Based on the above comment, most likely you haven't studied/checked what is QT yet from his book, I would guess! Otherwise, have you ever used/(back-)tested QT before? If yes, would you like to share with us your past performance of using QT (for buying long options)? You may also post your live calls for forward-testing performance (with whatever methods) if you like.
There are probably two people in the wrold who think that Bernie Schaeffer's advice has any merit - you and him. From Peter Brimelow in MarketWatch (12/23/10): âThe Terrible Ten for 2010⦠Bernie Schaefferâs Option Advisor, Bernie Schaeffer: -11.0%â¦â From Peter Brimelow in MarketWatch (12/24/09): ââ¦puzzling is the survival of letters likeâ¦Bernie Schaefferâs Option Advisor (down 12.17% over 10 years)â¦. [Down 33.1% in 2009.]â In his MarketWatch.com column of 12/23/07, Peter Brimelow records that âBernie Schaefferâs Option Advisorâ is among the ten worst performing newsletter portfolios for 2007, down 18.4% through 11/30/07. From Chuck Jaffe in MarketWatch.com (4/1/05): ââ¦Hulbert Financial Digestâ¦has Schaefferâs Option Advisor as one of its worst performers.
Stupid Investment of the Week Stories You Might Like BOSTON (MarketWatch) -- Michael M. from Louisville has decided to broaden his investments and to get some help. He's been shopping investment newsletters. "I've been investing for about 10 years now, mostly in mutual funds, and I think it's time for me to become a smarter and more sophisticated investor," Michael wrote in an e-mail. "I've seen a lot on Bernie Schaeffer, have liked everything I've seen and was wondering what you thought about his Option Advisor newsletter." What I think is that Michael and Bernie Schaffer's newsletter would mix like clean sheets and mud, and the potential for a big mess is why Bernie Schaeffer's Option Advisor is today's pick for Stupid Investment of the Week. Stupid Investment of the Week highlights the issues and problems that make an investment less-than-ideal for the average consumer, in the hope that spotlighting trouble in one situation makes it easier to discover elsewhere. While obviously not a purchase recommendation, neither is this column intended as an automatic sell signal; in the case of an investment newsletter, an existing subscriber should already know if the publication is a good match for their personality. Truth be told, some of the issues that make the Schaeffer newsletter a bad choice for an average investor could apply to many different publications. Options trading itself, for example, is a bit of an unusual "next step" from mutual funds, so it would be hard to suggest that someone like Michael is a good fit for any options newsletter, from Schaeffer's to the new one published by my employer, MarketWatch. There's little wonder why Michael would be impressed by Bernie Schaeffer. A mathematician and former actuary, Schaeffer has built a reputation for daring picks. His resume includes a variety of honors for stock and option selection, and he talks about complex matters in a way ordinary investors tend to identify with. For any investor looking at a newsletter, the most essential part of the selection process is matching the content -- plus the work and money level involved in making the strategy work -- with the individual. The editor's ability to win over an audience at a seminar, during a television appearance or through clever quotes in the print media has to translate to the newsletter for it to work. Even the best of newsletters can be a bad fit for some consumers. But other concerns belong specifically to Schaeffer's newsletter, and when both sides are combined, it becomes increasingly clear that the average guy should not fork over $149 a year for Option Advisor, much less try to follow the advice dispensed there. The issues start with performance, and just how an investor is supposed to judge it. The leading publication for tracking newsletter performance is the Hulbert Financial Digest (also owned by MarketWatch), which has Schaeffer's Option Advisor as one of its worst performers. But Schaeffer Investment Research and Hulbert have long squabbled over methodology, which leaves an investor squarely in the middle trying to figure out whose numbers to trust. The Hulbert chart on Schaeffer's "aggressive portfolio" is laugh-out-loud funny, provided you haven't lived through it with your own money. The performance line actually drops out the bottom of the chart, crossing over the information below. That's what happens when the annualized loss over the last 15 years is 5.2 percent. Over the entire period tracked by Hulbert, the Option Advisor's aggressive portfolio shows an annualized loss of 14.6 percent. By that measure, if you had started with $10,000 at the end of 1982 and followed the newsletter's picks for the last 23 years, you'd have $300 left.
Spindr0, you're talking about Bernie's "Option Advisor" newsletter. He wrote a book also called "The Option Advisor". His newsletter might be a dog, but his book isn't too bad. I got a free copy when I opened a brokerage account some time back. Like I said it's not a bad book. The chapter that OP is talking about has technical merit.
OK, you liked his book. Can't argue with that. I would think that if someone's advisory newsletter ran $10,000 down to $300, I'd be suspicious of anything he offered. To wit, he can't fish. He can't feed me. But maybe, if I'm lucky and work really hard, I'll read his book and figure out how to catch the fish that he can't. Anything's possible
Most likely Highly Unlikely! You couldn't, as if you're not an excellent timer. It will take many years to be a good timer, if you're very lucky, before becoming an excellent one. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3391054#post3391054 Frankly speaking: You need to subscribe my signals (C2)!
True. It takes years to be a good timer but that's not necessarily a prerequisite to succeed. There are low risk trading systems where you don't have a clue which way the market is going. You only need to know how to take advantage of it