and risk analysis: Eugene Fama, Kenneth French, Robert Merton, Myron Scholes, Roger Ibbotson… are you kidding me?! How could our presenters not know about DFA? Despite my skepticism, even I am awestruck by the celebrity of DFA’s board members and the level of “expertise” they represent. To plead ignorance strikes me as utter incompetence on the part of the presenters.
I’ll wrap this up in the next post.
Categories: Networking | Comments (1) | PermalinkInvesting Meetup Report (Part 3)
Posted by Mark on June 23, 2015 at 07:31 | Last modified: June 17, 2015 10:38Last time I reviewed Mr. Know It All’s contribution to my recent Meetup experience. Today I discuss the presenters: a financial advisory team headquartered just across the street.
Yes, they were actually financial advisors! I can see your jaw on the floor so I’ll wait just a moment for you to pick that up.
One advertised purpose of this Meetup was to teach. How can they aim to teach gratis and work to financially advise us, which entails teaching for a fee? Without the fee, would they teach enough to enable us to invest on our own? No…
Another advertised purpose was for networking. Do they really want prospective investors to meet and potentially collaborate when that may preclude us from hiring financial advisors? No! Only if good feelings from meeting others translates to gratitude and perhaps the eventual hire of their company has the Meetup achieved its true marketing purpose.
For these reasons, I consider this Meetup to be a significant conflict of interest. If the organizers knew beforehand that no Meetup attendees would ever become clients then I doubt they would ever spend the money to create and fund this group.
In the presentation, one topic they discussed was “questions to ask potential financial advisors.” They discussed Commission-Only, Fee-Based, and Fee-Only advisors. They were eager to identify themselves as Fee-Only advisors. They said Fee-Only advisors have a fiduciary responsibility to the client and don’t make money off the particular funds sold. Fee-Only advisors pursue the client’s best interests at all times.
For me, the presentation fell apart when I asked about Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA). I noticed their slides had “Blackrock” (a financial services company) in the lower left-hand corner. I asked if DFA is a competitor of Blackrock. The speaker looked around at his two colleagues and shrugged his shoulders. He explained something about how he sticks with the funds that trade in largest volume, that have the best and most experienced management, etc. He did not answer my question nor did he even acknowledge DFA.
What is wrong with this picture?
Categories: Networking | Comments (1) | PermalinkRUT Weekly Calendar Trade #9
Posted by Mark on June 19, 2015 at 06:40 | Last modified: June 17, 2015 11:47I opened my ninth weekly calendar trade Tuesday, June 9, at the 1250 strike. The market was at 1249 upon fill. I placed the order $0.05 off the midprice and caved another nickel after one minute. I got filled $0.05 off the then mark.
On the very next day, the market zoomed higher. I rolled one calendar to a 1275 call calendar with the market at 1268. The trade seemed to be down 15% in short order but the trade was now centered.
The market then traded sideways. My contingent order to close was triggered around 1:00 PM on Tuesday, June 16. This trade made about 12% in eight days.
Categories: Accountability | Comments (0) | PermalinkInvesting Meetup Report (Part 2)
Posted by Mark on June 17, 2015 at 06:17 | Last modified: June 17, 2015 10:37Today I continue reviewing a Meetup I attended earlier this week.
Three of the six attendees were totally new to investing. From speaking to many beginners over the years, they are often in search of “holy grail” type knowledge. As I compliment them for taking the time, they feel they are gaining edge over others who make no effort to learn. They seem motivated to soak up everything they hear and they seem to believe anyone who seems credible or authoritative.
Aside from the Organizers, Mr. Know It All seemed most credible the other night! He spoke dogmatically and two of the newbies were quite taken by his words.
Since Mr. Know It All mentioned that he trades futures, I went over to him afterward. I eventually interrupted his monologue and asked point-blank whether he makes money. He responded negatively. He said he’s retired, he does this “just as a hobby,” and he expects to lose.
This gambler’s mentality is not uncommon. Many people go to Vegas with hopes of striking it rich while expecting to lose. I hope most have a reasonable limit in mind of how much they will lose before they quit. Whether responsible or not with this limit, for someone like me who trades for a living this gambler’s mentality is appalling.
The problem I have with Mr. Know It All spouting “knowledge” to beginners is that he loses money. He clearly likes to talk and he enjoys when others listen but why should they: so they can lose money too? Unfortunately, I think people are often so ignorant about financial literacy that even if told someone loses money they will listen anyway. At the very least, beginners may figure he’s further along the path to wealth than they are so they might as well grab onto his coattails.
We really don’t know if Mr. Know It All is on the rainbow walking toward the pot of gold or whether he is caught in a vicious cycle with a mistaken belief that every subsequent loss teaches him something critically new. As an irresponsible gambler, he may be prepared to lose all his money until he starts to see gains and no beginner should ever be exposed to toxicity like this.
Categories: Networking | Comments (5) | PermalinkInvesting Meetup Report (Part 1)
Posted by Mark on June 15, 2015 at 06:49 | Last modified: June 17, 2015 10:36I have attended several trading/investing Meetups over the years. Because I perceived an inherent conflict of interest between the Organizers and the attendees, I used to be very put off by these events. I have since developed an appreciation for networking in this business, however.
The other night, I attended a new Meetup. The advertisement for this Meetup specifically included a time slot for networking. This felt different to me. For this reason and the promise of free appetizers, I decided to go.
In the end, I found this Meetup to be very typical of others in my experience. I will review the evening in this blog series.
I arrived 15 minutes early and found the auditorium to be locked. An older man, dressed business casual in a coat and button-down shirt, was also present. He was another attendee and in short order he began spouting off “knowledge” about the markets, how investments work, ETFs, etc. I didn’t ask any basic questions or do anything to suggest I was looking for him for any answers.
This guy definitely fell into the “know-it-all” classification. He started talking about “market truths.” First, everything about the markets is random. Things have a 50/50 chance of going up or down. Second, over the long-term things will go up. “Believe in the power of humanity,” he suggested. Believe that innovation and productivity will continue, earnings will grow, new inventions will be created, etc. I wonder if this guy had ever seen a dystopian movie?
His third truth was John Maynard Keynes’ “markets can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent” concept. I asked if he was therefore a trend-follower.
“Absolutely,” he said.
“What happens when the markets revert to the mean?”
“Well sometimes when you have a fractal trading within a fractal and something gets overextended…”
I’m not kidding: he honestly started talking about a fractal within a fractal. I could virtually see the stinky brown, gushy stuff overflowing from his brain compartment.
I will continue in the next post.
Categories: Networking | Comments (3) | Permalink