Camelot Derivatives and Neil King EXPOSED!

July 20, 2009

More on debunking Camelot Derivatives’ ’76.5% Odds On’ claim

Filed under: Uncategorized — victimsforjustice @ 2:08 am


Probability Is Only Part Of The Puzzle

Over the last couple of weeks I’ve been concentrating on option trading myths and nonsense, in particular the myth of 90% of options expiring worthless, but only alluding to the second part of the puzzle. That second part of the puzzle is mathematical expectancy.


The debate over what percentage of options expires out of the money misses the point. Even if it were true that 90% of options expired worthless it would mean nothing. There’s also the matter of how much you make on your winners vs how much you lose on your losers”


Never a truer word said. Probability of win is irrelevant on its own.

The expectancy equation has two parts, 1) probability of win and 2) win size vs loss size. One way of expressing this mathematically is with this equation:


Expectancy = ((1 + reward/risk ratio) * win/loss ratio)-1


One way to have a look at this principle in practice is to wander down to the casino and play a little roulette. It is a wonderful way to understand this principle, because at the roulette wheel, it does not matter one iota with what probability we play, the negative expectancy cannot be overcome. On a 00 wheel the negative expectancy is -5.26%.

We can create a ~90% probability, but that won’t help us a jot. A chip placed on 34 numbers gives us a ~89.5% probability of winning paying 36/34, but it’s still a losing strategy in the long run. Let’s look at the maths:

Expectancy = ((1 + reward/risk ratio) * win/loss ratio)-1

= ((1 +2/34) *34/38)-1

= -0.0526

= -5.26%

Likewise, an option strategy with a theoretically 90% probability, whether an actual statistical probability, or an erroneous probability, doesn’t make the trader profitable in the long run. We are all aware of the snatching pennies from in front of a steam roller analogy.

If you make $1,000 90% of the time and lose $10,000 10% of the time, you’re down a hole. In fact, you lose $1,000 every ten trades on average.

High probability trades are nice in theory, but a trader still has to develop a positive mathematical edge. So our “90% of options expire worthless so sell options” pseudo-gurus actually make two major misrepresentations; that 90% options expire worthless and that this automatically confers profitability.

Mathematics outs in the end.
Article courtesy of Sigma Options

July 17, 2009

If you are looking for camelotderivatives.com or camelotderivatives.com.au look here!

camelotderivatives.com VOTED* in the Top 50 of biggest Fictional Claims Sites on the Internet!

Filed under: camelotderivatives.com,neil king — victimsforjustice @ 4:24 am

An Independant Survey* conducted by the World Internet Integrity Commission has named Neil King’s site, www.camelotderivatives.com in the top 50 sites that challenge reality and integrity by fabricating claims that are clearly made up by scammers and fraudsters.


Other sites that ‘challenge reality’ included: penis enlargement claims, automated get rich quick schemes, youth pills, cosmetics that take decades of your age, 5 minute a month work from home scams, guaranteed stock picking programmes and many other sites that the judges found very amusing and some distirbed by their boldness and obvious ridiculous claims.

The Truth About Neil King and Camelot Derivatives!


camelotderivatives.com
camelotderivatives.com.au
neil king trader

July 14, 2009

Neil King posts a picture of his ancestor on his blog!

Filed under: Uncategorized — victimsforjustice @ 11:01 pm

Another Fraudster gets 20 years for $516m fraud!

Filed under: Uncategorized — victimsforjustice @ 1:18 am

Almost can’t wait to see Neil King in the headlines!

A LAWYER who admitted to a $US400 million ($516 million) investment fund fraud has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.

New York lawyer Marc Dreier’s fraud unraveled at the same time as Bernard Madoff’s huge swindle, but unlike Madoff, Dreier has apologised to those he fleeced.

Madoff’s multibillion-dollar fraud was much larger than Dreier’s scheme, but US prosecutors had requested 145 years for the Harvard and Yale educated lawyer compared with the 150-year term imposed on the disgraced financier last month.

US District Judge Jed Rakoff, before handing down the sentence in Manhattan federal court, said Dreier “is getting no sympathy from this court but he is no Mr Madoff under any analysis”.

Dreier, 59, pleaded guilty in May to securities fraud, money laundering and other charges.

He once ran a 250-member New York law firm Dreier LLP and acknowledged in court that he had dishonoured the legal profession.

Receivers working to recover assets and money for fraud victims said Dreier had cooperated with them.

“I am sorry, deeply sorry for the harm, the sadness that I have caused so many people,” the gray-haired Dreier, dressed in a dark business suit, said in court before he was sentenced.

“(But) an apology doesn’t fix anything, doesn’t give anyone’s money back and doesn’t give anyone their job back.”

The Truth about Camelot Derivatives’ Returns Claims

Filed under: Uncategorized — victimsforjustice @ 12:22 am

July 12, 2009

How IRON CONDORS are supposed to be traded! Take note Neil King!

Filed under: Uncategorized — victimsforjustice @ 10:45 pm

Iron Condors: Wing It To Maximum Profit


by Robert Stammers,CFA(Contact Author | Biography)
courtesy of Investopedia

An iron condor, is an advanced option strategy that is favored by traders who desire consistent returns and do not want to spend an inordinate amount of time preparing and executing trades. As a neutral position, it can provide a high probability of return for those who have learned to execute it correctly.Most new traders are taught to execute this strategy by creating the entire position all at once, which neither maximizes profit nor minimizes risk. An alternative method is to build the position in parts and to execute the separate credit spreads in relation to price trends of the underlying security. Creating the position in this way maximizes the credit available and trades a profit range.

Traders also need to understand how to negotiate with the market and “get inside the bid-ask spread.” By understanding the various risk management techniques available, the iron condor can provide traders with a very consistent way to build a trading account.

What Is It?
The construction of an iron condor involves the creation of two credit spreads. A credit spread involves the sale of an option (put or call), and the subsequent purchase of another that is farther out of the money. The difference between the premiums received for the sold option and the cost of the purchased option provides the profit. This profit is realized by later buying back the position for a gain or by keeping the entire premium, when the options expire.

The number of strike prices between the two options (or spread) determines the total amount of capital at risk and amount held by the brokerage firm determined as:

Spread – Credit x 100 x # of Contracts = Margin

The iron condor is made up of a bear call spread and a bull put spread. The two credit spreads are often used together, not because it is necessary, but because they share the same amount of capital at risk. Because losses cannot be realized by both credit spreads, brokers only hold margin for one of them.

The iron condor creates a trading range that is bounded by the strike prices of the two sold options. Losses are only realized if the underlying rises above the call strike or fall below the put strike. Because there is no additional risk to take on the second position, it is often to the trader’s benefit to take on the second position and the additional return it provides.

The iron condor is known as a neutral strategy because the trader can profit when the underlying goes up, down or trades sideways. However, the trader is trading the probability of success against the amount of potential loss. With this position, the potential return is usually much smaller than the capital at risk.

Iron condors are similar to fixed income, where the maximum cash flows and the maximum losses are both known. The decision to make a particular trade becomes a risk-management issue. The key is to receive as much credit as possible while increasing the profit range or the distance between the two sold strikes. (To learn more, read Should You Flock To Iron Condors?)

Traditional Approach
Many new or novice traders learn to create the iron condor position by determining support and resistance for a security and then create the position so that the sold options are outside the predicted trading range. Some will also enter the position when the stock is in the midpoint of the range or an equidistant point between the sold options.

By creating the position this way, the trader believes that he or she has created the best possible scenario, but in fact has minimized both the credit and risk management aspects of the strategy. By designing order forms that make it easier for traders to execute this position all at once, many online brokerage firms perpetuate it being traded this way. (For more, read Support & Resistance Basics.)

Although a neutral position, trading credit spreads is a way to take advantage of either volatility or implied volatility. Only when the underlying is expected to move significantly or the stock has been trending in one direction do option premiums increase. For this reason, creating both legs of the condor at the same time means sub-optimizing the potential credit of one or both of the credit spreads, thus reducing the overall profit range of the position. In order to receive an acceptable return, many traders will sell at strike prices that are more in the money than if the credit spreads were executed at different, more profitable times.

A Different Method
One approach that can maximize credit received and the profit range of the iron condor, is to leg into the position. “Legging in” refers to creating the put spread and the call spread at times that when market makers are inflating the prices of either the sold call or put. (To learn more about this strategy, see An Alternative Covered Call: Adding A Leg.)

The best time to create either the bull put spread or the bear call spread is when the underlying has moved significantly in the direction of resistance (for the call spread) or support (for the put spread) or maintained the trend for several sessions in a row. As the underlying loses value over a period of time, buyers will obtain puts for profit as insurance against further losses. When this happens, market makers will significantly increase the cost of puts, which increases the premiums for sellers. Conversely, when the underlying increases, more buyers go long. This increases the premiums for calls and credits for the call spread.

Another way to increase the credit received from the position is to negotiate with the market maker. Many novice traders accept the natural spread that the market provides without realizing that market makers will accept limit orders that can get them additional credit of as much as one-third of the bid-ask spread. For example, a 30 cent spread can add as much as 10 cents per share or 40 additional cents per share for the entire iron condor position.

By waiting for an opportune time for the natural spread to inflate and then getting inside the bid-ask spread, a trader can sell at strike prices that originally had no credit at all. By dictating the terms that they are willing to receive for the position, traders can even turn negative natural credits (the market difference between the sold and purchased option) to amounts that provide acceptable risk-adjusted returns.

Risk Management
There are other techniques that can be used to limit losses. One way is to trade index options (such as the S&P 500 or Russell 2000) instead of stocks. Single stocks have the potential to swing wildly in response to earnings, or other news can cause them to gap significantly in one direction or break through significant support or resistance levels in a short period of time. Since indexes are made up of many different stocks, they tend to move more slowly and are easier to predict. The fact that they are highly liquid and have tradable options every 10 points reduces the bid-ask spreads and provides more credit at each strike price.

One of the most practical risk management techniques is to be patient. Determine the minimum amount of credit necessary to cover yourself for the capital at risk. Find a strike price at which you are comfortable selling, set limit orders at that position and let the market maker take one of your trades when enough credit has been established. Don’t worry if you can’t get your second leg in right away. Time is working in your favor: the closer to expiration you can trade and still receive an acceptable credit, the better. Time decay, the nemesis of option buyers, benefits option sellers.

Traders should always know the exact point at which they should attempt repairing a position if it is threatened. If the index arrives at that point or threatens one of your sold strike points, there are alternatives other than liquidating the position for a loss. You can always roll out into a new credit spread, (into a higher strike for the call spread or a lower strike for the put spread). This is often the best course of action, since you can receive additional credit without having to post any additional margin. Since the index would have had to be trending significantly to threaten your position, it is often possible to find enough additional credit to considerably reduce, or even cover, losses at a strike price even further out of the money.

The Bottom Line
Many new traders avoid advanced option strategies like the iron condor believing them to be too complicated to trade consistently. The reality is that most traders only make one condor trade per index per month. A summary review of the market is usually sufficient enough to determine when to set or revise limit orders. If executed correctly to create the maximum profit range, the iron condor promises a high probability of success, which keeps traders from having to be glued to their computers to manage their trades. When they do get into trouble, they can be easily corrected to help limit losses. If not the primary trading strategy, trading iron condors provides a good hedge against long option positions and overall market volatility.

by Robert Stammers

** This article and more are available at Investopedia.com – Your Source for Investing Education **

July 11, 2009

Three charged in $30 million SD fraud scheme

Filed under: Uncategorized — victimsforjustice @ 3:44 am

A federal indictment unsealed today charges three San Diego County residents with operating a $30 million investment fraud scheme.

Matthew “Beau” La Madrid, 48, Lance La Madrid, 50, and Eric Montiel, 52, face conspiracy and mail, wire and bank fraud charges in connection with their operation of Plus Money Premium Return Funds and related alleged real estate investment schemes.

Matthew La Madrid, of Jamul, is also charged with money laundering and witness tampering. He was the president and general manager of Plus Money Inc., an investment group with offices in El Cajon, and also operated businesses related to real estate investments in San Diego County, according to the indictment.

According to the 29-count indictment, Lance La Madrid, of El Cajon, was the assistant general manager of Plus Money and Montiel, of San Diego, was the company’s audit and communications officer. According to the indictment, between May 2004 and May 2008, Plus Money obtained from investors more than $30 million held in three pools known as Premium Return Fund I, II, and III.

The indictment alleges the defendants falsely represented to investors that they operated a “covered calls” stock option trading program and other investment programs involving real estate, promising that monies invested in the Plus Money funds would be used to trade in “covered call” stock options and that the monthly payments investors would receive represented income from their investment.


July 10, 2009

REAL Camelot Derivatives former clients reveal their experience with Neil King from 2006!

Filed under: Uncategorized — victimsforjustice @ 1:43 am

...Are there any other disgruntled clients of Neil King (Camelot Derivatives) out there?
This poor excuse for a human being has managed to turn my account of over $130K* to less than $0 in less than a month through his "carefully managed low-risk strategies".
DO NOT believe this person when he tells you that your maximum risk exposure is 5 to 10%. It is in fact >100%!  I have spoken to other clients who have lost everything, plus margin calls taking their losses to over 170% of capital invested.
Do not trust this deceitful scoundrel with even one cent of your money!
      * Posted by: anon* on 2006  
......................................................................................................................................................................
    ...I lost over $120k* with Neil King and Camelot Derivatives. This man loses money with gay abandon.  I don't know how people with such an appalling track record in money management are able to continue attracting unsuspecting investors.
  Please do your due diligence before you invest with this man.
      * Posted by: anon* on 2006 
*names & figures have been hidden/changed to protect their identity from bully like retribution from Neil King.

Next Page »

Theme: Rubric. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.