funny goldie..yep he had his 'detractor' puppet waking up first thing this mornin 7:15 to come start the bullchip before he even had coffe...LOLOL..musta been dreamin all night of alan...
While I don't need anyone else, it's obvious that others here need ME. Who else is going to tell them about the kind of opportunities that have been available at my brokerage since 6/23/10?
Wouldn't I be the selfish one if I knew the wonderful truth about these situations but kept them all to myself?
This is an investment board and discussing low-risk ways of earning out-sized returns should be right at the top of the list of topics to discuss. And it doesn't matter whether I'm popular or if others don't like some of my traits, etc. All that takes a back seat to earnings great returns with little risk.
What happened to me during the once-in-a-lifetime credit-crunch market crash has little to do with anything either since the options markets have changed to much for the better since then.
Opportunities routinely available now simply weren't available then. I would have done considerably better had the playing field at that time been what it's like now.
So talking incessantly about how much I lost during the crash, etc. is meaningless.
It's also apparent that I don't benefit personally in any way if others use my methods or my brokerage. What a joke to use a letter-writing campaign to try and convince Yahoo that I'm conducting some kind of scheme or scam or that I'm engaging in spam.
Those that would try and shut me up when I have so much useful to say are simply enemies of this board - pure and simple. They are trying to prevent other board members here of learning of techniques and strategies where they would earn outsized returns with good safety.
"I'm unpopular as h*ll on this board."
You are right as rain with that statement. And you have not a single supporter who has come forward to support your faulty calculation. Nobody agrees with you because you are wrong.
The language used by you toward any other poster shows that you do not like us any more than we like you. You are the one who started the name calling, years ago.
So why do you post on this message board, especially when you "...don't need confirmation from anyone else."?
Here is an excerpt from your post:
I'm still waiting for one person to come forward and claim that your calculations are valid.
The validity of my calculations doesn't have one shred to do whether anyone comes forward or not. If nobody comes forward, it simply means that I'm unpopular. That shouldn't come as a surprise.
But it has NOTHING to do with my calculations being 100% correct. The numbers are the numbers whether people here like me or not.
You certainly aren't going to make any case about my being wrong simply by saying that nobody is coming forward to support me. To win your case, YOU are going to have to work with the NUMBERS and SHOW why my calculations are wrong.
You will somehow have to show that an investor at my brokerage that puts up $21,300 in cash now and receives $6,000 in premiums after taxes from selling 100 Jan. 15-strike naked puts for Pfizer would be earning some return OTHER than 27.2% or 44.4 weeks or 31.8% annualized if the stock remains above $16.90 and the positions are held until expiration.
Talking about returns on fully cash-backed puts are complete nonsense - I'm selling naked puts - not fully-backed puts.
Nevertheless, with a stock like Pfizer, the puts don't have to be fully backed by cash. it's not as if the company is going bankrupt in the next ten months.
Here is an excerpt from your post:
what he refuses to acknowledge is that he is computing his return based ONLY on the amount of cash needed to be put up while others are computing the return based on what is being put at risk.
At Wednesday's close, an investor having naked put authorization at my brokerage would have been able to sell 100 of the Pfizer 15-strike naked puts out to Jan. 2012. He would have received $6,000 up-front after commissions and if no more money was needed - and it wouldn't be as long as PFE held $16.90, the return for 44 weeks would be $6,000/$21,300 which is 27.2% for 44 weeks or 31.8% annualized.
Even being conservative, there has to be at least a 2/3 chance of Pfizer not closing below $16.90 the next ten months.
If it did close below $16.90, I would deposit up to 7K more cash to offer protection down to $16 on the stock. If I didn that, the average daily investment would be more like 25K than $21,300 and the annualized return would be more like 16%.
And if the stock went even below $16, I'd simply roll the options out a year to the Jan. 2013's and down to the 12.50 strikes. I'd at least be able to do that for free. And if I did go that route, the annualized return would still be about 13%.
And if even that didn't work, I'd roll out yet another year - to the 10-strikes for Jan. 2014 which would then be available. And now I'd have margin protection all the way down to about $11.25. My annualized return - this time for THREE years - would still be a very reasonable 10% or so.
Having margin protection down to $11.25 would cover at least 95% of the cases.
So where is the risk here? What money do you possibly think I can lose beyond the $21,300 I'm putting up even in a worst-case example where the stock goes to single digits? After all, the $27,300 in the account would allow me to buy back 100 contracts at $273 piece. But what a low price Pfizer would have to be in order for 10-strike naked puts to be selling for $273.
Pfizer is simply not the kind of stock that with $2.30 in earnings and an 80-cent dividend is going to be selling at such a low price that even $273 per contract wouldn't be enough to buy back the naked puts.
So why would I ever use a base of even more than the $21,300 I'm originally putting up? That would be jus asinine given the minuscule chances of the stock price getting that low.
I'm unpopular as h*ll on this board. But I'm right as right could be and if I had to, I would stake my very LIFE on it. There is no doubt what the return is when for a $21,300 cash investment for 44.4 weeks, you receive $6,000 up front after commissions. As long as the stock continues to close above $16.90, you won't need to add any deposits and if the positions are held to expiration, the return at my brokerage will be $6,000/$21,300 for 44.4 weeks which is 27.2% for the duration of 31.8% annualized.
A big reason why the return is so outsized is that the margin maintenance formula which almost all houses use calls for maintenance margin requirements of $213 per naked put - or $21,300 for a lot of 100 contracts.
However, where MY brokerage sticks with that $213 requirement, virtually all other houses will impose MINIMUMS - with that minimum being $500 per contract at many houses.
So at these other houses, you would have to put up $50,000 to be able to receive the same $6,000 in premiums that I can get by merely putting up $21,300.
The returns are what they are and it doesn't matter one whit whether anyone on this board wants to stand up for me or not. The returns don't change just because I'm unpopular.
I may not know much about computers and such but something like this - calculating returns on investments - is right in my wheelhouse. I'm simply never going to be wrong about something like this and indeed I'm not. It's a simple calculation that doesn't require one to be an Einstein and I have no idea why other posters are making such heavy weather of it.
When I KNOW I'm right, I don't need confirmation from anyone else. I have enough confidence in my own abilities and knowledge.