Nick Leeson bankrupted Barings bank by selling options to collect premium which the bank accounted for as cash in his account to offset a futures out trade. He initially doubled and tripled down on the futures position then started to sell options to offset the negative p&l. His loss in options wasn’t being realized. If the market continues to move against you eventually go broke.
How is it unrealized if when you roll it, your essentially buying back...any time i do so and buy it back for more...oh i definitely realize that loss in my account
Thanks for Sharing this Dan & Karen only if I had about 30K in my trading account to do these strategies.. and I want to fund a Founding also to help others
When Dan kept bringing up fear, that's the moment I realized that Karen is a much better trader than Dan. Trading psychology is BS all due respect Dan. Great to see Karen 🤠👍
So I read through the SEC lawsuit against Karen and hope advisors and... I see the SEC's point. I completely understand Karen's position and I understand the SEC position. The SEC's position is that if Karen was going to roll her positions, Hope Advisors could not be charging their customary fee to the clients because they weren't profitable in a certain quarter/ time frame... technically they would have been at a loss. And the SEC is 100% right about that. My sense of things is that Karen felt she could charge that amount because the profitability of those positions was being deferred for several weeks or months down the line; the only fault and where it becomes "fraudulent, manipulative, and deceptive" is when those profits have not been realized yet but were being charged to the client AS IF THEY WERE. And that's the problem! I understand what Karen's Confidence was: she was used to doing this roll and being on the dance floor as an Individual Retail Options Trader, becoming profitable ultimately in the position she held and rolled. But the issue is if your trading For OTHERS you can't be charging clients the fees as if you made the profits and you haven't. Cuz that just isn't right. Karen is STILL the SUPERTRADER👸👸🤴!! It just sucks that she wasn't more careful about the responsibilities of things you can/ can't do as a professional fund manager versus what you can do as an individual Trader.
That depends on when the fees were charged. If someone wanted out of the fund then Karen would do the market to market. I don’t think Karen’s said I have confidence, I believe its how she chose to do the accounting. And it was fully disclosed to those in the fund. I’m sorry you want to give the SEC credit and take the view they were “nice’ people with an opinion. The SEC actions did nothing to “protect” the investor. Their actions hurt the investor.
@@grandadcrypto I certainly don't take the position that the SEC were "nice people" trying to help the investor...PFFT! The SEC are failures on so many levels on "helping investors" on a Regular Basis! They DON'T protect investors, they don't stop the purposeful fraud happening on the exchanges, just look at what happened with GM how they wiped out billions of dollars during their bankruptcy and investors ended up with absolutely nothing, but GM opens the next day with billions of dollars in their coffers! That is COMPLETELY UNFORGIVABLE!!! So that is not my position at all LOL what I'm saying is, the SEC was Correct in their argument that when Karen rolled her positions, technically they ARE at a LOSS, because, in Karen's case she sells puts so she would have to do a purchase and sell new puts. But the problem is the purchase/ buy back would have been done at a loss and the sell could have been done at a debit or credit, regardless, she would have still been at a loss. So the issue is you can't charge the fund's Investors the customary fees if during that quarter you're actually at a loss, not a win... That was the SECs position and I tend to agree with that. Not because I'm against Karen, because I'm actually a fan of hers, but because in all actuality those ARE IN FACT Losses which were REALIZED once she rolled the position.
@@Solingen1000 She was using a "high water mark" fee, what is very rare to use, for obvious reasons. In a sideways market you have very little fees coming in.
Dan, Karen has a compelling story but in watching several of the interviews with her, hosts of trading related podcasts seem to spend so much time on her life and the good work she does internationally that they dont get enough into the specifics of her trading and how she generates high returns while managing to limit losses. I have heard her say previously with Tom that she was trading daily's and then now with you weekly's and with others 2 week's. And in one case with a $4 or so premium and later a $10 or so premium. And that she was always making money. Sorry but it just doesnt compute to get large % returns like that while limiting losses. Granted, If she has a huge amount of $$ in her personal acct she could very well be making a lot of total $$ return without making a high % return and when she was trading a $240 million acct it could have made her a lot in fees but please explain how it makes a high % return without using large leverage? I heard her say she made on another one that she made 9% the previous month....well was this 9% on her balances or 9% annualized? One seems possible w/ puts, but the other seems not so. If Bernie Madoff was on your show and he said he had great returns and never lost money for his clients wouldn't you press him on the exact method he was using without interjecting your own possibilities in the conversation. I havent read her book...does it give examples of her exact method or just more mumbo jumbo? I am all for giving her a Mother Teresa Award for good works but it would take a lot more digging to give her an award for trading prowess.
Sheridan asks some ridiculous questions and can't keep quiet.... Every question he asked was a leading question. Wanted to hear how she is trading and had to suffer, but hey, thanks for the info.
I gathered from the conversation that Karen didn’t choose to have a lawyer representing her. That’s why the judge had said she couldn’t defend against the charges levied against her.
IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, KAREN BRUTON IS BARRED from associating with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization
@@cryptowealthonyt To warn those who don't know .. the name Super trader itself should be a red flag.. anybody who is a god trader keeps trading or go fully licensed professional and start a legit Managed fund
@@jiti5034 For the record she didn't name herself "A Super Trader" she was nickednamed that by Tom Sosnoff of Tastytrade. But I'm unclear on what you mean "should be a red flag" red flag for what exactly. What do you want to warn people about regarding Karen?
Conversation about Trading starts at 19:05.
It is obvious that she has zero regard towards risk, so if the market were to drop 40% in a few weeks she is wiped out
If you roll itm spread you do have an realized loss. She just selling other spreads collect more credit to offset the loss.
Nick Leeson bankrupted Barings bank by selling options to collect premium which the bank accounted for as cash in his account to offset a futures out trade. He initially doubled and tripled down on the futures position then started to sell options to offset the negative p&l. His loss in options wasn’t being realized. If the market continues to move against you eventually go broke.
How is it unrealized if when you roll it, your essentially buying back...any time i do so and buy it back for more...oh i definitely realize that loss in my account
Thanks for Sharing this Dan & Karen only if I had about 30K in my trading account to do these strategies.. and I want to fund a Founding also to help others
When Dan kept bringing up fear, that's the moment I realized that Karen is a much better trader than Dan. Trading psychology is BS all due respect Dan. Great to see Karen 🤠👍
She should post a petition on the channels she does interviews on to sue them and get her foundation back or something get all her rights back
So I read through the SEC lawsuit against Karen and hope advisors and... I see the SEC's point. I completely understand Karen's position and I understand the SEC position. The SEC's position is that if Karen was going to roll her positions, Hope Advisors could not be charging their customary fee to the clients because they weren't profitable in a certain quarter/ time frame... technically they would have been at a loss. And the SEC is 100% right about that. My sense of things is that Karen felt she could charge that amount because the profitability of those positions was being deferred for several weeks or months down the line; the only fault and where it becomes "fraudulent, manipulative, and deceptive" is when those profits have not been realized yet but were being charged to the client AS IF THEY WERE. And that's the problem! I understand what Karen's Confidence was: she was used to doing this roll and being on the dance floor as an Individual Retail Options Trader, becoming profitable ultimately in the position she held and rolled. But the issue is if your trading For OTHERS you can't be charging clients the fees as if you made the profits and you haven't. Cuz that just isn't right. Karen is STILL the SUPERTRADER👸👸🤴!!
It just sucks that she wasn't more careful about the responsibilities of things you can/ can't do as a professional fund manager versus what you can do as an individual Trader.
That depends on when the fees were charged. If someone wanted out of the fund then Karen would do the market to market. I don’t think Karen’s said I have confidence, I believe its how she chose to do the accounting. And it was fully disclosed to those in the fund. I’m sorry you want to give the SEC credit and take the view they were “nice’ people with an opinion. The SEC actions did nothing to “protect” the investor. Their actions hurt the investor.
@@grandadcrypto I certainly don't take the position that the SEC were "nice people" trying to help the investor...PFFT! The SEC are failures on so many levels on "helping investors" on a Regular Basis! They DON'T protect investors, they don't stop the purposeful fraud happening on the exchanges, just look at what happened with GM how they wiped out billions of dollars during their bankruptcy and investors ended up with absolutely nothing, but GM opens the next day with billions of dollars in their coffers! That is COMPLETELY UNFORGIVABLE!!! So that is not my position at all LOL
what I'm saying is, the SEC was Correct in their argument that when Karen rolled her positions, technically they ARE at a LOSS, because, in Karen's case she sells puts so she would have to do a purchase and sell new puts. But the problem is the purchase/ buy back would have been done at a loss and the sell could have been done at a debit or credit, regardless, she would have still been at a loss. So the issue is you can't charge the fund's Investors the customary fees if during that quarter you're actually at a loss, not a win... That was the SECs position and I tend to agree with that. Not because I'm against Karen, because I'm actually a fan of hers, but because in all actuality those ARE IN FACT Losses which were REALIZED once she rolled the position.
Every mutual fund and index charges you money even if they lose you money. The SEC is a joke.
@@Solingen1000 Exactly
@@Solingen1000 She was using a "high water mark" fee, what is very rare to use, for obvious reasons. In a sideways market you have very little fees coming in.
I too lost big in 2015, October for me.
Dan, Karen has a compelling story but in watching several of the interviews with her, hosts of trading related podcasts seem to spend so much time on her life and the good work she does internationally that they dont get enough into the specifics of her trading and how she generates high returns while managing to limit losses. I have heard her say previously with Tom that she was trading daily's and then now with you weekly's and with others 2 week's. And in one case with a $4 or so premium and later a $10 or so premium. And that she was always making money. Sorry but it just doesnt compute to get large % returns like that while limiting losses. Granted, If she has a huge amount of $$ in her personal acct she could very well be making a lot of total $$ return without making a high % return and when she was trading a $240 million acct it could have made her a lot in fees but please explain how it makes a high % return without using large leverage? I heard her say she made on another one that she made 9% the previous month....well was this 9% on her balances or 9% annualized? One seems possible w/ puts, but the other seems not so. If Bernie Madoff was on your show and he said he had great returns and never lost money for his clients wouldn't you press him on the exact method he was using without interjecting your own possibilities in the conversation. I havent read her book...does it give examples of her exact method or just more mumbo jumbo? I am all for giving her a Mother Teresa Award for good works but it would take a lot more digging to give her an award for trading prowess.
My rolemodel.
You had/have a right to appeal. Why didn't you? She's very resentful of what she believes was an unjust decision.
Their bullshit excuse is that she didn't have money. Right, all those profits from previous years and no money for a decent lawyer...
strategy at 26:40
Sheridan asks some ridiculous questions and can't keep quiet.... Every question he asked was a leading question. Wanted to hear how she is trading and had to suffer, but hey, thanks for the info.
I gathered from the conversation that Karen didn’t choose to have a lawyer representing her. That’s why the judge had said she couldn’t defend against the charges levied against her.
She had a lawyer.
how many millions did investors lose? $50M???
Her investors didn't lose anything, which is the crazy part!
IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, KAREN BRUTON IS BARRED from associating with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization
You are correct but why post it here?
@@cryptowealthonyt To warn those who don't know .. the name Super trader itself should be a red flag.. anybody who is a god trader keeps trading or go fully licensed professional and start a legit Managed fund
@@jiti5034 For the record she didn't name herself "A Super Trader" she was nickednamed that by Tom Sosnoff of Tastytrade. But I'm unclear on what you mean "should be a red flag" red flag for what exactly. What do you want to warn people about regarding Karen?