CS|MACO Wakes Up

On Thursday morning, the American Association of Individual Investors' Sentiment Survey showed that 38.5% of their (paying) members reported being bullish. This was up 2.8% from the previous week. At the end of the trading day on Thursday, SPY closed below its 200-day moving average, down $5/share, or 3.5%, from Tuesday's close.

This close below the 200-day moving average caused CS|MACO to signal a position-closing trade. Don't remember what CS|MACO is? I don't blame you - it's been very quiet since May, when it went long SPY. As a primarily trend-following trade, the longer it holds a position the more likely it will make serious money. But unfortunately, it also means it will give back a large proportion of its profits when the market turns against it.

This position was typical. CS|MACO signaled a buy on May 10 when the folks who feel obligated to pay AAII for the privilege of filling out a weekly sentiment survey reported that they felt profoundly un-bullish (only 25.4% of them were optimistic). That entry at 136 was about 1/3 of the way through a down-move in the S&P that bottomed on June 4 at 128 (closing price), only to rally throughout the summer to a high of 147.20 (closing price) on September 14 - one of my favorite days of the year. Since then the volatility of the S&P has been increasing and it has been drifting lower through a series of bounces. I knew it was only a matter of time until the 200-day moving average was crossed.

CS|MACO will stay out of the market until one of the following occurs:

• AAII comes out with a bullish number below 27.5% (buy signal); or
• SPY closes above the 200-day moving average again (buy signal); or
• SPY closes below the 200-day moving average, and it in turn closes below the 300-day moving average (short signal). That will be a while.

Just for fun, here's a little chart that plots the weekly prices of SPY (taken on Wednesdays) and the AAII bullish sentiment number. I've limited the time range to be the period of CS|MACO's latest position; that is, May 10-Nov 8.

Including dividends, CS|MACO is up about 4% on a Return on Investment basis since its inception in September 2010. Not a great track record, but I'm sticking with it for now. 

CS|MACO: Out At Last

The CS|MACO trade has been long SPY since Mid-March, entering back then on excessive bearishness on the part of the survey-responding individual investors of the AAII (Association of American Individual Investors). It finally exited this morning on excessive bullishness from those same investors. Since it's been such a long holding period, a review of the trading methodology might be in order.

Every week, the AAII solicits a survey from its members about how they feel about the market that week - bullish, bearish, or neutral. Then they publish the percentages of each of those numbers on their website in time for trading on the open on Thursday morning. Long-term analysis has shown that these respondents get more bullish the higher the market goes, regardless of other factors, and they get less bullish the lower the market goes.

My own back-testing indicates that there is a significant skew to the results, which I think is best explained in the psychological terms of a typical "amateur" investor. Having been burned before, this investor remains bearish or neutral until the market is so strong that he can no longer deny its strength. Then he flip-flops his opinion, deciding that it's a bull market after all, and buys shares. As the market rises and falls, he is unable to separate himself from his position, rationalizing his losing days and patting himself on the back for his winning days - despite being a passive holder of shares who didn't really do anything. When the market enters a downtrend, he continues rationalizing his position longer than he should, telling himself it's okay because "it's a long-term trade," or "it's a minor correction," or "they're just shaking out the weak hands." He remains bullish until the moment of capitulation, finally selling his shares in despair.

This is a classic investing behavior that is driven by the sunk-cost fallacy. This dilemma is usually explained in terms of movie tickets: you bought the tickets, but the movie sucks and you want to leave. But you don't leave, hoping against all odds that it will get better, because you don't want to "waste" the price of the ticket. While this example is very easy to understand, and most of us have experienced it directly, it doesn't map perfectly to an investing situation. So let me attempt to redraw it.

You bought shares in a company, excited because you felt that they were developing the next great product sure to be on everyone's list during the Holidays, and you reckoned the stock was under-priced. Unbeknownst to you, the management team was running the company into the ground by taking crippling salaries and under-funding research and marketing. For months, the stock slid steadily lower for no apparent reason. Your initial investment fell by 10%, then 20%, then 30%. Every month, you reviewed your holdings and couldn't bring yourself to sell, because:

1. Rationalization: Maybe when that new product comes out, things will be different. Rebuttal: What was your target return on that product at the beginning? 20%? 40%? What kind of a return do you need to get now just to get even?
2. Rationalization: If you sell now, you'll never make the money back that you've lost. Rebuttal: If you sell now, you can invest in something else with a higher probability of return, enhancing your chances of profiting from now on.
3. Rationalization: You bought this company because you felt it was under-priced. Now it's an even better bargain! Rebuttal: Imagine how great a bargain it will be when it goes bankrupt.

Does any of this sound familiar? I'm not immune: I bought Yahoo in 2000 for $100, $80, and again at $40 before I finally capitulated and sold at $20. That sure was a good tax write-off. But I digress.

This psychology is important to CS|MACO because the trade seeks to get long when the typical investor described above finally gives up and dumps his shares in despair. This is the moment of capitulation, and it generally marks the bottom of a correction in the market. Because most individuals are long-only investors, using the inverse doesn't work so well: it makes no sense to get short when everyone is exuberantly bullish. Also, long-term up-trends are much more common than long-term down-trends - market corrections tend to be much faster and more violent because of the pain-avoidance behavior described above.

Since long-term up-trends involve ever-higher bullishness on the part of investors, it is frequently the case that the AAII survey gets so bullish that CS|MACO gets an exit-long signal long before the end of the trend. The MACO component compensates for these premature exits by keeping the trade long as long as the daily close price is higher than the 200-day moving average, and the 200-day moving average is itself higher than the 300-day moving average.

As a matter of fact, the rally that SPY has been enjoying since its low on October 4 is very close to reaching that 200-day moving average. So with a little more buying and a little less bullishness (aka irrational exuberance), CS|MACO might find itself right back in that position.

So how did it do this time around? Including dividends, it's a 3% return. It's not a tremendously exciting strategy.

Dipped in Gold

With all the Arch Linux posts lately, loyal readers may be tempted to think I have given up the aggressive-investing game. Not true. I recently completed my trade of the year with those out-of-the-money GLD calls I wrote about back in August. I bought them for 25c a share, and sold them for various prices, a few as high as $8. All told, those calls netted something on the order of 800% return on premium paid.

As I exited the last of those calls, GLD was in the midst of its toughest correction in the past few years. I bought my first shares of GLD in 2009, but even looking back as far as 2006, I don't see a correction as violent or as deep as the one we just completed. Gold bulls were hit with a triple whammy: a technical double-top formation around the end of August was followed by the Fed failing to signal much more in the way of monetary stimulus. As the investment world started its usual flight to quality in the face of disappointing developments, the CME responded to the increasing volatility in gold futures by raising the margin requirements. Everyone in the trading community still remembers how margin increases sparked the recent Silver panic, and so it is no surprise that GLD gapped-down two days in a row in the last week of September. It shed 8% of its value in two trading days, which is a pretty dizzying fall for a physical commodity unaffected by droughts and floods like gold.

The gold haters came out in droves, claiming this was the "popping of the bubble", and giving target prices of $700/oz (about $70/share in GLD terms). I stepped away from leverage on GLD, which I had planned to do during the fall, anyway, since September-October has historically been a bad season for gold (I have no idea why, it's not like there's a harvest or something). I gritted my teeth and held onto my outright shares of GLD, the straight-up gold ETF, and GDX, the ETF comprised of gold-mining companies. And I bought a few more shares of GLD on the way down, but far too soon (169). I admit I started worrying that the bubble was popping, too, but those fears are past.

Does the chart above look like a bubble to you? I have added a 100-day simple moving average to the price of GLD over the past 3 years. Notice the double-top, with a high of 185, and the two days of down-gapping shortly afterward. But also notice that GLD stopped its free-fall at the 100-day trendline, and resumed the trend. That's not a bubble-pop, that's the start of the mania phase.

Here's another chart you might recognize, this time of the NASDAQ from 1996 through 2002. See how there are corrections back to the trendline throughout the 1990s? Some of them undoubtedly looked like The End at the time, but those corrections ended up looking like little squiggles in comparison to the mania phase starting in late 1999, and of course the multi-year sell-off afterward.

So I'm looking to buy dips in gold again, since I think we'll start another leg up in this market sometime around year-end. I've already bought some shares in GDXJ, an ETF comprised of smaller-cap mining companies, and some calls in GDX, expiring in January. Both are already priced higher than where I bought them, but I can't take credit for that -- it was just an effect of the risk-on-risk-off hokey-pokey the markets have been dancing since 2008. At the moment, we're putting a foot in, so all risky assets are going up. Later, we'll take it out, and they'll all fall again.

Why mining companies instead of gold itself? I mostly prefer to trade the metal on its own, so as to slightly reduce the vast number of variables acting on my investment, but we are entering Q3 earnings-reporting season. There will be a lot of bad news coming out of the tech industry (Google's blow-out notwithstanding), and a lot of good news coming out of the mining industry, as gold miners realize higher and higher prices for the more or less constant rate of supply they are pulling out of the ground. Also, mining companies have lagged behind gold prices during this bull market. If they close the gap, I'd like to be there to profit from it. And finally, dividends. Gold doesn't pay a dividend, but miners do. Consequently, I might look to buy a few outright shares of individual mining companies so as not to dilute my dividends through the GDX ETF.

I have some trades unrelated to gold in progress, too, but that's another post.

The Dangers of Stubbornness

A facebook friend enjoyed the comment I made in my previous post: "Or else it's the beginning of a downtrend, and your position is doomed - you can never tell which." Reading her comment on facebook, I started to reply in place and realized I had a lot more to say than a couple of lines.  So I'll put it here.

As I said earlier, the Collaboration is Good trade is a mean-reversion trade.  This is actually a misnomer, as there is no "mean" the market is returning to; a more accurate term would be "trend-reversion", but the industry uses the terms it uses.  In any case, the general principle is that when a market is in a long-term trend, and has a short period (the length of this period varies by market) of returns counter to that trend, a correction back toward the long-term trend is more likely than a continuation of the short term counter trend.  I realize for most readers, that makes very little sense, so let me illustrate.

Example: A Rubber Band

Go get a rubber band - say a medium-sized one about 4 inches long, and hold it in your left hand at a stationary height. With your right hand, grasp its other end and stretch it a few inches downward and release it.  It snaps back, but not too violently, right?  Now stretch it a lot farther than you did before - to something like 12-14 inches.  Notice how you feel the band begin to fight you, equaling out the force of your hand with its own elastic properties?  OK, release it, and notice how much faster it returns to slack.  In fact, it probably bounced up past the fingers of your left hand - in finance, we call this over-correction.  It may have snapped your fingers, too, which provides a good object lesson on why you shouldn't take my blog commentary as advice.

The problem with the rubber band example is that the market is not being held stationary in someone's left hand.  Because of the vast chaos and complexity that exists in the capital markets, there is plenty of room for contrary viewpoints.  One of these is the Random Walk Hypothesis.  In a nutshell, it states that the market cannot be predicted, and any apparent successes in doing so are simply luck.

Counter Example: The Coin-Flip Fallacy

Imagine we have a fair coin for flipping, one that gives heads 50% of the time, and tails 50% of the time.  Now, if we flip this coin 3 times and then report its results in percentage terms without giving the flip count, it will look terribly weighted toward one or the other (67%/33%, or even 100%/0%).  As we flip it more and more, though, we naturally expect it to approach 50/50.  Does that mean that a long run of all heads makes tails somehow more likely?  Of course not - any reasonably aware person can see that the results of any given flip of the coin are independent of all previous flips.

But when roulette players mutter about a particular number being "due", isn't that the exact same thing?  As the number of variables increase, the complexity goes up; this, in turn, makes the game look more and more beatable.  Now how much more complex is the capital market system than a game of roulette?  If it is indeed just a random environment, no human has the ability to intuitively detect that - we're just not wired that way.

I was once forced to "prove" to a previous employer that die rolls in a craps game were independent of each other.  I put it in quotes because the only thing that constituted proof, to him, was a complete model of the entire game that he could run various betting systems on until he managed to convince himself it was just a negative expected-value game of chance.  This man was a trader - none of us are immune.

I personally prefer to believe that the market is not random - instead, it is the numerical result of millions of complex and confusing variables and herd psychology.  Whenever I evaluate a strategy, I try to understand the underlying causes for the apparent pattern. If I can't identify any, I find it very difficult to trust the predictive nature of the strategy.

Real-World Data Sample

Starting in March, 2009, the S&P (proxied here by SPY) enjoyed a massive 14-month, 85% rally.  One leg of that rally started in July and ended in October. Backtesting reveals that CiG would have signaled a buy on September 28, after 3 days of counter-trend price movement.  That time period is visible here, with a couple of trendlines to help remove some of the noise (click the picture for a larger view).  For the curious, yes there were other signals - profitable ones - near Aug 17 and Sep 2.  But they had more bowl-shaped corrective rallies, and thus were not as clear an example as Sep 28, took its profits after a single day.


Here is a zoomed-in view of SPY at the time of the trade signal.  I've overlayed a Relative Strength Indicator to help illustrate the stretching rubber band effect that CiG is designed to capture.

As you can see, SPY built up three days of upward corrective pressure, shown by the red counter-trend line. Finally, nearly all that pressure was relieved on Sep 28 with a 19-point (in the futures) rally. CiG would have signaled a buy on the close of Sep 25 (Friday), and a flattening sell on the close on the next trading day, Sep 28, booking a $950/contract profit.

Double-Down or Go Home

Essentially, the reasoning behind doubling one's investment in a trade that has lost money goes like this:

1. I still think the trade will work out and be profitable; in fact, I feel that it is more likely to have a winning result now that the security I'm trading is even more incorrectly priced.
2. Given that the probability of success is higher now than when I originally entered the trade, I should allocate more capital to it.

Notice that there is a very fine line between this reasoning and the degenerate gambler's muttered mantra, "If I can win one big bet I can make back all my losses." A very fine line indeed.  Also bear in mind that doubling down is a reasonable possibility only for trades that revert.  Such an attitude for a trend-follower or an option spreader would quickly lead to the end of the trader's career.

Even if it makes sense for the trade at hand, it ultimately is a Martingale.  If a trader decides to take this approach, even after some soul-searching and healthy self-doubt, he ought to first clearly define his risk-management rules.  The truly dangerous nature of a Martingale, to the plan-deprived, is that at any given moment during this trade, booking the loss looks worse than taking on a little more risk.  Notice that the reasoning above doesn't ask two important questions: can I bet a greater slice of my financial life that my model is flawless and applies to this situation? and do I have more capital to allocate?

CiG doesn't attempt to answer these questions - good strategies shouldn't presume to be that comprehensive.  Instead, it does not allow increasing position size within a security, and limits the list of securities traded; it also has predefined stop-loss limits.  When the limit is crossed, the position is closed and the loss is booked.  Period.

Even if a trade is good, even if the market is irrational and you have positioned yourself to take advantage of it when it returns to normalcy, you may not have the required funds to reap those benefits.  As John Maynard Keynes famously said: markets can remain irrational a lot longer than you and I can remain solvent.

And that, my friends, is the Risk of Ruin.

Victory From the Jaws of Defeat

It's been another exciting week in the markets.  Last Friday, the CiG trade sent up a buy signal on S&P Futures.  At the close, I dutifully bought at 1297.  Monday morning, all looked well as the market opened nearly unchanged and immediately rallied a couple points; that would prove to be the best price this position would ever see.  It fell the rest of the day, closing at 1285.25, a loss of $587.50/contract.  Tuesday looked great for a while, accelerating upward overnight to 1292 and reaching a high of 1295.5 - only a $75/contract loss - before giving it all back again in the last 2 hours of trading, ultimately closing at 1284.50, down another $50 from the previous day.  Wednesday was uneventful but painful, opening at 1282.25 and closing at 1277.5 - total per-contract loss: $975, ouch.  But then something interesting happened.  Another buy signal came along, this one on Russell 2000 Futures, giving me a decision to make.

In a previous trade a few weeks ago, I found myself in a similar situation: S&P had continued to move down for a couple days after initiating a position, costing me losses and threatening my stop-loss; then Russell signaled.  In that previous trade, I elected not to take the second entry signal, reasoning that in a real money account I probably wouldn't have or wouldn't care to risk additional margin on what I knew to be a highly correlated market.  That time, I watched as the Russell rocketed up the next day - I think I ended up scratching the S&P position, and missed a $1500 winner in the Russell.  After thinking about it some, I realized that a secondary entry like that is an even stronger signal.  CiG is a mean-reversion trade, entering a buy order when the market has sold down too much.  When it moves down even further, even more correctional pressure builds up, indicating a higher probability of the market returning to (or near) its previous range.

Or else it's the beginning of a downtrend, and your position is doomed - you never can tell which.

Since I try to learn from my trading mistakes (my many, many trading mistakes), this time I decided to take that secondary signal.  I bought Russell Futures at the Wednesday close for 787.  Thursday was the corrective rally I'd been looking for, with Russell reaching a high of 796.70, and S&P a high of 1294.  When it was clear I was seeing my rally, I changed my stop-losses into trailing stops so that I wouldn't have to babysit the position (I do have work to do, after all).  When the market started to sell off hard after 2:00pm, both of my trailing stops exited me from the trade at better prices than if I had waited for the close: 1289.50 for the S&P ($375/contract loss), and 794.10 for the Russell ($710/contract profit).

NeighborTrader pointed out that technically there was no exit signal in either product, and he's right.  But it was clear to me that the corrective rally had come and gone - staying in the trade any longer was asking for trouble, in my opinion.  Sure enough, Friday was another down day, with the S&P and Russell closing at 1269.75 and 779, respectively - representing a total stop-constrained loss of over $2000/contract.

I'll take a $365 profit while avoiding a $2000 loss any day, won't you?

*POP*!

It has been a busy month, and except for my mechanical trades (an update on those is coming soon), I haven't found the time to wander around looking at areas of the market that I don't usually trade.  About a week ago, though, I realized that I had heard a lot of buzz around the office about silver.  A month ago almost none of our traders were interested in trading silver futures, and now suddenly I was hearing about it from several different directions.  Curious, I brought up a chart.

(Silver ETF through May 2, 2011)

This, ladies and gents, is a bubble.  Having lived through the economic aftermath, we all have heard of the Tech Bubble of 2000 and the Housing Bubble of 2008.  Smaller financial instruments like silver don't get capitalized names, dates, and a lot of mainstream attention, because they don't push the economy around.  But here's a couple more from recent memory: the Oil bubble of 2007-2008, and the Agricultural bubble of 2007.  In the charts below, I have helpfully included the bubble-popping aftermath for 20/20 hindsight, which I held back in the Silver graph again (for the impatient, there is a full chart near the bottom of this post).

(Nasdaq ETF Apr1999-Apr2000)

(Oil ETF Mar2007-Jul2008)

(Commodity ETF Jan2007-Mar2008)

Sadly I can't find an ETF that captures the housing bubble well, but here is an excellent chart from another blog (thanks to James Parsons).  I haven't verified the source data, but it looks more or less correct.  The volume isn't pictured; in the context of home prices, that would be the real estate sales activity.  I could go do a bunch of research, but I won't.  We all remember the "flipping" craze of 2006-2007, right?

Housing prices 1970-2010, nominal and inflation-adjusted

In all of the charts above, notice the accelerating prices near the end of the bubble, and the corresponding accelerating daily volume.  This represents the "final blow-off phase", where everyone just has to be involved in this instrument.  Retail amateur investors do not belong in a frothy market like the ones pictured above, but the siren song of water-fountain stories about how Bob from Accounting doubled his money last month is a powerful draw.

In 2000, I had been reaping the rewards of the Tech Revolution, as I saw it, by working as an independent consultant on the side, more than doubling my salary by charging consultant rates and putting in 20-30 extra hours a week.  I suddenly realized that a lot of people had been making a lot of money in the stock market for a long time, and I was determined not to miss out on any additional free money.  I started reading the Motley Fool and buying more or less any stock that made a new high, with no regard for earnings (there weren't any) or prices.  I came late to the party, like most investors did, but I was convinced this New Economy (remember that?) was one that would love me and my technical mind, cradling me in its hammock of cash.  So I bought Yahoo at $120.  When it fell to $100, I listened to the Buy&Holders telling me what a great new bargain it was offering me, and I bought more.  When it fell to $60, I bought more.  When it fell to $40, I made my last purchase while gritting my teeth.  I don't remember where I sold it, but it certainly wasn't higher than $15.

I learned a lot in the next 8 years.  In 2008, when stock valuations were ridiculously high, the housing market was quietly imploding, and credit was rapidly shrinking, I heard a sudden increase in questions from people not involved in finance about how to get involved in finance.  I had doctors, dentists, and engineers wanting to argue with me about where oil was going in the next 5 years.  I had people telling me that $1.5million wasn't that much to spend on a 4-bedroom house with no land, and besides, you could just sell it for $1.8 in a couple of months! Suddenly everyone was a speculator, and everyone was loving the party.  Meanwhile I was reading economic analysis by folks like the Head Economist at Merrill Lynch, who was pointing out how silly it all was.  Every week he bemoaned the rapidly accelerating speculative frenzy, and forecasted a recession with increasing certainty and severity.  Finally in the summer 2008, I think in August, I decided it was time to take a position.  I bought puts on SPY, a lot of them.  I made about 800% on that trade; no, that is not a typo.  The money I made in that trade did not make up for the money I lost in my stock-index retirement accounts, but it certainly helped.

So a week ago, when I suddenly woke up and realized that I was seeing the top of a bubble in silver, I bought puts in silver.  I didn't buy many, because I'm unfamiliar with the market and I don't want to extend myself too far into a clearly volatile situation when I don't know what fundamental forces might be driving it.  Well, it turns out to be speculative craziness.  The CME decided to increase the margin requirements on its silver futures contract (SI), because it was seeing bigger daily ranges and was concerned that too many small speculators would be unable to make margin, leading to a meltdown (irony?).  Silver immediately turned about 120 degrees and headed straight for the floor.  I bought my puts the day after that announcement, so I missed the first big down day.  But here's the full-year chart of silver I held back at the top of this post:

SLV through present day

Is that not the most perfect bubble chart you've ever seen???

Two days later, I had more than doubled my money on the puts.  I sold a little less than half of them for more than I paid for the full position.  Now that remaining part of the position is worth more than twice my original investment.  In just a week, I'm up over 350% overall.  I like to use options for short-term directional plays like this, because I get leverage and limited risk.  I bought options worth about 4x more than I would normally initially invest in anything, and I spent about 5% of that on premium.  That 5% of the notional value is my maximum loss; leveraged out, I'm risking 20% of a unit of capital on this play.  It carries a high risk of loss, since the option really can (and often does) go to zero, but the leverage carries with it a high reward potential. 

Disclaimer:  it's tough to make money buying options.  It usually only works out well when there is a sudden violent movement - in the right direction - of my underlying stock/ETF/etc.  The problem, though, is that the probability of a sudden violent movement is captured in the term "expected volatility", and that's one component in the price of the option.  Just as you would pay more for car insurance if you had a history of vehicular homicide, you'll pay more for a put option on a stock that has a history of portfolio homicide.  So buying options usually loses money, and the art is to control that money loss and not let the option price go to zero.  But when they make money, oh boy.  I can turn a 30% drop in silver into a 350% profit.  That makes up for a lot of lost option bets.

This is usually where someone (you know who you are, Dad) tells me that I'm "profiting off the misery of others".  I see it a different way.  Do we all remember how it was the Evil Speculators that caused the 2008 crash?  Well, it's those same Evil Speculators that drove the silver price up above all reason.  Keep in mind, the catalyst for bursting this bubble was the CME increasing its margin requirements.  Do you really think that increased margin requirements are going to stop a hedger from buying silver futures because he needs a few truckloads of silver in a few months?  Of course not.  Do you think it would seriously impair the normal healthy speculation activities of the professional trading firms that provide markets to the hedgers, thus facilitating the modern financial system, as is their Patriotic Duty?  Certainly not - most trading firms have millions, if not tens of millions, in their margin accounts.  The only people severely affected by increased margin requirements are small-size speculators with underfunded accounts:  those 1-lot and 2-lot traders that are in there driving up the volume and generating water-cooler war stories.  These guys are cruising along with $10,000 to $50,000 in a futures trading account, and they're sitting at their desks trading silver all day long when they should be doing something productive.  This is why the Chinese are winning, people.

Think of it as weeding.  Sometimes you have to kill off some buckthorn so the oaks can thrive.  Think of me as a chipper/shredder.

Not The Spreadsheet's Fault

Two weeks ago, CS|MACO gave me a Buy signal when AAII.com released a bearish investor sentiment report -- bearish investors correspond well to short-term market bottoms, that's why we call it Contrary Sentiment.  The moving-average crossover component had no strong feelings either way, so the CS-based Buy signal was allowed to generate a system-wide Buy.  I dutifully bought SPY near the open price in my paperMoney account.

A week later, as the market rose, investors relaxed their concerns somewhat and found their bullish mojo again.  37.7% of them gave the thumbs-up to the world, which was outside of the Buy range, but not above the 41.5% required to close the trade.

Finally last night, a new report came out at 41.8%...just high enough to get a close signal.  But now SPY was above its 25-day moving average, which in turn was above the 200-day moving average.  So while CS went from Buy to Flat, MACO went from Flat to Buy.  Flat+Buy=Stay-Long.

If I had managed to put the numbers into the newly-fixed spreadsheet correctly, that's what I would have done.  Instead, I fat-fingered the 200-day moving average, entering 4119.49 instead of 119.49.  The spreadsheet was a little taken aback by this sudden 4000% spike in the long-term moving average, but kept a stiff upper lip about it.  "Guess you better sell, boss," it said.  I sold.

Hey, I got a great price, getting out about 35c above the close for the day.  But first thing tomorrow I'll have to get back in.  And I'm betting that the Employment Situation Report tomorrow an hour before market-open is going to send the S&P up sharply, causing a gap-up in SPY that will cost me for my stupidity.

Can't blame the spreadsheet this time... garbage in, garbage out.

A Little Success

I had some tough trading days this month, so it's nice to have the kind of success that makes it all feel easy.

In Motion, but In Which Direction?

Research in Motion (RIMM), maker of fine Blackberry-branded devices, is a company built on a fad.  Corporate users relied on their "crackberries" for years, especially when travelling or otherwise out of the office.  But Apple's iPhone was Blackberry's first serious competitive threat, and the flood of Android devices were the second half of the one-two punch.  The fad is over, and RIMM is shrinking. 

For some reason, the investment community doesn't seem to have accepted this obvious fact.  Analysts still talk in breathless whispers about RIMM's upcoming tablet devices (I'm betting it'll suck), and the amazing experience provided by its latest phone operating system refreshes (evolutionary, blah).  Many otherwise intelligent hedge fund managers still treat RIMM like a tech sector bellweather, buying it up on every positive rumor, selling it off again on every fundamental stumble.  As far as I'm concerned, RIMM is as relevant today as Digital Equipment Corp was in 1997.  Unfamiliar with DEC?  I rest my case.

Just like an eccentric hermit who occasionally ventures into the big city for a group therapy session, RIMM lovers are periodically snapped back to reality.  This check happens quarterly, when RIMM reports earnings.  This is my opportunity for one of my very most favorite short-term trades: buying puts on RIMM just before earnings come out.  I have had varying success lately, as bubbly investors drunk on excess Fed liquidity shrugged off what could only be described as luke-warm results.  But overall I believe the trade is a good one, and I had another opportunity for it this week: RIMM reported its latest earnings on Thursday after the market closed.

I bought puts on Tuesday, and when the market rallied, taking RIMM along with it (thus reducing the price of my puts as well as the delta), I bought more on Thursday.  RIMM closed at 64.09 on Thursday, just before its conference call.

Don't ask me how RIMM did last quarter: I don't know and I don't really care.  But I know they disappointed both in their top-line revenue numbers ("oh but look at the continued cost-cutting!" the analysts said) as well as their outlook for the next quarter and rest of the year ("they're in a retooling phase, just like the late 90s!" the analysts screeched)*.  Ms. Market would have none of this posturing and spin management, and she sold that sucker off by 11-12% in after hours trading.  The next morning, RIMM opened at 57.17 (-10.7%), and my puts were up about 80-90%.  Hapless investors who haven't yet learned not to listen to analysts started buying the stock up, topping it out at 58.40 (-8.9%) about an hour after the market opened. 

2-day, 5-minute chart of RIMM showing the 11% drop after earnings

By the way, the first hour of trading is known in the professional trading community as "amateur hour."

I exited some of my puts pretty early, in case the rally had legs, and in doing so I took all of my investment out of the trade - the remainder of my puts were pure profit.  Later in the day, as the dead-cat bounce pattern continued to take shape, I exited the rest at a slightly higher price.  Total return: 90% in 3 days.

* I distinctly remember reading that exact comment ("retooling phase... just like the late 90s") on Thursday night after the release, on a news item linked from Yahoo Finance.  I remember noticing that the related links section at the end of the post included Jim Cramer and other well-known "pundits".  I also remember the analyst giving an unequivocal Buy! recommendation based on how he saw the market reacting the next day (he expected a lot of buyers to step in, for some reason).  Now that the market has spoken, essentially confirming what the overnight traders knew already, somehow I can't find that article anywhere.  Too bad, I would have included a link to it.

CS|MACO: Unnaturally Quiet

First the good news: the AAII sentiment survey for March 23 did indeed reflect a more bullish flock, but insufficiently bullish to make the CS|MACO trade exit the next morning.  Meanwhile, SPY rallied above its 25-day moving average, so I now have a Hold signal from CS and a Long signal from MACO.  Unless CS goes all the way to Short, or SPY sells enough to get a Flat signal from MACO, I can stay in the trade.  SPY is already up nearly 3% from where I bought it on Thursday morning.  One of these days I'll do some more formal backtesting and maximum-drawdown analysis so I can leverage this trade up, but for now I'm content to let it just time an unleveraged entry and exit.

The bad news (and here, my poker friend Missy will start snickering if she's still reading) is that I discovered on Thursday that my spreadsheet that does all the calculations and boils the numbers down to Long/Hold/Exit/Short had some serious flaws that caused CS|MACO to miss two entry signals for smallish winning trades this fall.  Oops.  A craftsman is only as good as his tools, I guess.

The Condor Has Landed

My April Iron Condor managed to finish legging out of its bullish wing at a reasonably good price on Friday, completing the exit of the trade and profiting a nice solid $1.10/contract.  I never had to take any risk-management positions - just reduce quantity on the initial position as I worked my way out.  I'm looking for a good entry point for the May IC, but volatility is back down in the doldrums again.  I'll have to wait until the market gets skittery about something again - if that means skipping until June, so be it.

CS|MACO... Finally!

Mea Culpa

First, I need to relate a painful but valuable lesson I learned last week.  In my previous post, I said that the CiG trade had fired a Buy signal on S&P Futures.  As a fade strategy, the CiG trade frequently signals trades that I view as bat-shit crazy.  It takes some teeth-gritting and reminding myself that this is fake money in order for me to be able to enter the trade sometimes.  Last Wednesday was one of those times.

I dutifully entered the trade, but I put a $500/contract stop-loss order in, instead of the $1000 that the script calls for.  I congratulated myself a couple of hours later when my stop-loss was hit, closing me out for a $500 loss, on saving the other $500 dollars.  Well... go look at a chart for S&P Futures.  My max unrealized loss that evening would have been about $700, and over the next two days we had a sizable rally.  By the time the exit signal arrived, the trade as designed would have been up over $2000/contract, a big return.  Instead, I was sitting on the sidelines with a $500 loss.  My "judgement", in this case, cost me a total of $2500/contract.  Ouch.

So why did I go against the trade as back-tested by NeighborTrader?  My rationale at the time was that this was a fundamental market move, and we were in uncharted territory that couldn't possibly be handled by back-testing.  OK, fair enough, and that's what judgement is for.  But I took the wrong action based on that judgement: instead of tightening my stop, which cut my max loss by 50% but increased my probability of experiencing that loss by far more than 100%, I should have opted not to place the trade at all.  If my comfort level with the risk is insufficient to execute the trade as designed, I should avoid the trade entirely - not cripple it and damn it to fail.

My conclusion was invalid, even if my assertion (these unprecedented times are likely to cause the trade not to work) was valid.  But what about my assertion?  If we want to look at unprecedented times, let's look at May 7, 2010, the day after the "Flash Crash" (I hate this term, by the way).  CiG would have similarly fired a Buy signal at the end of the day that day, and the exit signal would have come two trading days later, for a profit of over $2200/contract.  And here's the thing: NT back-tested this trade before May 7, 2010.  That's out-of-sample data, and thus can't be discarded as sample bias in his back-testing.

So my assertion -- unprecedented times invalidates the trade signal -- was invalid, and my conclusion on how to act on it -- tighten the stop -- was invalid as well.  Look, I'm not perfect, but if I had gotten either thing right, I'd feel a lot better about it.  Anyway, $2500 lesson learned: either follow the trade, or don't do the trade - don't adjust the trade on the fly based on my gut.

Oh, and you may recall me mentioning that "by rights, I should be short Ten Year Futures, too". That trade, if entered, would have made another $1250/contract over the course of three trading days.  Sigh.

CS|MACO

Last Wednesday night, not long after my stop-out, AAII's sentiment survey for March 17 was posted, and those inversely prophetic investors had some pretty negative things to say about the market.  Bullishness dropped all the way to 28.5%, just below the CS Buy signal level of 31.5.  With SPY trading between its 25SMA and its 200SMA, the MACO component was giving a hearty "meh" signal.  Buy + don't-care = Buy.  So I bought a unit of SPY the next morning... at 128.  SPY is still in MACO's "meh" territory, but up 1.66/share from my buy price; AAII publishes another weekly survey overnight tonight.  If my individual investor peers recognize the cessation of the downtrend last week and get more bullish ("bullisher"?), I might find myself selling SPY on the open tomorrow morning.  But they'll have to get a lot "bullisher" - 41.5% or more - for me to take my profits and go home.  We'll see.

General Thoughts

As regular readers of this blog know, I run multiple trades in my paperMoney account at ThinkOrSwim.  Besides the ones mentioned above, I also have a bullish NDX option vertical spread on to simulate a collar, a bearish SPX option vertical spread, an Iron Condor in RUT (Russell 2000) and naked-long SPY puts.  I'm also looking for a dip in gold to buy back some GLD calls, after having exited my March calls before expiration.  The problem that I am starting to run into is that I have too many trades on the stock market - and many of them are nearly perfectly inversely correlated.  The worst offenders are the bearish SPX and bullish NDX spreads.  CiG and CS|MACO only hold positions once in a while - but the option spreads are there all month long, every month.

This false diversification doesn't benefit me at all - if they were real trades I would be spinning my wheels spending commission on an expectation of about 0 profit.  In a paperMoney account, this isn't so bad, because I can use the excuse that I am looking for profitable trades: the unprofitable ones will never "go pro" into a real money account.  But this is kind of a hollow argument, because any of these trades can be profitable or unprofitable, depending on the market conditions.

This issue bears more consideration.

And a Micro Rant

"They", whoever they are, changed the Nasdaq-100 ETF's symbol from QQQQ to QQQ last night.  WTF???  Didn't they just change it from QQQ to QQQQ a few years ago?  Make up your minds!

Keep Your Head Back

Let's lead this one with a chart, courtesy of BigCharts.com.  I'm using SPY here as a proxy for the S&P 500... mostly because I couldn't figure out how to hide the volume, and the index's volume is empty and boring.  The shape is the same, so it doesn't matter.  It looks a lot like the first 60 seconds on an awesome roller coaster.

Let's put this in perspective.  This is a 6-month chart, so it goes back through mid-September.  SPY was somewhere around 112 back then, and it closed at 126.xx today.  That's a 12.5% return over 6 months, or 25% annualized.  Wow, what a great stock market!  OK, yes, from the high of 134.xx one month ago on February 18, SPY is down 6%, or 72% annualized -- but of course if you really think it's going to continue at this pace for 11 more months, I have some swampland to sell you.  But let's look at the last month, shall we?

• Major unrest in the Middle East, including full-scale revolt in many of our oil suppliers, has caused Crude Oil futures to shoot up above $100/bbl (only $98/bbl today - what a bargain): well into production-drag territory;
• Japan suffered the worst earthquake in... what? forever? a long freaking time, anyway, and its nuclear plants are about to unleash a glowing hell on the Pacific Rim;
• The festering pimples in the European economy are starting to look like they're about to pop one after another: Ireland, Portugal, Greece, etc;
• The Federal Reserve's credibility is finally starting to be questioned, and major indications have started surfacing that inflation will be a bigger problem than people have been assuming;
• And Charlie Sheen, OMG.

Watching the activity in the market on Feb 23, I started worrying that we were about to see another Flash-Crash-type event.  The spreads were widening and the markets were looking really jittery.  I bought some puts on SPY, expiring in April.  I still have them, and I see no reason to sell them just yet.  I also have a bullish option spread that simulates a collar in NDX.  It's pretty deep underwater (duh), but this is a continuation of the collar trade I've been running for a long time, and I won't be changing it now.

Besides the stock market, what have been the other financial effects over the last month or so?  And just for fun, I'll talk about my activities where appropriate.

• The Canadian Dollar roared up and then slunk back, since the Fed-bashing started early on, but the flight-to-quality has taken over the last few days.
• I bought FXC (the Canadian Dollar ETF) today.
• The Ten Year Note, in a strong downtrend at the end of the year and trading sideways-to-down through mid-February, suddenly pointed its nose at the sky as of the end of last week and turned on the after-burners.
• By rights, the CiG trade should be short the ten-year note futures, but I opted for buying S&P futures instead, reasoning that the return on S&P should be more extreme than on Ten Years.  I was right.  I bought S&P on the close, and was just stopped out for my max loss a moment ago.
• Crude Oil futures traded as high as $107/bbl on March 7, and are back down to $97/bbl now in a pretty (but meaningless) isosceles triangle pattern on the chart.  Daily ranges expanded big-time, as the market tried to constantly adjust to unfolding events in the Middle East.  It's back down now mostly on Dollar strength, I think, but 97 is still far above the 85 it started from in February.
• Agriculture futures (corn, wheat, soybeans) all have the same triangle pattern as Crude Oil, without the big gap-up at the beginning.  Again, USD strength as everyone runs like hell into something "safe".
• I hold DJP, which is a commodity ETF which holds 33% energy, 30% agriculture, and 31% metals.  This is a long-term play against the USD that I put on back in January.  I have no interest in selling it at this point -- I only wish I'd bought a long time ago.
• Gold has traded pretty sideways recently, victim of the risk-on/risk-off tug-of-war that's been going on since Charlie Sheen started distracting us from trivial Middle Eastern matters.
• I've had big gold positions on for a long time, and just today I sold some calls that are due to expire on Friday, taking a small loss.  When the nuclear crisis in Japan finally settles down, I'll buy some more, because the dollar will suddenly seem like a bad idea again.

Oh, I also had a bullish option spread on SPX that I liquidated today for just about max-loss.  Option spreads are great because they let you define your max profit-loss range and sleep well knowing that you will neither make nor lose more than that range.  I had been fighting the uptrend in the stock market for 6 months, and finally capitulated with this option spread.  I told myself when I suffered a loss I would reverse direction and start doing bearish spreads instead.  That's tomorrow's trade.

CiG Finally Closed

As I mentioned in my previous post, the Collaboration-is-Good trade signalled a Buy on S&P Futures on Tuesday at the close.  This is a fade trade -- others might call it a mean-reverting trade, but it isn't really, since there is no "mean" we're reverting to.  By fade trade, I mean that it buys on strong dips of otherwise up-trending markets, and sells on strong rallies of otherwise down-trending markets.  So when S&P Futures shed 28 points on Tuesday after trending up quietly and strongly for months, CiG jumped on it. 

I bought S&P futures in my fake-money account at the close on Tuesday for 1314.50.  Wednesday close was 1305.25 (down another 9.50) and Thursday was 1302.25 (down another 3).  If I had simply held that position throughout that time, by Friday morning it would have been down $612.50 per contract, or about 11%.  But I didn't. 

Wednesday morning before the stock market opened, I saw the hard sell-off at 2am from the mess in Libya, and I decided that although futures had come mostly back that night, I should move my stop up to 1312.  Sure enough right after the open, the S&P sold off and hit my stop.  I got a little lucky on the execution, and sold it for 1312.25, saving $12.50/contract in losses.

By the close on Wednesday, the trade was still signalled, so I rebought at 1306, starting at -$112.50/contract.  Thursday was quieter, moving mostly sideways and a little down, and my trailing stop-loss of 10 points ($500/contract) was never hit.  It was still a down day, however, so the trade stayed signalled.

Friday morning, my tour de force of trading skill failed me.  I saw that the rally had finally started, and I wanted to set a closer stop before heading off to work.  Somehow I mis-entered the price, and instead of putting in a stop order to get me out on another big sell-off, I accidentally sold at the market, then 1311, for a reversal in fortune to +$137.50/contract.  Nice to have a profit, for sure, but I didn't want out at that point.

After arriving at the office, I kept an eye on the market and managed to buy back in at 1310 about an hour before the markets opened.  I then set a 5-point trailing stop, which is generally way too little room for this trade, but I was pretty skittish of the stock market by this time; and got to work on my day job.  Somewhere around 11am, after rallying all morning, there was a little market dip that closed me out at 1313, for another $150/contract.  I saw no reason to press my luck further, and closed the trade.

Total profit: $287.50/contract, or about 5% on margin capital.  If I had not been so skittish with my stop order on Friday, the close signal would have come in the afternoon at around 1318.75, profiting $575/contract, or about 10%.  On the other hand, my discretionary trading had a positive impact: if I had just bought on Wednesday afternoon and held on, the trade-prescribed 100-tick stop-loss would have just barely not kicked in at the low on Thursday, so my open-to-close profit would have been $225/contract.  So to recap, my discretionary trading was good, but I got a little more nervous on Friday than I should have.

Making the decision to violate the rules of a mechanical trade in real-time is always a tough judgement call.  Mechanical trades are useful for finding entry and exit points when an emotional human might not be able to pull the trigger on his own.  But blindly following them is not a long-term profitable decision -- despite my active trading behaviors, I believe in an efficient market most of the time.  In this context, that means that if there were a profitable mechanical trade out there, someone has already done it so much that it has been used up. 

By carefully considering whether now is the time to stray off the path laid out by the mechanical trade plan, and using the plan to question his decisions and lend some objectivity to their logic, an experienced trader can enhance his returns.  I'm not experienced enough to do that reliably, but in this case I had the help of NeighborTrader to reason out the pluses and minuses of each individual trading decision, and it worked out very well.

Collaboration, it seems, is indeed good.

Some Trades Are More Frightening Than Others

Not Frightening
Over the weekend, the Collar trade was assigned on its QQQQ calls, meaning that my QQQQ position was closed out at 58.  After the events over the weekend, and the markets today, that ended up being a great trade all by itself (QQQQ closed today at 57.03, down 1.70 on the day).

The QQQQ Collar trade has been one of the few that I have been running with real money, and it has been going for about 18 months now.  Over the last 18 months we have had, overall, a pretty significant up-trend to the market; and a limited-profit trade like a collar is going to underperform during strong up-trend periods.  Sure enough, I've made some pretty good money in the collar trade: just under 16% in 18 months.  But if I had just bought QQQQ and held it, I would have had a much better return: close to 39% over the same period.  Despite this drastic underperformance, the trade is a success - it is a super-long-term trade, and in losing years, its losses are much more limited than a simple buy-and-hold.  If it had not underperformed, that would be a signal that something wasn't being hedged correctly.

This trade is not without its problems, however.  First, there is a great deal of subjectivity about what strikes to use for the covered calls and the protective put - I tried to solve this problem by setting some range parameters.  Next, I have been running this trade in an online broker that is geared more toward stock traders than option traders.  As a result, its commissions for options are terrible: $10.75 for a one-way one-lot option trade, vs the $1.50 I negotiated with thinkorswim.  When I'm doing 14 option trades a year, plus the fairly frequent assignment fee of $25 followed immediately by the need to repurchase the QQQQ outright for $7 flat, it gets expensive fast.  Finally, I have noticed that the time value on the about-to-be-front-month options drains significantly over expiry weekend.  But since my online broker is very touchy about naked short options, I have to choose between an expensive fee-to-price ratio rolling trade, or letting the premium disappear over the weekend.

Since the collar essentially closed itself out over the weekend, I decided now would be a good time to transfer its required capital to thinkorswim and run it there.  I may retain the stock/call/put configuration, or I may run an equivalent position of a simple bullish vertical option spread.  If I do that, I lose the calendar component of the 6-month put vs the 6 1-month calls, but I'm not convinced that component is valuable anyway.  In any case, I have some research to do before the money transfer settles.

Frightening
Back to fake money, the CiG trade lit up like a Christmas tree today, thanks to those crazy Libyans.  S&P futures sold off 28 points or about 2%, which signalled a Buy at the close.  I have been bearish S&P for about 6 months (it has gained 300 points during that time) but this is a mechanical trade -- my viewpoint doesn't figure into it.  Have you ever tried to make yourself buy something when you don't believe in it and it has just sold off by 2%? It isn't easy.

The gold futures trade last month wasn't easy, either, but it turned out fine; by the law of single-datapoint-patterns, that means this one should be just fine too.  Nevertheless, NeighborTrader and I did have some vertiginous fun imagining that we were each managing million-dollar accounts and thus had to buy 100 futures knowing that each point would make or lose $5000.  That would make today a $140,000 losing day for that account, had it been long that amount.  I think I'm happier in fake money for now.

I also had a preliminary Sell signal setting up in Ten Year Note futures... we'll see what tomorrow brings on that one.

Somewhere in Between
Rounding out the flurry of activity today, the sudden market downturn made the volatility indexes pop about 4 points.  Everyone has heard of the VIX, which measures implied volatility in options on the S&P 500.  Since my iron condor trade is on Russell (RUT), I use the VIX's cousin: RVX.  Anyway, the 4 point pop in the RVX was just what I needed to get a better price on opening an iron condor position, since it is a negative-vega trade.  I put on the 760/770/900/910 April Iron Condor, for a credit of $3.25/share.  Pretty respectable, considering the low-IV environment we've had the last few weeks.  If the RVX is predictive, however, I'll be in for a roller coaster ride this month.

Trade Catchup

Iron Condor
This month I did something I swore I wouldn't do: I rode an iron condor position all the way to expiry.  Almost daily I took a good hard look at the position, and just didn't see a reason to close it.  It was somewhat underwater and getting worse as the gamma spiked up, but it wasn't through any of the strikes yet.  I reasoned that the increased loss incurred after the short strike went into the money didn't outweigh, on probability-weighted terms, the near-instant profit up to max I stood to make if it settled where it traded nearly all week last week.  If I had seen an inkling of a bullish follow-through in the Russell (my IC index), things would have been different.

I would have much preferred to get out of the IC early like I usually do, but it was a headache the whole way this month, trending up like crazy and refusing to give me any pullbacks to use for exiting opportunities.  Until the last week before expiry, that is.

With the market sell-off last week, we had a minor RVX spike, which I took advantage of by initiating the March condor position on Thursday.  I never did open a February position - January was keeping me busy, and the implied volatility was crappy.  March is already proving to be better than January, in that yesterday the call spreads inexplicably were priced at only a little higher than half what I sold them for.  I covered a couple of them, leaving most of the rest on.  March's strikes are 690/700/860/870, and they generated 2.35/contract in income when opened.

CiG
The big news is that the Collaboration is Good trade fired a buy signal on gold futures yesterday at the close.  Gold has had an ugly 3-week sell-off, and honestly I was starting to be concerned about my other gold positions in GLD, GDX, AEM, and GLD calls.  Gold futures have a $6750 margin requirement per contract, so I was glad this trade was in the paperMoney account, saving myself some sleep. Also, buying a gold futures contract after a 100-point sell-off would be a lot tougher in a real-money account, especially since with a contract size of 100oz, I'm looking at $100 per point per contract.  That's a lot of leverage: 100 oz of gold, with a street value of more than $130,000, for $6750.

Today the position started about 5pts in the red and continued to slide, bottoming out at about -7pts before gold suddenly started to go parabolic on an intraday basis before the FOMC announcement at 1:15 CST.  By the close, a profit-exit signal had fired, and I closed the position with a nice $1100 profit.  It rallied so hard during and after FOMC that it started to encourage me about my other gold positions.  A good hard rally after a CiG buy signal, historically, seems to result in some follow-through.

NeighborTrader, who was running this with real actual money, claimed he was going home to vomit into a trash can after closing his position this afternoon.   Sounds like it's time to increase the size...

Earnings Plays
Microsoft and Starbucks announce earnings this week: Microsoft tomorrow and Starbucks as I write this.  I have a sizable Microsoft position already, so I bought some puts on it as a hedge in case the stock slides after the announcement.  On the other hand, I have no position in Starbucks stock - but I have a natural short position in their products (nerdy trading humor, meaning I drink a lot of their coffee).  The market has been room-temperature on Starbucks for some time (insert more nerdy humor about room-temperature coffee here, if you like), and I recently saw some compelling arguments why a good report should send the stock higher overnight, so I bought some calls.  The conference call is still going on, but the numbers are out: Starbucks beat estimates and jumped its income by 44% this quarter, so of course the stock immediately slumped by 2.5% after losing 1% throughout the trading day.  Apparently they didn't raise their guidance enough to make everyone happy.

Oh well.

How should I root for Microsoft tomorrow?  Should I root for bad news, making a lot of money on the puts while watching my Microsoft position suffer?  Yeah, that's probably the best play, because I can use the profit from the puts to buy more stock at bargain prices.  Microsoft is a money-generating machine, and its stock price just makes no sense.

Collar
The most boring trade in my portfolio, the Nasdaq Collar, saw its covered call for January expire worthless last weekend, and I opened a new covered call position for February with a strike of 58.  Ho-hum.

Now I Can Afford That Operation

The CiG trade, which bought Eurodollars on an entry signal a week ago, finally gave an exit signal on Monday at the close, so I exited the position by selling GEH1 at 99.59.  That gives a $75 profit.  Since I trade this in paperMoney, I wasn't paying a great deal of attention to how much I should trade, but this one really brought that home.  The risk of one Eurodollar contract is not equal to the risk of one S&P contract - not even close - and the margin requirements reflect that.  Eurodollars carry a margin requirement of $877.50 per contract, while S&P futures require $5625 per contract.  In order to take the same amount of risk, I should be trading 6-7 Eurodollars for every contract of S&P I'm willing to commit margin for.  If I had, this $75 profit would have been $450-525... very similar to the $500 I made on the S&P signal.

In other news, one of my Iron Condor exiting orders also filled on Monday, closing out my remaining 660/650 put spreads.  This leaves my protective debit put spreads on with nothing to protect, and it also tilts the delta into the negative territory again: -20.  With December expiry coming this weekend, and with implied volatility near its 52-week lows, it seems best to close this one out.  I'm working orders to close the two call spreads - the original 810/820 and the kite-component 830/840, the naked long 820-call of the kite, and the protective 630/640 put debit spreads.  Since my current position still has positive theta, though, I see no reason to rush things.  Either way the market moves it will approach my exiting limit orders, so hopefully over the next week or two we'll get a little end-of-year waggle so I can squeeze out a few cents per contract on the way out.  If not, I have a month before I have to make a final decision.  Once theta goes negative, or if delta gets uglier, the pressure will be on to make that decision a bit sooner.

I've had a limit-sell order working on Microsoft for a few weeks now, and it filled today.  I'm still a believer in the stock, but I bought quite a few shares of it when it was depressed, so I'm just rotating some capital out to bring my position value back down where I want it to be.  Readers of my facebook notes will recall that I had 5 "units" of capital in Microsoft.  This sell brings me back down to 5 units of capital in position value.

I'm expecting another increasingly bullish (for me that means bearish) sentiment survey this week, released tonight sometime.  If that's true, CS|MACO will still stand by and watch the Fed Cheerleaders... er, I mean Stock Market... without getting involved itself.

Such a Slacker

I've been distracted most evenings lately from the four Xbox games I picked up during Black Friday madness, and so it has taken me even longer than usual to record thoughts, trades, and rambling nonsense.  As if that weren't enough to eat up my attention, the Bintgoddess and I just received our HTC Incredibles we ordered through Amazon Wireless, and I at least have been spending more time than I should customizing and moving into my new phone.  I had intended to switch from AT&T+iPhone to Verizon+Android when my contract ran out in August, but the Bintgoddess' pre-pay plan ran out of minutes, and we could save more money to switch us both to a family plan now, despite the early termination fee from AT&T.  With nearly free phones (1 cent each from Amazon Wireless) and free 2-day shipping, the choice was pretty clear.  And yes, Amazon did charge my credit card $0.02.  Silliness.

Iron Condor
The January 2011 Iron Condor position has required some adjustment to keep it close to delta-neutral recently.  Recall that I opened a 650/660/810/820 iron condor on Nov 8, and then adjusted it Nov 16 by buying a 630/640 put spread.  Since we're into December, I'm now erring on the side of closing positions rather than opening them - but I'll still increase a position if it's the right thing to do for the risk or the greeks.

The stock market had been rallying pretty hard the last week or two - in fact, it has been rallying pretty hard ever since the day after I put on that downside protection.  This is not a surprise - it's just how I roll: don't believe me? watch me play poker on Full Tilt sometime.  But I digress.  With the stock market rallying and delta going pretty negative, it was time for some upside protection.

First, I bought back about half of the 810/820 call spreads for 1.40: a very reasonable 10c loss.  This moved the delta up about halfway to where it needed to be, but gamma was still pretty negative.  Another up-move and the position would be in trouble again, so I beat the rush and put on a Wolfinger Kite Spread.  Specifically, I bought back an extra 810 call for 3.70, and financed that by selling four 830/840 call spreads for 50c each.  Not only did this bring delta to a nice manageable level and give me some much-needed upside protection, it also significantly improved my max-loss on the upside.  Of course if MDW is reading this blog, he's probably seething that it isn't a perfect Kite Spread - I should have sold the 840/850s, or reduced the sales by 1 contract.  Tough.  I am convinced this was the right trade to make, whether it can rightfully be called a Kite or not.

The next day, I took advantage of another rally to buy back a few of the 660/650 put spreads for 45c.  This lowered delta a bit again, but like the previous day's adjustment, it really helped out in the max-loss department.  The total position now has a nice flat S-curve to it, and theta miraculously is still 13.  So a sideways market for the next 30 days should net me about .25 per contract - that may not sound like much, but that's 2.5% margin-return on a monthly trade.

It's also about time to be looking for a February trade, but I'll learn my lesson from January and wait for volatility to come up a bit.  Using paperMoney is nice, because I have so much fake margin in there that I can make trading decisions without having to be concerned about margin.  If I want to put on February before taking off January, so be it.  Doing that with real funds would take some very careful money management... or more money than I have.

CS|MACO
Still very bearish signals (53% are bullish as of last night, way too many for my taste) from investors, who happen to be right this time about the market as it sustains an uptrend, and bullish signals from the trend following MACO component.  As a result, it still waits in (fake) cash.

CiG
Eurodollar futures (GEH1) gave a bullish entry signal on Tuesday, so I bought them at the stock market close for 99.56.  Trading Eurodollar futures is similar to watching a bad horror movie: long periods of mind-numbing boredom punctuated by moments of pure terror.  So far I'm in the boredom phase - two days after buying them, I'm up 3 ticks.  W00t!  No exit signal yet, so I wait.

CS|MACO last week

Last week, SPY closed below its 25-day moving average on Tuesday, so I closed the CS|MACO long SPY position Wednesday morning.  Wednesday, SPY rocketed higher, closing back above the 25-day; but the AAII.com survey also came out Wednesday after the close, and individual investors have gotten bullish enough again to make the CS component bearish.  Bearish plus Bullish = Flat, so CS|MACO is once again on the sidelines.

CS saved money that MACO would have lost, since SPY has closed lower than Wednesday the succeeding two trading days.  These periods of consolidation, where SPY hovers around even for a while, can get expensive.  I'm glad I have those individual investors to fade.

Mini-Rant
Speaking of fading individual investors, the topic of conversation over coffee at the office this morning was privatization of Social Security so as to give individuals the ability to manage their own retirement investments.  The general consensus is that this would be a great thing... for us professionals.  Investing well is hard: like any other probability-based activity, looking backwards in time at what you should have done makes it look very easy.  But actually doing the right things traveling into the future takes a great deal of effort, discipline, time, and -- dare I say it -- luck.
I'm trying to stay away from the political quagmires around dinking around with Social Security.  Whether I'm for it or against it doesn't change my premise here, which is that individuals managing their own money, in the aggregate, will severely underperform just about any index you care to use.  Despite my "morons" tag I throw in whenever I talk about individual investors, it isn't because they're dumb.  It's just that they have other things on their mind than investing.  The folks taking the other side of their trades (i.e. fading them), on the other hand, are professionals.  They spend all day every day thinking about markets, and most of them have vast resources at their beck and call for maximizing their return.

The reason investment banks such as Goldman Sachs have done so well and generated such staggering amounts of wealth is because they're playing against amateurs: you.  So the next time you get the urge -- if you ever get the urge -- to argue for the privatization of Social Security, think about who is more likely to profit in a trade between you and Goldman Sachs.  If you answer, "Me! I am! I'm above average!" then I applaud your confidence.  But please don't be insulted if you find me on the other side of some of your trades.

Big News for Boring Trades

It's been a busy few days.  The CiG trade finally fired a signal on Friday, but I was in Colorado all weekend so I didn't have time to write it up.  Then I came home with a head-cold just in time to support a major roll-out at the office that went pretty wrong.  By the time I got home last night all I wanted to do was sleep.  So now here we are.  Excuses excuses.
 
Saving Money While Asleep
First the CiG trade on Friday.  You may recall I decided to run it on S&P futures as well as treasury note futures, because I feared that treasury notes would bore me to death.  On Friday, it signaled a buy-on-close on the S&P, so I did.  Things were looking good Monday morning, but not good enough to reach the target exit signal.  By this morning, the whole world was fleeing from risk again and the stock market opened significantly lower.  Since there are no clearly-defined stop rules, I decided to sell the position for a loss shortly after the stock market opened.  I felt that what we were seeing was not a momentary blip but in fact a setup for a selling day.  I was right: I sold the position at 1188 at 9:00.  At the 3:00 close, ES was down to 1176.

Because CiG tries to buy on dips, though, it had another buy signal come out on ES today.  Pleased at my ability to dodge at least some of the sell-off today, I decided to get back in with a new long position at the close.  So I'm still long from Friday, but I took a 12-point ($550/contract) hiatus.  That's almost a winning trade all by itself.  Not a bad money-saving siesta.

No joy in treasury note futures yet.  Yawn.

Insert Spy Pun Here
CS|MACO, another boring trade, is finally starting to see some life.  It has been locked flat while SPY has rallied over the last 3 months, due to the bearish signal coming out of the contrarian investor sentiment component and the bullish signal coming out of the moving-average-crossover component.  One of those two opposing forces was removed today when SPY closed below its 25-day moving average, breaking the SPY>25MA>200MA relationship that has been in place since October 4.  That's not a sell signal yet, though, because the terms of the trade state that I won't enter a position on the removal of a signal.  I need the CS component to affirm its bearishness tomorrow after the close before I can short this puppy.

A Boring Iron Condor is a Good Iron Condor
Unfortunately, this one is starting to get a little exciting.  When I opened the position I groused about my poor judgment a little bit regarding the low price I was paid to initiate.  Sure enough, the VIX almost immediately rallied while RUT flagged, causing my delta to increase as I rode the curve down toward my put spread.  Delta of +16 this morning, so time to adjust already.

It seems ridiculously early to be thinking about exit orders, but I could buy back my call spreads for only 60c already; so I put in some limit orders to buy back at 20c.  That doesn't help my delta, but it does lock in a profit on half the trade - and with some careful adjustment the other half might not cost too much.

As for the put spreads, I looked at the mouse-ear like I used last month and decided it was overkill: RUT was 710 or so when I was adjusting, and my put spreads are 660/650s.  A mouse-ear would throw my delta so horribly negative that I would have to buy back most if not all of my call spreads to contain it.  Plus it was crazy-expensive, at $21.

The next thing I looked at was simply reducing the call spread position.  That would certainly help the delta and the feel of the position, but I felt the cost was a little high.  A variant of this is to roll the call spread down a few strikes, also increasing the position a bit to finance the roll.  This increases risk, and I wasn't happy with the outcome or my perception of the risk-reward trade-off.

I also looked at Wolfinger's Kite Spread, which involves a naked long OTM put and a credit put spread even farther OTM with 3-4x the size on it for financing.  That had some real potential, but it really hurt the theta.  Ultimately I decided I could achieve my delta goals and flatten the value graph best by putting on some 630/640 debit put spreads.  I bought just enough (at 1.90) to get the delta under +5.  By the close, the delta was back up to +5 again, but that's within my parameters.

Boring News for Big Trades
I'm still not holding GLD calls, and I'm glad.  I'm looking for bargains in some of the mining companies right now, but I haven't had time to look very hard yet.  Earnings season is upon us, and if I can capture a couple of positive earnings surprises before the event-driven IV goes through the roof, I'll be a happy camper.

January Iron Condor

As I planned on Friday, this morning I closed the rest of my December RUT iron condor position for a total profit of 86c per original contract.  I opened the December position on 6 October, so that means I had just about an 8% return on initial margin over the past month.  By normal investing standards, that's an amazing return, but let's put this in context: the same strategy lost 7% on its November position and just under 2% on its October position.  To a normal buy & hold investor, this is pretty frightening levels of risk; to a professional in the futures industry that plays poker and trades options on the side, 8% in a month is bordering on boring.  All a matter of perspective.

On 15 October, I made a pretty big delta adjustment by buying a 760 call.  The original call spread was 770/780, so this is what is known as a "mouse-ear" adjustment.  This is one of the most expensive adjustments that can be made, but also one of the most effective.  I feel like given the market action during that time I should have taken a less extreme approach, but after the prior two losing months I was a little gun-shy.  Despite leaving some profit on the table by solving a minor problem with a big hammer, my confidence definitely benefited from a nice smooth month of price action resulting in a near-target profit.

I also opened a January 2011 position (650/660/810/820) this morning, although with implied volatility as low as it is I don't feel that great about the price I managed to get for it: only a 2.90 credit.  This is a little on the low side, and that reflects the low VIX environment that we're in.  I probably should have waited until VIX popped back up some, but this puts me into unfamiliar territory: I know that a good price during this time-frame is about 3.50, but I'm not quite sure what a good price is a week or more from now.  Rather than sail into unfamiliar waters, I chose to limit my profits over the next month or so.  I'm not sure that was a great decision, but I will persevere.

This is why we paper-trade.

By the way, if anyone tells you how easy it is to make money with Iron Condors, don't believe them - and definitely don't give them any money to manage.  It is a very difficult strategy that takes a lot of creativity and experience to manage effectively.  I'm certainly not an expert, and it might be tempting to discount my assertions of how difficult it is; but clearing companies' databases are littered with busted accounts that jumped into the trade without an appreciation for its subtlety and dangers.  I am determined to learn this trade and how to profit with it, and to succeed where so many others have failed.

Speaking of boring trades, CS|MACO is still dead-locked flat as CS is screaming short and MACO is screaming long.  Remember I said a trending market is not CS|MACO's friend? Yeah.  The other boring one is the trade I wrote up in Collaboration is Good, which apparently I haven't named - let's call it CiG.  No trades in 10-year note futures there, either, so I think I'll start running it in S&P and Eurodollar futures also.  I ran back through the chart for the last couple of weeks, and it wouldn't have traded anyway, so I haven't missed anything.

Iron Condor: December Adjustments

The upside protection I added to the December iron condor on October 15 has proven to be a profitable adjustment.  As the market wandered higher, I was able to bleed off theta while keeping the position pretty close to delta-neutral.  I've had some low-ball exiting orders working for a while, since getting out is still in front of me, and yesterday one of those orders filled, closing out a portion of my 620/610 put spread and locking in a nice profit on that portion. 

My work schedule yesterday was weird, so I didn't actually notice the fill until this morning before the open.  When I came in this morning, I discovered that between the closing of part of the put spread and the traveling of the market down the curve toward my call spread, my overall position was -20 delta.  That's a lot more delta-negative than I want it to be, so I started looking at ways to adjust it again.

My original plan was to bring the delta back to nearly 0 without turning the theta negative or increasing the overall risk, since after all I have only a little more than a month before expiry, and increasing position at this stage would be kind of dumb.  But the more analysis I do, it seems the best choice is to just close the position entirely.  From where the market closed today, net liquidation value on the position is about 82c per contract.  That's pretty close to the 1.00/contract level that I said made me "thrilled", so that's just fine.

I had already started working orders to adjust the delta before the close, and when I do that I always make the position-decreasing orders more aggressive than the position-increasing orders.  Today was a good example of why I do this, since only one of my orders filled and I didn't have a chance to adjust my other orders to make sure they filled on the close.  As it turns out, that's just as well, since I think I want to cancel my position-increasing orders anyway.

My original plan was to roll the 770/780 call spreads up to 790/800, also decreasing the position.  This costs a fair amount of cash, but it also brings my delta up to +4 again, and makes theta a very healthy +9.  But what am I really gaining by opening that 790/800 position?  My thinking was that I needed to partially finance the 770/780 call spreads, but if I can make 82% of my "thrilled" level just by closing the position, there's no financing I need to do.

So here's my current position, which reflects the partial closing the 770/780 call spreads, but nothing else.  Delta is all out of whack the other way, at +17, and theta is right at 0.  I've got orders working to close the rest a little behind the market.  Once it's open on Monday, I'll adjust everything around to be just about at the market, and put this December iron condor to rest.

Then I'll start looking at opening a new January position.

In other news, I was at the FIA Futures and Options Expo on Wednesday and chatted a bit with the people at the Think or Swim booth about why they're so mean about screen shots.  I actually talked to a young lady who works with Scott Garland, and she indicated that everyone there is nervous about overstepping their bounds with TD Ameritrade, the recent purchasers of Think or Swim.  So far TDA has more less left them alone, but the concern is that they'll get a lot more involved in the day-to-day business instead of just treating ToS like a profit center.

I understand their perspective, but I'm still a little steamed that I can't accurately depict my current position value here because of their concerns about intellectual property.