73 Reds

LOL, that's a good one.

@Saluki I'd agree with all of your suggestions.

@Saluki, Not sure exactly what you are asking but if we are looking only to a standard that would qualify Mother Theresa, who would be tasked with the job? Perhaps 30 years ago a man named Buffett would have been perfect. Do you have someone else in mind?

Again, the issue is not about economic equivalents. It's about the work involved to achieve an objective. When you hold the index any net premium you receive wins the day. When you don't hold the index you need to overcome the dividends you forego. Not sure why this is controversial and you're right, its simple math.

I answered your question much further back in the thread. All the detractors seem to miss the main point and they evidently believe that EMT (the Efficient Market Theory) applies to options. I don't.

@RichardGibbons respectfully I think you missed my point. It has nothing to do with economic outcomes. Rather it is the work involved when you already hold the index as opposed to the work involved to best the index while also having to generate sufficient net premiums to cover the dividends you forego by not holding the index.

Sure, but how many "Elon Musks" exist in the world? To describe him as exceptional would be an understatement so do you think he should be treated like everyone else when it comes to what he can potentially generate?

OK, but is that necessarily a bad thing? And don't you think that otherwise worthwhile programs that are being cut can be/will be reimplimented with better personnel and perhaps some different objectives?

But just bear in mind that Elon doesn't have to be doing anything for DOGE or the US government so it all depends on how integrity is defined.

Thanks for that @boilermaker75 but I'm going to excuse myself from all the grief you're about to get!

Sorry to disagree. Over the course of time you can pick your spots. Other times you do nothing but continue to hold the index. I think you're making this far more complicated than it has to be; at this point we're beating a dead horse but I'll be glad to put some real money to the test - for charity of course.

If I've insulted you or anyone it is not my intention and I try to keep every conversation civil and polite. Hope you didn't take it differently.

OK, then accept my bet.

Perhaps. But pennies add up. And the point is, beating the index is a ridiculous standard for any professional money manager. After Buffett, Jack Bogle is second to none.

The strategy won't work with short puts because if you don't hold the underlying you lose the dividends and have a higher threshold.

I'll make you the same offer. Mind you, the bet could be won in a matter of days.

No. I'm not sure I can explain it any better. The point is not to make as much money as you can - selling options would be the wrong strategy. The point is to BEAT THE INDEX. For the sake of argument it doesn't matter by how much. And it doesn't guarantee profits - the index loses money over varying periods and if you own it, so will you. If you would like to DM me, I'd be happy to wager a bet (you pick the amount, start date and time period (should be at least 6 months, preferably a year because very short term anything can happen) and winnings are donated to charity of winner's choice. My guess is, it won't take more than 60 minutes over the course of the entire duration to manage the options and best the index. I'd prefer to use "paper money" for purposes of the trades (which can be made and documented in real time) since I don't think the index is a particularly good holding today.

You don't "lose "money rolling the position. You repurchase the call you sold earlier and sell an OTM call that expires at a later date for the same or more premium that you paid for the repurchase. It is entirely up to you how far OTM and how long dated these options are. Obviously, the further out of the money they are, the smaller the premium but the index is not going from 6,000 to 7000 overnight so you have plenty of time and opportunity to manage the position.

If you look back in history, how much has the index risen in any given period of time? When you sell OTM calls, they either expire worthless or you are forced to roll them forward in order to avoid assignment. Unlike individual stocks, the index is not going to rise 20, 50 or 100% on any given day or week because of news of a buyout, new technology or a life altering product. The index price rises gradually because it is composed of what is essentially the whole economy. If you are in jeopardy of losing your underlying position before the calls expire, you can roll them forward at a higher price. Unless you believe the index price will rise quickly and forever, you're not going to lose money or your underlying position. That doesn't mean you'll necessarily make a whole lot either; the issue was can anyone with a fourth grade education beat the index and thereby best most money managers. The answer is yes.

Thing is, I don't care about his motivations, only his results. As long as he is not breaking any laws, all the power to him. Some folks (not you) get too caught up in personality types which are highly irrelevant when otherwise positive influence can be of great benefit. As a society we're well past the point of positive role models; social media has pretty much ended that. So what's left are accomplishments.

Yep. Almost everything is obvious in hindsight but only those with foresight have anything to show for it. The good news is we don't have to be able to predict most major events on which profits can be made correctly; defying prevailing opinion only once or on rare occasion is all it takes if you're willing to bet large.

I think he is already there. That's what F-U money can buy. Would anyone prefer that this person be Chinese, Russian, or Iranian? Critics laughably pretend that they know more about how to generate wealth and influence policy while playing back seat driver and in relative terms accomplish little or nothing. I, for one am glad the guy is working for us.

That's all true but I heard that 85% of all US counties voted for Trump. That was very surprising and tells a different tale. He also won all the swing states, which for many elections have been the only States that matter.

I completely understand why Canadians feel that way. You guys are far too nice to begin with . Seriously though, Trump is like a political version of Robin Williams (the comedian). He says anything that comes to mind and tends to repeat stuff over and over when it gets initial traction. I believe he is trying to change the mindset of average Americans when it comes to the US and this country's trajectory for continued success. In case you're wondering, I don't believe for a millisecond that Trump has any real aspirations of annexing Canada though a country as sparsely populated as Greenland could be a different story if an overwhelming majority of its people were to want to become a US territory.

Many are attempting to judge Trump's second term after only 1 month in office. Personally, I don't understand why other than to further an agenda. I can't argue with you about many who occupy the legislative branch (i.e., Congress) and some of the Judiciary who have become far too activist. On a local level, most Judges are competent and impartial; we only hear and read about those who make news which are the exceptions, not the norm.