Option FanaticOptions, stock, futures, and system trading, backtesting, money management, and much more!

SysCW: Fraud or Failsafe? (Part 1)

The time has arrived to gradually transition away from covered calls and cash secured puts and to focus specifically on “Systematic Covered Writing.”

Is SysCW a viable trading system or is it a Rich MacDuff fraud?

In the last post I provided a partial listing of Rich MacDuff catch phrases taken from his e-mails to subscribers. The underlying tone is one of arrogance, of simplicity, of sarcasm to emphasize outsized returns… he makes SysCW sound like an ATM machine. Hardly ever a mention of anything negative and certainly little to nothing about risk or losing.

The most infamous money manager to never post a losing month was arguably Bernie Madoff. He is now serving a 150-year prison sentence for fraud (among other things).

I believe there is no such thing as a money machine in the world of trading. As a trader, I will have good times and I will have losses. If I never have a big loss then I am extremely lucky. If I never have a big loss then I may also be trading as a hobby rather than trading full-time for a living where I must trade in larger size and risk more money to pay the monthly bills.

Despite what some people say, never expect a “money machine” in the world of trading. Such a false expectation encourages trading too large and putting oneself at great risk for catastrophic loss.

When you see blatant arrogance like this surrounding anything financial, the best course of action is probably to turn the other way and run as fast as you can without ever stopping to look back.

Few things scream “OPTIONSCAM.COM!!!!!” any louder than this.

Covered Calls and Cash Secured Puts (Part 41)

I am winding up this blog series with concerns about Systematic Covered Writing (SysCW) as a viable trading system.

Directly or indirectly, Rich MacDuff often refers to SysCW as a “money machine.” When you order his book Systematic Covered Writing (2011), he offers a free one-month trial to his service. I maintained a collection of “catch phrases” from his e-mails:

> It always boils down to the math… since November 18th, this CLF
> investment has generated cash at 60.43% when annualized… what if
> we end the year with only half that return… would it really
> matter what the stock is trading for at the time?

> We know that we will not go broke establishing positions that generate
> cash at an annualized rate 52.61%, which is exactly what we did. Wahoo.

> We will be playing this bad boy again!

> Some returns are ridiculous!… I hope you don’t blame me…

> This will be a one word commentary …SWEET!

> …we elected to allow an ‘interim call’ to be exercised because there is
> nothing wrong with a position that ends with an annualized gain of 70.80%.
> (Duh!) … It was not a hard decision to make.

> We are being paid for owning stock even though we were ‘wrong’ at the time
> of purchase. It’s all good. Kind of like the Seahawks! (I spend the bulk
> of my adult life in the Seattle area … what fun!)

> Such is the nature of the Weekly Strategy. We have to trade more often,
> but we are rewarded with more control and more cash. Got to love it.

> …options all expire this Friday. This means we will have an opportunity
> next Monday to either write calls against stock that is assigned, or
> establish new csp positions. Over and over … we generate cash.

Take a good look at the underlying tone here. I will continue discussion on this matter in my next post.

Covered Calls and Cash Secured Puts (Part 40)

To implement DCA in a market crash, spare cash would be required. The 15% annualized return MacDuff advertises with the Math Exercise would no longer apply because the deleveraged portfolio would be making less. How does this add up?

More recently, MacDuff has advised being fully invested. This eliminates the possibility of DCA and potentially resolves the discrepancy described above.

What happens when stocks tank?

On the call side I can sell premium at near-the-money strikes, which will enable me to continue generating cash.

What happens when a V-bottom prints (e.g. March 10, 2009) and stocks catapult higher through my lowered strikes?

MacDuff argues we are now better prepared for this situation thanks to narrower strike availability and weekly options that offer the potential for supercharged annualized returns.

What happens when I have to look months to years out in time to roll for a credit? Neither weeklies nor narrower strikes are going to save me.

In some cases, no available options will provide for a credit roll. I cannot take assignment at the [substantially] lowered strike because that would lock in a big loss. In 2009, I suspect this might have described most [if not all] of my positions.

My only other option would be to roll for a debit and hope the market cooperates and allows me to escape whole. “Hope is not a trading strategy” and I cannot begin to imagine my degree of insomnia if most of my positions were in that boat.

Until and unless MacDuff can give me some response to these difficult issues, I will have significant doubts about SysCW. One may argue “no trading system is perfect and losses are a part of the game” but MacDuff never shows any losses in his book nor in his tutorials.

How Madoff-esque is that?

Furthermore, what I have described here is more than “occasional losses.” What I have described is catastrophic loss running rampant across most of the portfolio. This is a risk that deserves a response and a remedy before SysCW qualifies as a viable trading system.

Covered Calls and Cash Secured Puts (Part 39)

Once upon a time (one month ago), this space focused specifically about CCs and CSPs. My last post waxed eloquent about some optionScam.com aspects of the industry. Next I want to combine these two branches of inquiry and focus specifically on Rich MacDuff’s SysCW.

One of the biggest problems I have with SysCW is the exclusion of portfolio considerations. The SysCW tutorials and book include tens to hundreds of examples of successful positions.

Some were easy.

Some required more management.

Some involved dollar cost averaging (DCA).

Taken one at a time, MacDuff found a way to make every single position go back to cash profitably. For me, this was the primary appeal of SysCW: management strategies exist to handle most any situation imaginable.

Indeed, SysCW does offer tools to successfully manage most any situation… when looking at positions one at a time.

This is not the case when full attention is paid to portfolio considerations and that, in my opinion, is where SysCW begins to break down. What happens when another 2008-like crash occurs and all positions lose significant value? MacDuff has argued I can close profitable positions and use that money to aid losing ones. By definition, though, correlation goes to one in a severe market crash. No profitable positions are likely to exist in a violent bear market.

In Systematic Covered Writing (2011), MacDuff introduces DCA as a position management tool. Perhaps a market crash will require DCA and to do this I need significant cash on the sidelines. If I have significant cash on the sidelines then I will not realize 15%+ on my entire portfolio, which is what MacDuff repeatedly insists to be possible with the SysCW.

Something just doesn’t add up [yet].

I will continue this discussion in the next post.

Portfolio Considerations of a Trading Strategy (Part 6)

In the last post I left off by planning for the cash position ($12,000) along with the iron condor position ($8,000). This makes for multiple simultaneous positions. I can imagine a trading group discussing this. However, other portfolio considerations must be made to evaluate this trading strategy that probably are not appropriate for public discussion.

For example, I may not feel comfortable discussing the need to pay a $1,500 mortgage every month on top of $5,000 in living expenses. Suppose the backtest showed this position to average $150 profit per week, which is $7,800 per year. Am I comfortable increasing this position 10-fold to potentially make $78,000 per year? I would need $200,000 in the account for this purpose. This is a portfolio consideration.

Rather than scale up this particular position, perhaps I seek other trading strategies for diversification or hedging. How much can I expect to make from those strategies? How much cash do I need on the sidelines for those strategies? Am I able to fund all of them? These are portfolio considerations.

Zooming out even further, how much of my total net worth do I feel comfortable having in my trading account? Perhaps I only feel comfortable allocating 70% of my net worth to trading and the other 30% to bonds, real estate, etc. I should also probably have a small checking account readily liquid in case of emergency.

All the portfolio considerations described in the last three paragraphs are probably not appropriate for public disclosure because they involve matters of wealth. They certainly should be carefully thought through, however. Just how beneficial can a trading group be for the most-involved participants who trade for a living?

If all group members make a concerted effort then I think portfolio considerations can be discussed to some extent. If the common goal is trading for a living then these details affect everyone. One problem is that despite being the “elephant in the room,” in many instances portfolio considerations are not even acknowledged. Part of this is probably due to a second problem: discussion of trading strategies is much sexier than discussion of portfolio management.

I don’t know why. It just is.

Portfolio Considerations of a Trading Strategy (Part 5)

Recent discussion has labeled investment newsletters, trader education firms, and even informal conversation with other traders as different venues where portfolio considerations are overlooked. Today I begin to illustrate exactly where these portfolio considerations might apply when evaluating a trading strategy.

Suppose we participate in a weekly trading group and today is my turn to present. I show a 10-contract weekly iron condor position with a margin requirement of $8,000. My profit target is 10% or $800. I detail the trading strategy with position setup and risk management [adjustment] guidelines. I show last month’s successful trade and everyone is all smiles. Right?

Because one trade never makes a trading system, I need to zoom out to determine whether this trading strategy is for me.

Suppose I show three years of backtesting results and the worst year-to-date drawdown is $8,000. Does this suggest I need $8,000 to implement this strategy?

No!

First, I would likely bankrupt the account or come pretty close. People generally become concerned once drawdown exceeds 10%. In 2008-2009, the stock market fell 50-60% and people were completely devastated from that. I can hardly imagine a drawdown approaching 100%

Second, some trading guru once said “your worst drawdown is ahead of you.” In general, the longer the time interval the greater the variety of market environments available to test a strategy. Three years is a very limited backtest. In some future year, this trading strategy is very likely to post a drawdown [much?] greater than $8,000. I will arbitrarily deem $20,000 (2.5 times) as necessary to implement this trade: $8,000 for the iron condor and $12,000 as supplemental cash in the account.

If I am being entirely honest when discussing this trade then I should also realize my weekly profit target is now 4% rather than 10%. The margin requirement of the trade might be $8,000 but I have now set $20,000 aside for the trade.

Further calculations will be more about gross dollars. I will continue with these details in the next post.

Portfolio Considerations of a Trading Strategy (Part 2)

In the last post I explained how portfolio considerations make a trading system out of a trading strategy. I argued that commercial interests (e.g. newsletter writers, trader education firms, and other subscription services) care little about our real money portfolios (i.e. overall success): they just want us to pay for their recommendations.

A strategy without portfolio considerations is not a viable trading system. Without guidelines for position sizing (including deleveraging), I have no idea how likely it is to fail. Without further study to determine position sizing guidelines, I can only consider myself lucky when I trade it and make money. I basically took a shot in the dark… a gamble.

As an aside, discretionary traders gamble in this manner on a semi-regular basis and one harmful consequence is an increased likelihood of further attempts. Since they made money last time, the next time they may gamble with a larger position size. Eventually their luck will run out and they will give back some of what they made or, in catastrophic circumstances, much more. This partially explains how the bull and bear market cycles perpetuate themselves.

Back to the main: since commercial interests only offer trades (A) and since trades without portfolio considerations are not viable as trading systems (B), commercial interests are not viable as trading systems (C). If A = B and B = C then A = C. This means commercial interests do not care about our success as traders. What’s left? The opportunity for them to profit on our monthly payments or tuition fees.

That’s optionScam.com.

I would claim that commercial services for retail traders are a giant scam. I challenge anyone out there to prove me wrong.

I do not attempt to make significant money with trading strategies until I do the further research to make trading systems out of them. As a “small” position to generate enough profit for dinner and a movie it might be fine. How about as a substantial position to generate enough profit for the mortgage every month?

I would never ever try. My risk of losing much more than expected is just too great.

Portfolio Considerations of a Trading Strategy (Part 1)

My last two posts have addressed some issues one must clarify before implementing dollar cost averaging (DCA) as a CC/CSP management protocol.  Deleveraging is necessary for DCA and this moves us from considerations about the trading strategy to considerations about the portfolio.

Deleveraging is the availability of spare cash on the sidelines. Typically we think of a position as consisting of stock, options, or futures. Cash is a position, too.

A trading system includes a trading strategy along with guidelines regarding the management of multiple simultaneous positions (i.e. a trading/investment portfolio).  Deleveraging creates multiple simultaneous positions because the cash position sits in the account next to at last one CC/CSP position. The necessary guidelines address sizing of CC/CSP and cash positions. Many good sounding strategies are not viable for live trading because they lack these key portfolio considerations.

Unfortunately, most newsletter writers, trader education firms, and subscription services (i.e. commercial interests) want nothing to do with your portfolio [think liability].  Instead they often say “position size in accordance with your risk tolerance.”  Most people either don’t know their risk tolerance [until the worst happens when they realize their position size was too large] or don’t understand the consequences of trading small.   They learn about these details the hard way when sometime down the road they either lose more than they could have ever imagined or they don’t profit as much as they might have hoped.

Said another way, many people think they have found the next great “Holy Grail” of trading only to later discover it doesn’t work well in reality.  They have learned a good strategy but a poor system.

Is this misrepresentation or false advertising by the commercial interests? Is this optionScam.com?

In the SysCW archives, Rich MacDuff shows us hundreds of individual CC/CSP positions that all work out. The key question for a viable trading system is not only whether they work out but whether they can work together.

Covered Calls and Cash Secured Puts (Part 38)

My last post identified when to dollar cost average (DCA) as an issue to clarify for those who plan on doing it.  Today I will cover two other DCA issues that should be clarified prior to trading live.

How much additional capital to commit is a second issue requiring attention.  Doubling the position size is not the same as doubling the capital allocation. A stock that has fallen 50% will only require half as much capital to DCA.  If I actually double the capital then I will more than double the position size. The latter will benefit me if the stock reverses higher because my position breakeven will be even lower. If the stock continues lower, however, then I will lose money at a faster rate. 

What I wrote in the last post also applies here: 

> Perhaps you will do some backtesting and see what best
> fits your sample. I don’t have an answer to this question
> and I don’t think a correct answer exists. 

In other words, no specific approach will work for all situations. 

Besides how to DCA, a third issue to define is size of the cash position. Capital on the sidelines will dilute overall returns.  Without this spare buying power, DCA cannot be implemented.  In a worst-case scenario, DCA’ing all positions might require 50% of my capital on the sidelines ready for deployment.  Although individual positions are selected by the Math Exercise to achieve 15-18% annualized returns, this only represents 7.5-9% annualized if half my capital is on the sidelines.

If this decreased return is not enough for me then I have some decisions to make. Do I incorporate an alternative exit strategy if the market moves against me? Do I leave position size constant? How will either approach affect returns?

Of utmost importance is a need to completely define the trading plan and to understand what I can likely expect before going live. This will minimize the probability of becoming disenchanted when capital hangs in the balance. As always, the worst possible ending is a forced psychological exit when things get ugly that leaves me licking the wounds of a catastrophic loss.

Covered Calls and Cash Secured Puts (Part 37)

I devoted the last four posts to discussion of the Martingale betting system because martingaling is to gambling what dollar cost averaging (DCA) is to investing/trading.  Today I discuss incorporation of DCA to the CC/CSP trading plan.

The first step is to determine my maximum tolerance for loss.  This is critical because I will approach that limit twice or four times as fast after doubling down once or twice, respectively. If I don’t know my maximum tolerance for loss–and most traders who have never experienced a volatile market and/or substantial loss do not–then the safest advice is probably to assume my tolerance will be small and to avoid doubling down altogether.

For the more experienced trader who is willing to commit additional capital, the next step is deciding when to DCA.  The only recommendation MacDuff offers for this is “when a stock is on sale.”  He seems to DCA inconsistently in his archives of successful positions.

Unfortunately, determining when a stock is “on sale” can only be done in retrospect. Any stock that went bankrupt was first down 10%, 50%, or more. Any of those levels could be considered “on sale.” Such identification might later be revised with the classification “falling knife” and dire regret had I acted and committed additional capital at the higher stock price. This is the risk of DCA and we can never get around it.

When to DCA is therefore an individual decision that must be made in accordance with your risk tolerance. Perhaps you will elect to DCA when the stock falls 30% or 50% or more. Perhaps you will do some backtesting [with a survivorship-free database] and decide what best fits your sample. I don’t have an answer to this question and I don’t think a correct answer exists. Period.

I will continue with more DCA discussion in my next post.