Anger => Incoherent Verbiage

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 3076
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:16 am

Re: Anger => Incoherent Verbiage

Post by Jeffrey »

I been caught red handed using terms I’m only loosely familiar with. It’s a fair cop.

Edit: after reading my post, it occurs to me that it could be interpreted as disrespectful. I am trying to express embarrassment at being caught using technical terms incorrectly and gratitude for the correction.
User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7502
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Anger => Incoherent Verbiage

Post by The Observer »

No need to be embarrassed. You owned up to your error. And I certainly did not see your post as being disrespectful, you were just posting your opinion based on what you thought was good knowledge. Its not as if you were tossing out lightning bolts in that post.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:06 am

Re: Anger => Incoherent Verbiage

Post by . »

Not disrespectful at all. Options are relatively obscure, so I tend to point out inaccuracies in the interest of getting it right.

Only because I've been dealing in options since before options exchanges like the CBOE existed. (I bought my first option in 1968 in my old man's account, I was 16, it was all OTC back then, little one or two-column inch ads in the WSJ listing inventory for sale -- Thomas, Haab and Botts comes to mind.)

First and last option I ever bought, been selling them ever since. And that $800 purchase made a $900 profit in less than 60 days. Serious money (6,500 '17 dollars) to a 16 year-old kid, but all I was thinking about was how unlikely it was that I would ever duplicate that as I exercised the call and sold the resulting stock on a pay-phone (remember those?) in a high school hallway between classes.

Better to go with 95% odds of winning than 95% odds of losing. PT Barnum was right and the options markets prove it daily.

My conclusion is that Golub didn't know what he was doing and made the gigantic mistake of putting securities with big LTCG in an account where he then lost significant money on options trades -- enough to force the broker to sell him out.

So it goes.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Anger => Incoherent Verbiage

Post by notorial dissent »

You are entirely right. As I've said previously, playing options is like playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded gun for most people. I've known some really good options players, but I can also count that number on the fingers of one hand.

Incidentally, the only thing a brokerage loves more than people who buy stock on margin is people who play options on margin, almost sure fire money winners, for the brokerage.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:06 am

Re: Anger => Incoherent Verbiage

Post by . »

Brokers like people who don't blow their accounts up. Or cause margin calls.

An account with a call could turn into a debit account, a debit account impairs the capital of the broker, enough of them puts the broker out of business. Brokers hate those kinds of traders. In this case, Kidder, Peabody asked him to take his business elsewhere.

Account implosions happen regularly -- using too much leverage, whether in commodities or stocks or options is just human nature, that is to say greed regularly gains the upper hand over reason or even reasonable speculation.

Great when it works, fatal to the account (and maybe the broker, see Bunker Hunt and Bache in 1980) when it doesn't.

Even Golub would probably admit that speculating his way into a margin call that resulted in positions with large LTCGs being liquidated was not a very good idea.

And then he goes semi-TP and totally off the litigation rails. And this guy is a freaking CPA.

Loss of a few bucks of LTCG tax advantage seems to affect some people disproportionately.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.