Humble

@zxcv64 You nailed it. To put things in perspective, yes, we will have some occasional 25% months - but they are rare. And yes, to be able to achieve those returns, you must be proficient in our strategies and be more independent.

I completely share this sentiment. When I asked some of my contacts who work in healthcare the same question, they admitted that the decisions have been made based on very little data and everyone is basically operating in the dark. However, their argument was that no government was willing to take the risk. They simply watched what happened in Italy and performed all possible steps in order not to repeat the Italian experience. Now, some would argue that Italy has completely different conditions (older population, population density etc.), but with not enough data and time pressing, the governments are just not willing to take the risk. And honestly, I'm not sure I can blame them. Swedish government did the "experiment" of no lockdowns, and based on the current data, it didn't work very well.

I'm definitely not a medical expert and have no idea who is right. But here is my concern: each time someone comes with an opinion that is different from the "official" point of view and policy, they are condemned and declared dangerous. In my opinion, what is really dangerous is lack of respect to different opinions. What is really dangerous is an attempt to silence people. Where is the freedom of speech? Who put YouTube to be a medical expert and decide what is trustworthy and what should be removed? Do we want to end up in George Orwell's 1984 like world?

Thank you @Yowster excellent summary. On a high level, it's always best to focus on long term results and not short term month to month fluctuations. Not every strategy will work in all environments. When there is such an extreme change in market environment, it takes some time to adapt. It is also important to understand that performance reporting is based on trades closed in this specific month. Similar to January 2019 where some trades were carried from the previous month, creating a larger monthly loss than the real loss. @yalgaar I believe @Yowster provided a detailed analysis of the trades and the environments. My response was based on your comment "relatively very good" - if I misinterpreted it, my bad.

Commentary from James.A.Kostohryz: One thing that has gotten blown off was Trump comments today regarding making China pay reparations for their role in the global spread of COVID-19. This is going to become a big issue. There is increasing anti-China sentiment in congress. I have TWO WORDS (in reality two names) that I want you to remember every time you hear politicians talk about how they are going to make China "pay" for COVID-19: Smoot-Hawley. Smoot-Hawley is perhaps the key factor that transformed what would have been a relatively normal recession, triggered by the October 1929, crash into the Great Depression. I am not saying we are going to repeat the Great Depression. I am merely telling you to follow this story, because the impact of a global trade war, as a secondary effect of this crisis, would be enormous -- and would profoundly deepen the current economic crisis and would make the bear market significantly worse than my base case. Many ingredients are in place to make this a real risk. 1) High unemployment in US; 2) Long-standing resentment of Chinese for "taking" US jobs; 3) Psychological need for scapegoats. 4) Election year politics drive populism and demagoguery.

Our long term performance goal is 5-7% per month. I hope nobody expects to make 25% per month every month, otherwise they probably need a reality check. Most fund managers would dream to make 25% in a YEAR, not a month. It's very important to set realistic expectations. January and February were an anomaly, not a norm. It was a perfect environment for our strategies and we were able to find many good setups. When volatility exploded in March, it became more challenging to find good setups and we did not want to take more risk.

https://twitter.com/YahooFinance/status/1255880242239025152 Highlight: “I still think that we’re going to have the worst recession since the Great Depression,” Allianz Chief Economic Adviser @elerianm says. “It will make 2008/2009 look like a flesh wound, which is a huge statement."

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3566409-chesapeake-energy-preparing-bankruptcy-filing-reuters https://seekingalpha.com/news/3566116-hertz-falls-bankruptcy-cloud-hanging-over This is just the beginning.

There is definitely a lot of controversy around the coronavirus. The more I talk to people, the more I'm convinced that at this point, we know very little about the virus, the way it spreads and the real numbers. Many experts believe that the real mortality rate is around 0.5%, way lower than the current numbers suggest. And yes, the situation in most US states and many countries is not even close to what we see in New York, Italy and Spain. But the argument used by those in favor of lockdowns is that we don't want every state or country to become New York or Italy. The argument is that since we know so little at this point, the governments simply don't want to take the risk. Because if they are wrong, the price in human lives will be too high. Going back to the markets - personally I believe that it will get worse before it gets better. But lets say I'm wrong. Lets say things are not so bad and they will become better. So here is a simple question: does anyone believe that the economy is in the same shape today as it was 6 months ago? I think even the biggest optimists would admit that we are in a much worse shape today, even if they believe things will get better soon. So how the major indexes are around the same levels today as 6 months ago? How the Nasdaq is actually 10% HIGHER today than 6 months ago? To me, it makes ZERO SENSE.

Yes, but in US only 7 states have death rate higher than Sweden. The rest are mostly much lower.

Their number of deaths per 1M population is actually one of the highest in the world, despite the fact that Sweden has much lower population density than counties like US, and has much less international travel. Here are few points of view regarding Sweden approach: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/28/europe/sweden-coronavirus-lockdown-strategy-intl/index.html https://www.vox.com/2020/4/28/21240381/coronavirus-sweden-death-rate-cases-new-york So at this point, it is still not clear if Swedish approach really works.

I'm opening this topic to discuss the Coronavirus news and how they impact the markets. Feel free to post news, updates and opinions.

I'm opening this topic to discuss the Coronavirus news and how they impact the markets. Feel free to post news, updates and opinions. Posted by @agsb : We have only so many people above 80 in long term care facilities. The virus presents no real risk to healthy people of all ages or not even so healthy people below 70. And of course not falling into the mass psychosis and dealing with the crisis like Sweden is doing would have prevented any second wave. Herd immunity that is going to be achieved in Stockholm next week means no second wave.

Well, I didn't want to mention tastytrade as some people say I'm biased. But since you did.. I have no idea why they do what they do. Presenting results in dollar terms is completely meaningless. Even if you backtest the same stock over 5 years period, and the stock price doubled, which probably caused the typical straddle price to change significantly as well. So if 5 years ago the straddle price was $10 and today it's $20, how does it help to compare the dollar P/L? it's comparing apples to oranges. Even on the same stock.

On a related note, posting dollar P/L is meaningless - this alone disqualifies the whole study. The only thing that matter is percentage amount. Why? Because in order to get objective results, you need to apply the same dollar allocation to all trades. Now, lets take an example of stocks like AMZN and GM. AMZN straddle can cost around $200 and GM straddle around $2. If AMZN straddle average return was -10% or -$20 and GM average return was +50% or $1, the average return should be reported as +20%. In the study, it would be reported as -$9.5.

Here is a classic example how real trading is different from "studies". On March 2 2:30pm we entered CPB straddle: The price was 3.05 or 6.5% RV. We based our entry on the RV chart: We exited the trade on March 3 10:05am for $3.45 credit, 13.1% gain EOD price on March 2 was 3.40 and EOD price on March 3 was 2.95. The study using EOD prices would show 13.2% LOSS while our real trade was closed for 13.1% GAIN. Two points that contributed to the difference: Based on historical RV charts, we would not even be entering this trade at 3.40. On the last day, we did not wait till the EOD and closed the trade in the morning. This is just one example how a "study" can show dramatically different results from real trading.

They cannot reprice them because they might collide with "new" strikes. Old strikes are always kept after the split. They might be much less liquid, and this could be the reason why there is no bid.

Some people just don't realize how unique is what we do in terms of returns and consistency.

Well, the big difference is that all those "studies" use the whole universe of stocks, enter at certain dates, use EOD prices and exit a day before earnings. We on the other hand enter only certain stocks that show good results in backtesting, enter only when the price is good compared to previous cycles, and manage the trades actively by taking profits when our profit targets are hit. Makes a world of difference. I tried to post a comment on the article, but after showing "pending" for few minutes, it disappeared.

The screenshot of real prices are included in every trade alert. Commissions differ between brokers.

We will let others to do their studies while we continue proving year after year that our strategies work. https://steadyoptions.com/forums/forum/topic/5914-2019-year-end-performance-by-trade-type/

As many of you know, we offer a 33% discount to members who sign for 2 years term via wire transfer or check. The price for 2 years SteadyOptions subscription is only $1,995, and no PayPal subscription is required. Contact me if you are interested and I will provide you wire transfer details or mailing address to send the check. Due to the weakness of the Canadian dollar, we are pleased to offer an additional discount to members who pay directly in Canadian dollars. The price will be based on 1 USD = 1.35 CAD, or $2,693 Canadian Dollars. This represents an additional 7-10% discount based on the current exchange rate. The funds can be transferred from Canadian financial institutions via Interac e-transfer, or from other banks via wire transfer or check. The transfer or the check has to be in Canadian dollars. Why this is a good deal? Members who are happy with the service and willing to commit for the long term, can save significant amount of money. The USD/CAD rate has been fluctuating in $1.40-1.45 range in the recent weeks. If you pay $125/month, you will be paying $3,000 USD in 2 years. If you are Canadian, the banks will charge you another ~3% on top of the official exchange rate, which will bring your cost in Canadian dollars to almost $4,500 CAD. Therefore, $2,693 represents around 40% savings compared to the monthly subscription. if you are Canadian or can make a transfer in Canadian dollars, you might consider this offer.

Yes they are as mentioned in Welcome to Steady Options.

Lottery ticket maybe?

They are likely to be worthless if OIL is below $4.