Costco has the 55" Hisense 4k TV for $1,499. It has a fantastic picture compared to the other TVs in the store. Also, Costco doubles the length of the warranty for no extra charge.
Have you considered call spreads? Perhaps the Feb 45/50 call spread for a debit of 0.50. Max profit would be 10X. The lower strikes would give you a higher probability of success.
Take a look at OptionsHouse. They are offering a plan for $8.50 + 0.15 per option. Your trade would have cost you $158.50.
Anyone have any experience with them? I am thinking of opening an account with them for my larger trades.
My OptionsFirst account was down a couple of days last year for a few hours each day. One of the days was an options exp day. However, I was able to call in the trades so it was not a complete disaster. I also have an account with Schwab so I will not be completely locked out of the market.
What problem did you have with the adjusted options? Each of these new adjusted options should represent 25 shares of UVXY. I am trying to decide if I should sell the puts which I bought today.
The FTC’s prosecution of Amway in the mid-1970s could have dealt a death blow to the entire MLM/network marketing/direct sales industry. In The Matter of Amway, 1979, the agency attempted to make the case that Amway was a pyramid scheme and, therefore, a deceptive trade practice under FTC consumer laws.
The case lasted several years. Amway prevailed, and in the landmark 1979 ruling its marketing method was ruled to be a legitimate business opportunity. This decision has become known as the "Amway Safeguards Rule," which is currently one of the most significant sets of legal standards by which courts and regulatory agencies determine the legitimacy of an MLM/network marketing/direct sales company.
In the administrative law judge's decision, three salutary features were pointed out with respect to the Amway program:
1 Amway required its representatives to engage in retail selling, under the "ten retail customer policy" which appeared in the agreement that representatives signed upon enrollment. This rule required that representatives make 10 sales to retail customers as a qualification for eligibility to receive commissions and bonuses on sales/purchases made by other representatives in their personal sales organization.
2 Amway required its representatives to sell a minimum of 70% of previously purchased product before placing a new order. (Amway’s rules recognize "personal use" for purposes of the 70% rule.)
3 Amway had an official "buy-back" policy for unsold, unopened inventory. This policy had some reasonable restrictions, including a specified maximum length of time since the item was originally purchased by the representative and that the item was still current in the company’s product offerings to consumers. The policy also included a minimal "restocking" fee. (Buy-back policies are significant especially for their protection of representatives who choose to terminate their affiliation with a company, and not be "stuck" with unsold
The Amway Case is Still the Rule
More than two decades later, the Amway decision is cited in virtually every federal or state case involving an MLM company. Although tension will always exist between the industry and government over the definition of a "retail sale" [i.e., distributor personal use v. nonparticipant sales], the Amway safeguards test continues to be the "gold standard" in evaluating the difference between legitimate MLM v. illegal pyramids.
The Industry Owes Amway
"No legal ruling has had more impact on the direct sales industry than the landmark FTC v. Amway decision. (In the Matter of Amway.) In 1975, the FTC accused Amway of operating as an illegal pyramid. After four years of litigation, in 1979, Amway prevailed. An administrative law judge ruled that Amway's multilevel marketing program was a legitimate business opportunity as opposed to a pyramid scheme.
Had Amway lost, MLM history after 1979 may have been nonexistent. Amway's victory paved the way for hundreds of MLM companies that would follow. So significant was the decision that the FTC during the next 20 years focused on "deceptive" practices of MLM companies such as earnings representations or medical claims rather than attacking the "structure" of MLM programs. The industry owes Amway a debt of gratitude. "
With AAPL at 550.16, I did some 31Jan, 540/550 call spreads for a debit of 5.30
This gives me an effective share price of 545.30
This will give a profit of close to 94% if shares are over 550. The nice thing is I am paying nothing for time premium.
This rumor is probably correct. Best Buy is selling the Samsung S4 for 0.00
They will only do this if a newer model is arriving soon.
Samsung is now offering cellphones with 3 different sizes.
Call spreads offer the advantage of not paying for time premium and getting a lower effective cost.
Their disadvantage is that your profit is limited to the spread between the strikes prices minus your initial cost.
Just after earnings, there will be a IV crush resulting in the loss of most of the time premiums for the options.
Since my effective cost for the spread is 545.30, this is also my break even price. Anything above this would be profit.
You mean someone like King who maintains a permanent short position in UVXY?
Apple's best product is their mini iPad, something they felt forced to offer in their product line.
There is no reason why Apple does not offer two different sized cell phones. Samsung has 3 different sized phones.
offering a second, larger cell phone. There are millions of buyers out there just waiting for a larger iPhone. No innovation required. By just copying Samsung, this big AH drop would not have occurred.
The best plan of action is to buy the dips prior to earnings and then to sell on the rally just before earnings. I had sold most of my position near today's close. My mistake was to keep some positions due to all of the hype on CNBC. But what I had kept was just some call spreads so it was not a major loss. I guess it was not too bad considering Icahn lost over 300 million today on AAPL.
Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Mark Zuckerberg were presenters at the ceremony. They were also the sponsors of the $21 million bestowed on innovators to the fields of fundamental physics and life sciences.
Now where was Tim Cook?