I thought I would put some final thoughts here to give you something to think about. All these guys are hucksters, yes. They do make what appears to be outrageous claims of prosperity but lets bear in mind they all have succeeded whereas you and I may be struggling. Does this mean they are frauds? Think back to college. We spend hundreds of thousands for an education today. Does the school guarantee us fame and fortune? No, they simply give us the tools to learn with. Case in point. Several years ago, I attended a Larry Williams seminar in Washington, D.C. There were probably 150 attendees spending $2K apiece to be there. Do the math. Larry is a very charismatic speaker. Would you have attended his seminar if he told you in his marketing that he lost 50% of his entire grubstake while he parlayed $10K into $1M in a year's time? That he had actually made $2M but in the final month or so of trading lost a cool million. Not so appealing when presented in those terms so of course these guys embellish. He also told the story of why he doesn't manage accounts for others. Seems that when he did, he took this one woman's $10K and turned it into $300K in a year's time and she SUED him! Claimed that he didn't turn it into a million like he claimed he did that one year and so she felt cheated. She lost the suit of course, but it soured him on doing any more account management. I used to be an electrical contractor. I could rough in an entire house in a day's time. I could teach you to do the same also, but it would probably take you the better part of a week to do the same job. Does this make me a poor teacher or rather is it because you need much experience first before it becomes second nature? The point I'm trying to make is that all these guys have something to offer if you keep an open mind and look past the hyperbole. I'm looking at Chuck Hughes MVP Secrets manual as I write this. He does not claim he never has losses but on the contrary claims that he tries to maintain a 3:1 ratio of profit to loss. This is sound money management. OVERALL, he claims fantastic profits and provides his E*Trade statements as proof. I think his 25 years trading experience has given him a better edge than what I can do but I am still willing to listen and learn. Take what they say with a grain of salt and keep an open mind.
sounds like you have already paid him and he does not give out refunds so keep us informed on how it goes. just one thing to remember. dont confuse a bull market with brains. anybody can do well during a bull market. what you want to figure out is how well he did during the crash and over a couple years time.
Account is up about 150% over 90 days. As someone mentioned before, "anyone can make money in a bull market". So.... time will tell.
I wish you luck, but if your account is up 150% in 90 days, especially in this (mostly) dull market ,you are taking on way too much risk and will soon suffer a huge (%-wise anyway) loss. Do you have an option position risk graph? Look at what your max loss is if things go bad... Good luck and good trading to all.
Chil, I am not trying to be rude, but I agree with Wayne. Without giving away the Charles Hughes secret sauce, could you at least share the types of bets this guy is encouraging you to take?
If the gurus were RIA's and CTA's managing other people's money, then they would have to disclose-with proof-their performances, drawdowns, etc. There is no reason for anyone to have to hide behind embellishments.
The premise is to buy long calls on stocks whose price are at recent highs or have potential to greatly appreciate in the future. Conversely, long puts on downward price depreciation. Max loss is the cost of the call or the put. I am long in KIRK, CECO, THO, FINL, and was recently stopped out of PNRA after a gain of $600/position. I use a trailing stop limit of 10-30% depending on the volatility of the underlying. My goal is minimum 30% appreciation and beyond that I either tighten stops or shed positions trying to maintain a P/L ration of 3:1 or better. As of right now: Kirk +$28.99, CECO +$124.28, THO -$107.12, and FINL +$37.04.
That is my conclusion... I have studied 300 years of financial history and want to know one common aspect? They all blew up because they ran out of money. Sounds like duh, but actually quite interesting. What this means is that if you have the cash to go through any s**t storm you have probably a pretty good chance of surviving. Think about it the collapse of the market in 2008. Imagine if you had used good money management you could have exited the market, and jumped back in to sit on a pretty tidy profit...
OK I see what you are doing now. It's a decent way to trade if you have an ability to pick more winners than losers (big IF there, tho). I've traded that way a lot too with an auto order system. For example, an ATM next month long op with medium volatility, like 30, will increase in price approx 20-30% if the underlying only moves about 3%, during the first two weeks. But if it moves against you the same amount, you will lose 50-60%. Unless you are using a small beer money account I'd think a sane leverage would only return 2-5%/month on account, if you hit more winners than losers. We all know things happen and that big losing streak is always right around the corner... Good luck in your trading.