Non-bank electronic market-makers have penetrated deeply into the foreign exchange market that was exclusive to bank dealers five years ago according to the latest Bank for International Settlements’ Triennial Survey.
The BIS survey said the share of principal trading firms in spot electronic trading with buy-side clients rose to 32%, up from 10% three years ago, citing the 2019 Euromoney survey.
“What differentiates these new players from traditional bank dealers is that they substitute speed for balance sheet,” added BIS. “As they have morphed into market-makers, alongside main FX dealing banks, they have become an integral part of FX intermediation and a key determinant of liquidity conditions, particularly in the spot market.”
— Bank for International Settlements (@BIS_org) December 8, 2019
The survey continued that electronic trading in FX first took off in the inter-dealer market, but in recent years the dealer-to-customer segment has seen the strongest rise in electronification.
BIS continued that electronic execution allows for fast trading and therefore contributes to overall FX turnover growth.
“In aggregate, the share of FX trading done electronically edged up only slightly to 56% in 2019,” added BIS. “However, there are notable differences in the progress of electronification across instruments, and in inter-dealer versus dealer-to-customer market segments.”
Electronic platforms
Instinet, owned by Japanese bank Nomura, today announced the launch of Newport FX, an agency-model electronic trading platform for spot FX. Newport FX is a web-based desktop application for the buy side that can be accessed through the firm’s Newport execution management system platform, direct FIX API, or on a stand-alone basis.
Ralston Roberts, global chief executive of Instinet Incorporated, said in a statement: “Connecting counterparties, providing aggregated access to liquidity, and applying technology to increase efficiency have been our fundamental principles throughout Instinet’s 50-year history.”
Citi last week said it had appointed electronic trading platform provider Rapid Addition as one of its core FIX platform partners for foreign exchange trading. The bank continued that electronic trading has grown rapidly and now represents 80% of global customer FX trading volume due to demands for increased price transparency and automated workflow.
Mark Meredith, global head of FX electronic trading and algorithmic execution at Citi, said in a statement: “It is vitally important that we are highly competitive in the field of API trading, and key factors contributing to that are latency and stability characteristics.”
Offshore trading
Electronic trading tends to be booked in a few major financial hubs and so has led to a greater share of offshore trading. The BIS said London accounts for 43% of global FX turnover, while the combined share of the top four trading centres, which also include New York, Singapore and Hong Kong SAR, amounts to 75%.
— Bank for International Settlements (@BIS_org) December 8, 2019
“In today’s currency markets that trade around the clock, offshore trading is the norm,” added the report” The share of offshore trading for the US dollar, euro and Japanese yen – the three most traded currencies – is 79%, 84% and 74%, respectively.”
Offshore trading has risen because it is much less costly to build counterparty and credit relationships with dealers and clients in just a handful of centres than in each country separately. Placing FX desks within the same location as banks’ other functions, such as money market and treasury units, also favours major financial centres.
“In particular, major dealers tend to consolidate their electronic trading business in one of the major FX hubs,” added the survey. “This concentration thus partly compensates for the decentralised OTC structure of FX markets.”
FX trading volumes
Greater electronification of customer trading helped boost global foreign exchange trading volumes to $6.6 trillion per day in April this year, up from $5.1 trillion per day three years ago.
— Bank for International Settlements (@BIS_org) December 8, 2019
The largest single contributor to the overall FX turnover growth was an increase in trading of FX swaps, driven by the use of swaps in banks’ funding management according to BIS.
The survey said: “In particular, making NDFs tradable on electronic platforms has attracted greater volumes from hedge funds and principal trading firms.”
The Taiwan Futures Exchange (TAIFEX) and Taiwan Index Plus Corporation (“TIP”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Taiwan Stock Exchange (“TWSE”), will jointly launch Taiwan Strategic Indices, composed of securities with cross-asset classes listed on the Taiwan’s financial market. These three new indices will facilitate the introduction of new exchange-traded and OTC products, including ETFs, ETNs and warrants, for institutional or individual investors looking to enhance their returns or implement diverse hedging strategies.
The
new indices include:
l The TIP TAIFEX
TAIEX Futures Index replicates the financial returns of holding a long
position in the spot month of TAIEX Futures contracts (Ticker symbol: “TX”),
which are incrementally rolled into the next-nearest month contracts over the
five days prior to the last trading day. The index is to be used as the
underlying for issuers of various types of index products.
l The TIP TAIFEX
TAIEX Covered Call OTM 5% Total Return Index replicates returns from a
“covered call” strategy of investing in the TAIEX, namely holding a long
position in the TAIEX while simultaneously selling TAIEX call options (Ticker
symbol: “TXO”). This strategic index blends equity index and options contracts
to represent index performance.
l The TIP TAIFEX
Smart Multi-factor 30 Market Neutral Index reflects the performance of a
“market-neutral” strategy through combining long positions in the TIP Smart
Multi-factor 30 Index and short positions in the TIP TAIFEX TAIEX Futures
Index. The design aims to generate consistent and positive returns in all
market conditions.
The
Taiwan Strategic Indices mark a milestone for both TAIFEX and TIP, symbolizing
the first move of an innovative index series to come. TAIFEX will continue to
work closely with issuers to introduce new exchange-traded products that track
and utilize its existing suite of futures and options in innovative ways.
NTL FCStone Inc. (NASDAQ: INTL) announced that it has executed a definitive sale and purchase agreement to acquire the brokerage businesses of Tellimer Group (“Tellimer” or “the Group”). This transaction will involve the purchase of Exotix Partners LLP, Tellimer Capital Ltd (Nigeria) and the broking business of Tellimer Markets Inc. The closing of this transaction is subject to limited conditions including regulatory approval.
Tellimer (formerly Exotix) has been a leader for twenty years in providing institutional investors, corporates, and governments access to the most dynamic and complex financial markets in the world. With offices in London, Dubai, Lagos and New York, the broking business covers over 170 trading markets in Equities and Fixed Income, specializing in emerging and frontier markets. As part of the deal Tellimer’s unique research will be distributed to INTL’s clients, to complement INTL FCStone’s Securities offering globally. The acquisition price is not material to INTL FCStone Inc.
Once the transaction is completed, Tellimer will continue to provide unique research, research distribution, technology, analytics and advisory services, from London, New York, Dubai, Singapore, Nairobi and Lagos.
Jacob Rappaport, Head of Equities for INTL FCStone Inc. commented on the news: “We’re thrilled to incorporate Tellimer Group’s broking team and offerings into our extensive Securities business globally. The addition expands our reach by providing access to new markets, capabilities, and specialized expertise. The capability of the broking business fits extremely well with our existing equities and fixed income businesses, and we believe the integration of our product portfolio, global client base, and large balance sheet will enhance INTL FCStone.”
Duncan Wales, CEO of Tellimer Group, said: “This transaction represents the next step in the Tellimer Group strategy which is focused on the development of our innovative proprietary technology platform and the expansion of leading information and connectivity services to our clients. We genuinely believe INTL FCStone will enhance the reach and scale of the broking business. Additionally, we are delighted that INTL FCStone has also chosen Tellimer as their third-party research content provider and delivery platform to enhance their securities offering.”
ROW Asset Management, the quantitative global macro investment firm, hired Andy Schneider as Managing Director, Global Head of Business Development. Schneider brings more than 18 years of investment management business development experience with over 10 years working within the systematic trading space. Previously, Schneider was Director of Business Development, North America for ISAM, a London-based systematic investment manager. Between 2009 and 2016, he worked at Campbell & Co., focusing on domestic institutional sales and consultant relations and from 2002 through 2008 at Legg Mason Capital Management as Manager of Business Development and Institutional Sales.
Bank of America onboarded Greg Lyons from Goldman Sachs as head of global central risk book. Also at the bank, the former head of equities trading strategies Ajay Khanna retired recently. Jacob Kaippallimalil, head of global central risk book appointed in 2018, left BoA and joined Schonfeld Strategic Advisors this year.
If you have a new job or promotion to report, let me know at jdantona@marketsmedia.com
HCXI, a blockchain and AI based risk solutions company focused on managing alternative and emerging risks as new asset classes, appointed former Swiss Re and AIG executive David Bassi to its advisory board. Bassi joined the HCXI Advisory Board with over 25 years of experience in the global insurance industry most recently serving as a Managing Director at Ernst & Young in Boston. Prior to this role, he served as the Head of Innovation and Risk Consulting, Casualty, at AIG and held various risk management roles at leading companies including Swiss Re and General Electric.
New America Alliance (NAA) announces the appointment of Solange Fernández Brooks as its new Chief Executive Officer, beginning January 2020. Brooks has served as Portfolio Manager within the Investments Branch of the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS), where she manages a global portfolio of limited partnerships.
Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM) announced the appointment of Kim Brown as Pension Scheme Director for the L&G Mastertrust and the Independent Governance Committee (IGC). She joins from The Pensions Regulator, where she was Head of Master Trust Authorisation and Supervision. Having stepped down from that role and following a period of leave, Brown will join LGIM in February 2020.
KRM22, a technology and software investment company that focuses on risk management for capital markets, grabbed Steve Sparke as a Non-Executive Director of the Company. He will replace Matt Reed, Independent Non-Executive Director, who is stepping down to focus on other business commitments.
Sparke has over 30 years’ experience in the Exchange Traded Derivatives (ETD) and commodity industry with extensive board-level experience for global ETD and commodities organisations. He has a deep understanding of application of IT for strategic advantage and extensive expertise in optimising operational functions included technology, legal, risk and compliance.
OANDA hired industry veteran David Grant as its new Chief Operating Officer, Asia Pacific. Based in Singapore, he will be responsible for overseeing the firm’s administrative and operational functions as well as enhancing the overall efficiency of the business.
Grant brings with him more than 20 years’ experience in the electronic
trading industry. Having previously held the role of Chief Executive Officer in
the Singapore offices of City Index and OptionsXpress, he joins OANDA from Gain
Capital where he served as APAC Chief Operating Officer. His career has also
spanned several leading financial institutions including Goldman Sachs and
E*Trade.
XTX Markets, a non-bank FX liquidity provider and market maker, has landed E-FX banking specialist Andrew Webber. Webber joins XTX Markets’ Global Distribution team after a lengthy career in the capital markets space, during which he has focused on foreign exchange analytics and held several trading roles. He joins XTX Markets from BNP Paribas, having worked with the French lender for the past two years as Head of eFX Client Analytics. Prior to that, he was a senior quantitative trader at Sun Trading LLC, a Chicago-based privately held proprietary trading firm.
It’s that time of year
when analysts, investors and pundits sit back and evaluate how well the markets
performed in 2019 and ponder what obstacles stand in the way of growth and
prosperity in 2020. We take the temperature and determine if the capital markets
glass is half-full, half-empty or somewhere in between. We evaluate whether
market conditions are right for more of today’s iconic and exclusive
billion-dollar startups to go public or if startups should raise another round
of private capital because “now isn’t the right time.”
2019 in Review
As we look back, 2019 has
generally proven to be a strong year for IPOs.
And, with new listings raising $42.5 billion by early September, 23%
more than this time last year, it’s impossible to deny that stakeholders
seeking access to capital markets are scrutinizing their options. The questions
on many of their minds are as blunt as they are bold: “Are Silicon Valley
entrepreneurs and the founders, executives and early investors of companies in
other business sectors being disadvantaged through the deliberate underpricing
by investment banks?” “Has a more systemic pattern of overvaluation impacted
the prospects among today’s unicorns?” In either case, the speculation can be problematic
for considering an IPO.
Following a series of
high-profile IPO busts this year, there were several good performances, and a
select few companies that didn’t make it to the starting line. All the while, many
venture capitalists, investors, and entrepreneurs are emphatically insisting
that the traditional IPO process isn’t the only salient path to access the
public markets. The decades-old process of having Wall Street investment banks
underwrite public offerings, and in doing so, setting the stock price, has been
deemed by some as fundamentally flawed. Long overdue is an alternative approach to
gaining access to capital from the public markets—one that will appease
companies and investors alike. This year, companies have deviated from the
established roadmap—choosing alternate routes to the public markets. Both Slack
and Spotify successfully entered the public markets via a direct listing, and
the chatter continues that other unicorns (Airbnb, Postmates and DoorDash) may
soon follow suit.
Unicorns Follow the Small Cap Direct-To-Market Approach
I agree that multiple
paths of entry to public markets serve companies well. 2019 seems to be the
year the unicorns have taken note and have chosen this route via the national
exchanges. However, purporting the direct listing as a “new” path, or a “new
product” created by a national exchange, pioneered by Spotify and Slack and now
under consideration by others, is not entirely accurate.
Unbeknownst to many, the
direct listing isn’t a novel concept– this process has paved the road to the
public markets for countless small cap companies for nearly a decade. Dozens of
companies–from community banks, gold mines and robotics developers–have avoided
the high cost and time
pressures of the traditional IPO by entering the public markets more gradually,
with OTC Markets’ direct-to-market listing, more colloquially known as the
“Slow-PO.”
This transition from
existing, privately held shares to public status provides a deliberately paced
ramp up for management to determine how many shares to allocate for public
trading.
Making previously restricted shares available for trading may
garner less attention, but it essentially provides a practical and efficient
entry point to build investor confidence and liquidity organically.
OTC
Markets has been doing “direct listings” for many years. Community Banks including
Bank
of Idaho Holding Co. and Merchants & Marine
Bancorp, as well as the recognized Grayscale Bitcoin Trust have avoided the high
cost and time pressures of the traditional IPO by entering the public markets
more gradually, having chosen this direct-to-market route as a
path to achieving sustainable long-term growth.
For these types of companies,
an exchange listing neither scales nor is well-suited to meet their needs. Such
national exchanges just don’t make sense and would not serve them well. These
companies are eager to avoid the complexities, distraction, expense, and
uncertainty of an IPO and have found a viable path in this direct-to-market
option.
Direct-to-Market; A Viable Path
Company
CEOs and investors alike are taking pause to evaluate their options for growth
and determine whether a traditional IPO is the most effective way to serve
their investor base. The direct listing route can be attributed to a few
broader macro-economic factors:
Unprecedented access to private capital. Venture capitalists have invested $96.7
billion through the first three quarters of 2019, which puts this year on pace
to be the second highest in terms of venture capital investment behind last
year’s record totals. Companies considering a direct listing don’t need to use
a public offering to raise capital. They can do that before the IPO from
private investors.
IPO costs are significant. The
underwriting, legal and accounting fees to go public are significant. According
to a PwC
survey, 83% of CFOs estimated spending more than $1M on one-time costs
associated with their IPO. In contrast, a direct listing is much less costly.
Discerning public investors. WeWork
was emblematic of the fact that the devil is in the detail, –exposing the
potential for dysfunction that can be found in the financials. Investors are
looking for revenue and profit and ignoring the glitzy marketing. I’m seeing a
renewed focus on the fundamentals — rewarded by the investment community.
Timing the market. While
companies need to be ready to comply with public market scrutiny and reporting
requirements, direct listings are less about market timing and more about
providing value to the shareholders. With the volatility and geopolitical
uncertainties, timing the market has never been more difficult. I think there’s
more market discipline coming into play, and I think that’s healthy for markets.
Shining a light on the direct-to-market
process is good for startups, good for investors and good for the markets
overall. There shouldn’t be a singular, one-size-fits-all path to access the public
markets, nor a single market to facilitate that process. The path taken should
be thoughtfully evaluated so that it scales to the trajectory and growth goals
of the company. While the direct listing approach isn’t the silver bullet that
will guarantee success for all newly public companies, it serves a different
purpose. It’s an alternative for companies to consider — a way to allow
companies of all sectors and sizes, with strong fundamentals, to access a path
for long-term growth.
While 2019 saw
big highs and notable lows, it was an impactful year for companies making a
debut into the public markets. From an investor perspective, public markets are
still the best option to bring private companies into public transparency and command
a discipline of markets.
From our viewpoint,
as a public market operator for over 600
‘small’ U.S. public companies (those having a market cap less than $250M)
across 45 states that trade on OTC Markets, we are poised to welcome innovative, investor-focused growth companies no matter which path
they choose. As we look to the coming
year, the industry is bracing for yet another wave of dynamic IPOs on the
horizon — from oil behemoth Saudi Aramco to home-sharing company Airbnb… Perhaps
they will take a leaf out of our playbook?
Jason Paltrowitz is Director of OTC Markets Group International and Executive Vice President of Corporate Services at OTC Markets Group, the operator of financial markets for over 10,000 U.S. and global securities. Connect via LinkedIn.
In the first two blog posts in this series, we discussed the performance of IEX D-Peg, looking at how trades perform after and at the moment of the trade. In this post, we look at pre-trade execution quality, rounding out our discussion of how D-Peg is designed to enable performance throughout the life of an order — from the moment it is placed to after its final execution.
So what do we mean by “pre-trade” execution quality? Typically, most investors expect that when they put an order into the market, they will trade at their limit price or worse: either their order will trade at their limit when the market moves into it, or the algorithm has to chase the market price as it moves away from the order’s original limit.
But it doesn’t have to be that way every time. D-Peg can offer price improvement not just compared to the midpoint when it executes, but also compared to the NBBO midpoint[1]when the order was sent (i.e., the “arrival price”).
Trading at prices better than arrival price (a metric known as “child order price improvement”) is unique to order types that are either pegged or can otherwise reprice, as compared to a limit order which will execute at their limit price when the market moves into them. Simply put, a displayed limit order to buy at $10.05 is not going to trade at a price lower than $10.05[2]. Pegged orders, on the other hand, shift their prices as the market changes. And D-Peg is particularly well-designed to capitalize on the opportunity to get a better price than where it started because of its ranking in IEX’s limit order book[3], the Speed Bump[4], and our proprietary IEX Signal (i.e., Crumbling Quote Indicator or CQI).
Better than where you started
To calculate the value of price improvement for D-Peg orders, we compared the NBBO midpoint at the time of trade[5] to the NBBO midpoint when the order was placed (in other words, the price the D-Peg could have executed on entry) [6]. Basically, we wanted to see how the midpoint changed from when the order was placed to when it executed.
We found that in October 2019, 14% of all D-Peg shares, or 22% of all notional value, traded at an NBBO that was better than when they entered the market. Fourteen percent of shares might seem immaterial, but it’s a phenomenal outcome compared to a limit order that cannot be price improved upon. For the 14% of D-Peg volume that received price improvement, their average PI was 3.23 cents per share. We’re talking cents per share, not mils. Even if you average the price improvement across all D-Peg shares traded on IEX (not just those that received price improvement) D-Peg trades received an average of 45 mils of PI per share!
But…how?
Three reasons:
First, D-Peg is designed to avoid leaking information. Not only because it is a non-displayed order type, but as we touched on this in Part II, D-Peg cedes priority to displayed orders at the near touch, it leaks less information to market observers.
Second, D-Peg orders don’t hold up the quote in the way a Midpoint Peg can, because they only step up as far as necessary to meet a counterparty. This makes it easier to take in-the-money ticks if another market participant is trying to clear the quote.
Third, the IEX Signal. This functionality allows resting orders to take in-the-money ticks when the IEX Signal predicts that the price is about to change in their favor. Put simply, D-Peg hangs back (1 MPV outside of the NBBO) when the IEX Signal predicts that the price is changing in its favor, which helps it to avoid getting run over by a falling or rising price. It then returns to operating normally when the price stabilizes and can trade at the better price.
Demand a higher standard
Pre-trade child order arrival price improvement is an outcome you may rarely even think about — it’s certainly not possible with displayed limit orders in today’s marketplace. Of course, there are times when it is a disadvantage to be hanging back, but in many situations, it’s worth it to have the opportunity to see these kinds of results.
Buying lower or selling higher on 14% of volume, or 22% of notional value? That’s a benefit that flows all the way from the broker to the end investor.
Thanks so much for reading through all three of these posts. We hope this has provided new insight into the performance of D-Peg. Please reach out anytime at eric.stockland@iextrading.com if you have any questions or would like to discuss this data and how D-Peg can fit into your trading strategies.
[1] For this analysis we only consider DPEG orders that were marketable to the NBBO mid on entry. i.e., a D-Peg order to buy with a limit price <= the NBBO midpoint would be excluded.
[2] There may be exception to this in a crossed market, but under regular market conditions on IEX a displayed limit order cannot trade better than its displayed and working price.
[5] Note that we are not comparing the D-Peg execution price to arrival NBBO mid, rather we are comparing the NBBO mid at time of execution to arrival NBBO mid. This is done to avoid double counting the PI retention feature of D-Peg with arrival price improvement.
[6] In calculating arrival price improvement, we consider only D-Peg orders that traded at prices better than the arrival NBBO mid. However, the data set used when calculating an average PI includes all D-Peg shares traded on IEX. We assert that a displayed limit order on large, legacy exchanges and a D-Peg on IEX are equally likely to have the NBBO move away from their entry price.
“This one time, at band camp…” Everyone knows that you do embarrassing things at “band camp” so the analogy seems fitting. A long time ago, I did something really dumb with my options trading, and I lost a significant amount of money because of it. In this article, I am going to share with you my story along with the lessons to be learned so that you can avoid unnecessary pain and loss in your own trading. The article includes real numbers and calculations because you have to be able to understand and calculate your costs and gains if you want to be a successful options trader. After the wonky stuff, I include some advice for how to avoid making the type of mistake that I did, as well as some advice on how to approach mistakes that inevitably happen anyway.
Prologue — The Background
My investing philosophy has almost always been long-term buy-and-hold or LTBH: buy stock in solid, high-performing companies with strong leadership and a deep competitive moat, and then hold the stock for years if not decades. Note that investingis not the same as trading. The difference between the two is a topic for another article, but essentially, the equity in my long-term investments is the foundation for my options trading.
As part of my LTBH investing, I bought Starbucks (SBUX) about twenty years ago. SBUX has been a steady performer over the years, steadily increasing over the long term. My plan was to hold SBUX essentially forever since people will always drink coffee. So this is where our story begins.
Act 1 — The Setup
Around 2012–2013, SBUX traded mostly within a band as shown in this graph:
SBUX stock chart for 14 months prior to open options trade
SBUX split 2:1 in October, 2005 so the prices shown in the chart are half of what SBUX was actually trading for in that time frame. Aside from a couple of drops and one spike, SBUX had mostly been chugging along between 50-58/share (25-29 in the chart). So without much thought and just a touch of frustration that SBUX wasn’t going higher, faster, I had the brilliant idea to generate some cash off a position that appeared to be neutral or only slowly rising.
There is a stock options trading strategy known as a covered call in which you sell one call option for each 100 shares of an underlying stock that you already own (or which you buy concurrently with selling the call). At market close on the call’s expiration date, if the underlying equity’s price is below the call’s strike price, even by just a penny, then the call expires worthless and you get to keep all of the premium that you were paid when you originally sold-to-open the option. Seems like a pretty easy way to get rich with options, right?
There are a few reasons to use covered calls, but the following are two popular uses for the strategy with stock that you already own:
You want to earn income on a stock that is neutral or moving slowly in either direction (up or down, but usually up). You should choose a high enough strike price to make it unlikely that your underlying stock is called away from you, because you do not intend to sell your stock.
You want get a higher price for a stock that you wish to sell. You should choose a strike price that is close to the stock’s price so that the call is likely to expire in-the-money, thus calling away (or selling) your stock. In addition, at-the-money (ATM) options have more time valuethan do options with strikes that are further away from the stock’s current price. ATM options therefore pay a higher premium and you get a better overall price (the strike price plus the premium) for your sold stock.
My objective was to supplement my returns on SBUX but in keeping with my LTBH mindset, I had no desire to sell my SBUX shares. I actually thought (for probably about ten seconds) about the risk of losing one of my best long-term performers, but the idea of that juicy premium not going into my wallet got the better of me. To that end, in March, 2013 with SBUX trading at about 56.60, I made the following trade:
3/27/2013 Sell to open SBUX 07/20/2013 57.50 C 2.46
And then the fun began.
Act 2 — Drowning Underwater
This particular trade would not be especially interesting if it had worked out and I made a small profit on it, but that is not what happened. My first mistake was that I chose a strike price (57.50) that was way too close to the underlying’s current trading price. If SBUX moved up by only .90, or roughly 1.6% in the next three months, then my calls would be in-the-money (ITM) and my SBUX stock would be at risk for being called away.
What made this new position stressful was what SBUX did over the life of the call, as shown in this next chart:
SBUX stock chart for life of initial call
As before, the prices shown in the chart are split-adjusted so double them for the historical price. On 3/28/2013, the day after I sold the calls, SBUX closed up a bit at 56.96. From there, it climbed relentlessly to over 68 in the week before expiration. Which is great if you own SBUX outright, but not so great if you foolishly covered SBUX at 57.50. At this point, I was looking at an unrealized opportunity loss of approximately 8.04/share (68.00 – 57.50 – 2.46).
Act 3 — Staying Afloat (Barely)
Fortunately, you do have some (ahem) options when a trade goes against you like this one did. I could just accept the lower gain and let my SBUX shares go, but there were two big problems with that: first, I would have a huge capital gains tax bill, since I had bought SBUX many years before for a split-adjusted price of roughly $9/share. That meant that I was sitting on a very large, unrealized profit that would turn into a taxable profit of nearly $51/share (57.50 + 2.46 – 9) if my calls were assigned and my shares were called away. Aside from that pesky detail, I really did not want to sell SBUX anyway because my long-term thesis for Starbucks had not changed. It was an investment that I wanted to continue for many years to come. (Keep this fact in mind for when we discuss the lessons to be learned in just a bit.)
Since I was not willing to sell SBUX, a second possibility would be to buy-to-close the July-2013 57.50 calls. At the time, they were trading at 11.80 so that would result in a net loss of 9.34 (11.80 – 2.46), or $934/contract. Not an ideal outcome.
Finally, I had the option to roll the calls out and up. Rolling an option means to close the current contract and simultaneously open a new contract with a later expiration (rolling out) and possibly with a higher strike (rolling out and up). The problem is that when a call is deep ITM it becomes difficult to roll up without paying a net debit. That is, you have to spend real cash to roll it out and up. Nevertheless, rolling the covered calls gave me a chance to keep my SBUX shares and avoid a large tax bill so that is the path I took.
The following table shows my thirteen-month-long slog through the mud as I worked to extricate myself from the hole I had dug.
SBUX Covered Call Trade Log
Each BTC/STO pair in the table represents a single transaction in which I bought back the current calls and sold new calls to maintain the position. Since I was rolling up, I essentially was buying back either 2.50 or 5.00 dollars of strike-price gain for the cost of the roll. For example, the first rolling transaction cost 4.20 (11.80 – 7.20) which bought me a five-dollar higher strike price (62.50 instead of 57.50).
Capital gains taxes aside, was that first roll a good investment? At the risk of getting too math-geeky, let’s calculate the return on investment (ROI) for that first roll. ROI is defined as follows:
The cost of the roll was 4.20 and I gained 5.00 from the increased strike price:
In this case, the ROI was 19% in just over two months, which makes the annualized ROI just over 163%. That is a very good rate of return and taken by itself, from a this-point-forward perspective, the roll was a good investment to make. Likewise, you can calculate the ROI for each additional rolling transaction over the lifetime of the position.
Thirteen months later, after three more rolling transactions, my call’s strike price caught up to and surpassed SBUX’s then-current price. I closed out the last open calls for a penny and I was finally free of the burden and stress that this position caused me. All told, this ill-advised covered call on SBUX cost me $7.00/share when you take into account commissions ($.10/share over the lifetime of the position).
Lessons That Became Rules (or the Good Part of the Story)
Everyone makes mistakes, whether in life or investing or trading. If you aren’t able to accept and learn from your mistakes, then for sure do not start trading or doing anything else with the stock market, because you will be very unhappy a lot of the time. The best traders embrace their mistakes. Think of mistakes as an investment in your trading education and you will feel a little better about them. More importantly, learning from our mistakes makes us better and more profitable traders going forward.
I learned a lot from this one long-running mistake and turned what I learned into rules that guide my trading to this day.
Rule #1: Do not ever write calls on stock that you are not willing to sell.And when I say “willing,” I mean that you absolutely, positively must be really and truly willing to let that stock go. If there is even a tiny bit of doubt or if you will have any regret if your call options are assigned and you lose the underlying equity position, then step away. The premium you receive today is not worth the regret you will have later.
Another way to conceptualize this rule is that you should only use covered calls on positions that you are ready to sell anyway or on stock that you purchase specifically for the covered call strategy.
Rule #1(a): Ignore what could have been; be happy when you close a successful trade with a profit .Let’s say that instead of using existing Starbucks stock, I bought 100 shares of SBUX for 56.90 back in March of 2013, and I simultaneously sold one 57.50 call for 2.46. My cost basis would have been 54.44 and about four months later, the 100 shares would have been called away at 57.50. The profit for this hypothetical position would be 3.06 and I would be perfectly happy with that. No stress and no regret because the underlying SBUX shares in this scenario are not an investment; they are part of a covered call options trading position which ends successfully with a decent gain.
Since I know you want to know, the ROI for this trade is 5.62% and the annualized ROI is 18.64%. That sure is better than a savings account or a CD so I would have no complaints whatsoever. I do not care that I could have sold the 100 shares of SBUX for 68 in July, if only I had not covered them (oh woe is me, I’m so dumb!). Buying SBUX stock and then selling it later was not this hypothetical position’s strategy so any alternate trade has absolutely no bearing on my actual trade. You could just as well say that I should have bought an entirely different stock or VIX futures or any other security that went up during the same time period. Not relevant, don’t care, no regrets.
Rule #2: Strictly follow your own guidelines, rules or system. Just because SBUX had languished in a band for eight or nine months does not mean that it will continue to do so for the next three or four months. I did very little analysis of using a covered call on SBUX before I dived in. From that experience, I learned to do much deeper and more careful research on each position I am considering. Develop a system or process for evaluating each trading strategy that you use, and then apply your system diligently and thoroughly to each potential position. Do not let yourself be rushed. Trading is not, and should not, be the same as gambling. If you feel emotionally like you’re gambling with your positions, then you are. Step away and reevaluate what you are doing.
Rule #3: Look at each trade as if the position is starting today.Do not worry about or consider what happened in the past. Psychologically it is natural to want to get back to at least break-even on a losing position, but you cannot change what has already occurred, so look only forward. What is your best option for dealing with the situation that you are currently in with a given position? Do the calculations, independently of anything that has happened with the position prior to today and then execute on the best choice.
For example, what was the best option in my SBUX story? Let my shares get called away and take the 9.34 loss or try to reduce the amount of that loss by rolling out? Think of each step in terms of the ROI, as if it’s a new position. Sure, overall, I put myself in a hole with the SBUX covered call, but on the other hand, going forward, I could get a 163% annualized ROI for that first roll. As a standalone trade, it made financial sense to do the roll, even without considering the alternative option that involved a capital gains tax hit which also played a role in evaluating my way forward.
It can be very hard to psychologically let go of the fact that you are negative in a position because you want each and every one to be a winner. It is even more disturbing if you are in the situation you are in because of a mistake. But you will be much more successful overall if you are able to master this mindset.
Am I Still Embarrassed?
Sure, kind of. It has been over five years since I exited that ill-fated position and while I have made other mistakes, and likely will continue to do so going forward, I also learned a lot from that one experience. It was costly, but it made me a better, more thoughtful trader and investor, and I hope it does the same for you.
The Montréal Exchange is partnering with
Wolverine Trading Technologies, LLC, a leading provider of premier execution
technology, to provide Canadian Options Traders with access to enhanced complex
order execution.
New Functionality Offered to Canadian
Options Traders:
Electronic Trading Solutions to Create and Post
Complex Orders
Advanced Algorithm Functionality
Best Execution Capabilities
“Wolverine Trading Technologies is excited to offer an
electronic trading solution to interact with the Montréal Exchange (MX) Equity Option
Complex Order Book. Rather than legging a spread through two or more separate
orders and taking unnecessary risk, a trader can now enter one spread order as
a package reflecting the spread price the trader wants to achieve. This new partnership
has allowed us to offer different mechanisms to minimize market impact and
price slippage. We are eager for this opportunity and look forward to
continuing to provide tools that allow traders to interact with the Montréal
Exchange,” said Joe Sacchetti, Partner at Wolverine Trading Technologies.
“Montréal Exchange
is proud to add Wolverine Trading Technology’s multi-leg option strategies
to FIX AB, enabling participants to pursue complex trading strategies in a
single order ticket,” said Luc Fortin, President and Chief Executive
Officer of MX and Global Head of Trading, TMX Group. “We continue to work
closely with our client partners here in Canada and around the world in an
effort to build our markets stronger; with increased participation, enhanced
liquidity and diversified offerings.”
Traders can access the Montréal Exchange through the WEX
Trading Platform, over FIX Protocol and through third party EMS or OMS
providers.
Staying on top of corporate events is critical for any investment firm. Here are the selected events from Wall Street Horizon impacting the most widely held securities scheduled for this week.
Mon 12/23/2019
Broadcom Inc. (AVGO): Record date for Quarterly dividend of $3.250
General Electric Co. (GE): Record date for Quarterly dividend of $0.010
Tue 12/24/2019
Altria Group Inc. (MO): Ex Date for Quarterly dividend of $0.840
Suncor Energy Inc. (SU): Pay date for Quarterly dividend of CAD 0.420
Wed 12/25/2019
Comcast Corporation (CMCSA): Movie Release date for 1917 (LIMITED)
The Walt Disney Company (DIS): Movie Release date for Spies in Disguise (WIDE)
AT&T Corp (T): Movie Release date for Just Mercy (LIMITED)
Bezeq Israel Telecom Ltd. (BEZQ_IL): Shareholder Meeting
Thu 12/26/2019
Bank Hapoalim (POLI_IL): Shareholder Meeting
American Tower Corp. (AMT): Ex Date for Quarterly dividend of $1.010
Medtronic PLC (MDT): Ex Date for Quarterly dividend of $0.540
Altria Group Inc. (MO): Record date for Quarterly dividend of $0.840
Fri 12/27/2019
Bank of America Corporation (BAC): Pay date for Quarterly dividend of
$0.180
Elbit Systems Ltd. (ESLT): Record date for Quarterly dividend of $0.440
Medtronic PLC (MDT): Record date for Quarterly dividend of $0.540
Anne-Charlotte Eliasson, head of European fixed income listings at Nasdaq, said the launch of the Nasdaq Sustainable Bond Network should boost the growth of the green bonds market by increasing transparency.
Anne-Charlotte Eliasson, Nasdaq Nordic
Nasdaq Nordic launched the Sustainable Bonds Market in 2015 to make the segment more visible. The market had 222 listed instruments valued at €13.5bn ($15bn) at the end of last month and the number of issuers has doubled this year to 66. At the end of 2018 the Sustainable Bonds Market had 149 listed instruments valued at €8bn.
Despite the growth of the sustainable bonds market investors have been concerned about “greenwashing,” i.e. that issuers say they use proceeds for sustainability purely to boost their image.
Eliasson said: “Investors wanted to follow-up on the use of proceeds for sustainable bonds and climate impact reporting. In addition, reporting has not been standardised so it has been difficult for investors to make comparisons between issuers.”
As a result the exchange has launched the Nasdaq Sustainable Bond Network (NSBN).
We are happy to announce our latest initiative: Nasdaq Sustainable Bond Network. A global, publicly available platform designed to improve transparency in the market for green, social and sustainable bonds. Learn more here: https://t.co/2yFJLh8eXapic.twitter.com/OkrLaw5Mtg
“We will add the individual use of proceeds reports to an online database and allow for structured reporting to simplify comparability,” Eliasson added. “The scheme is voluntary as we expect investors to incentive issuers to participate.”
She continued that Nasdaq is using the environmental, social and governance knowledge built up in the Nordics to kickstart reporting in the US and other regions as this is a global initiative.
Bjørn Sibbern, Nadsaq
Bjørn Sibbern, executive vice president and head of European Markets at Nasdaq, said in a statement: “Built on the expertise we have gained building our European sustainable debt markets and our ESG Data Portal, this launch marks the next phase in our ambition to increase access and transparency around sustainable bonds to issuers and investors across the globe.”
Issuers can input their sustainable bonds and framework documents; allocation/impact reports; and impact metrics; and the data is disseminated through Nasdaq’s market data feeds.
“Greenwashing is easy when there is not enough transparency and reporting is in the form of unstructured data,” said Eliasson. “We hope to have cracked the code on how to increase transparency, which should boost the growth of the green bonds market.”
A global advisory board, which includes public and private investors, issuers and expert organizations will help Nasdaq continuously develop NSBN.
Issuers using the @Nasdaq Sustainable Bond Network are given an opportunity to showcase their sustainability efforts and provide greater levels of transparency for their bonds. We are participating as a member of the Network's advisory board #greenbonds#sustainablefinancehttps://t.co/pP8oot0XXt
Bram Bos, lead portfolio manager green bonds at NN Investment Partners, said in an email that transparency is important as new sustainable labels such as “transition bonds” or “ESG-linked bonds” have started to emerge.
“However, due to their poor transparency, traceability and reporting on the use of proceeds, NN IP believes this new concept increases the potential for greenwashing,” he explained.
Bos continued that Dutch fund manager NN IP already regards green bonds as transition bonds and the new label could open the door to sectors, companies and activities that are brown, and likely to remain brown, to issue in the sustainable space.
“Overall NN IP has a strong preference for the use-of-proceeds concept as applied to green bonds,” he added.
Green bond volumes
Green bond volumes in the Nordics were 12% of total bond issuance this year, versus 5% globally, according to Eliasson. She said: “In the long run green bonds will become the new normal.”
For example, this month S&P Global Ratings expanded its Green Evaluation, which represents an external review and second opinion under the Green Bond Principles, to include agriculture, forestry, and waste in collaboration with sister company Trucost. The ratings agency launched the Green Evaluation in April 2017 and it has been applied to 47 green transactions in the public domain representing more than $37bn of evaluated debt.
Michael Wilkins, head of sustainable finance, analytics and research at S&P, said in a statement: “By expanding the scope of our Green Evaluation, we are offering the market a means to establish the environmental benefit of such investments, not only in their own right, but against others within the sustainable finance space.”
Green bonds issued for sustainable agriculture and forestry grew over thirtyfold to $7.4bn last year from $208m in 2013 according to S&P. However the ratings agency continued that issuance is still small relative to other sectors such as renewables, energy efficiency, and clean transport.
Beth Burks, associate director, sustainable finance at S&P, said in a statement: “In time, we hope this will help support issuers and investors to direct more capital to these increasingly important sectors.”
Bram Bos, NN IP
Bos said 2019 is going to be another record year for new issuance, as the global green bond market surpassed €500bn at the beginning of this month. He expects the market to continue to grow as investment increases in innovation, clean energy and smart cities.
“Corporates will lead this growth, but more sovereign issuers will also launch their green bond programs in 2020,” Bos added. “By the end of 2020, we project the global green bond market to have reached €800bn.”
NN IP said this is the second consecutive year that corporate issuers have dominated with more industrials, communications and technology issuers launching inaugural green bonds. “The first insurance companies also came to the market, while PepsiCo expanded the relatively small consumer non-cyclical green bond sector,” added the fund manager.
In addition cumulative certified green issuance under the Climate Bonds Standard reached $100bn this month. The Climate Bonds Initiative said was a significant market milestone for the international assurance scheme established by the non-profit organisation for investors in 2011.
“Certified green bonds and loans have been issued by over 100 organisations from over 30 nations across 21 currencies, shaping the direction of global green finance markets in both developed and emerging economies,” said the Climate Bonds Initiative.
Sean Kidney, chief executive of the Climate Bonds Initiative, said in a statement: “Through the Standard we have established robust approach to transparency, disclosure and assurance, anchored firmly to climate science as best practice for both green debt issuers and institutional investors. Our collective challenge is to now embed these foundations in every financial market and place them at the core of new climate change investment models which we require in facing the climate emergency.”
The Climate Bonds Initiative expects green bond issuance to reach $250bn this year, 47% higher than the $170.9bn issued in 2018.
How to Not Lose Money Trading Options
“This one time, at band camp…” Everyone knows that you do embarrassing things at “band camp” so the analogy seems fitting. A long time ago, I did something really dumb with my options trading, and I lost a significant amount of money because of it. In this article, I am going to share with you my story along with the lessons to be learned so that you can avoid unnecessary pain and loss in your own trading. The article includes real numbers and calculations because you have to be able to understand and calculate your costs and gains if you want to be a successful options trader. After the wonky stuff, I include some advice for how to avoid making the type of mistake that I did, as well as some advice on how to approach mistakes that inevitably happen anyway.
Prologue — The Background
My investing philosophy has almost always been long-term buy-and-hold or LTBH: buy stock in solid, high-performing companies with strong leadership and a deep competitive moat, and then hold the stock for years if not decades. Note that investingis not the same as trading. The difference between the two is a topic for another article, but essentially, the equity in my long-term investments is the foundation for my options trading.
As part of my LTBH investing, I bought Starbucks (SBUX) about twenty years ago. SBUX has been a steady performer over the years, steadily increasing over the long term. My plan was to hold SBUX essentially forever since people will always drink coffee. So this is where our story begins.
Act 1 — The Setup
Around 2012–2013, SBUX traded mostly within a band as shown in this graph:
SBUX split 2:1 in October, 2005 so the prices shown in the chart are half of what SBUX was actually trading for in that time frame. Aside from a couple of drops and one spike, SBUX had mostly been chugging along between 50-58/share (25-29 in the chart). So without much thought and just a touch of frustration that SBUX wasn’t going higher, faster, I had the brilliant idea to generate some cash off a position that appeared to be neutral or only slowly rising.
There is a stock options trading strategy known as a covered call in which you sell one call option for each 100 shares of an underlying stock that you already own (or which you buy concurrently with selling the call). At market close on the call’s expiration date, if the underlying equity’s price is below the call’s strike price, even by just a penny, then the call expires worthless and you get to keep all of the premium that you were paid when you originally sold-to-open the option. Seems like a pretty easy way to get rich with options, right?
There are a few reasons to use covered calls, but the following are two popular uses for the strategy with stock that you already own:
My objective was to supplement my returns on SBUX but in keeping with my LTBH mindset, I had no desire to sell my SBUX shares. I actually thought (for probably about ten seconds) about the risk of losing one of my best long-term performers, but the idea of that juicy premium not going into my wallet got the better of me. To that end, in March, 2013 with SBUX trading at about 56.60, I made the following trade:
3/27/2013 Sell to open SBUX 07/20/2013 57.50 C 2.46
And then the fun began.
Act 2 — Drowning Underwater
This particular trade would not be especially interesting if it had worked out and I made a small profit on it, but that is not what happened. My first mistake was that I chose a strike price (57.50) that was way too close to the underlying’s current trading price. If SBUX moved up by only .90, or roughly 1.6% in the next three months, then my calls would be in-the-money (ITM) and my SBUX stock would be at risk for being called away.
What made this new position stressful was what SBUX did over the life of the call, as shown in this next chart:
As before, the prices shown in the chart are split-adjusted so double them for the historical price. On 3/28/2013, the day after I sold the calls, SBUX closed up a bit at 56.96. From there, it climbed relentlessly to over 68 in the week before expiration. Which is great if you own SBUX outright, but not so great if you foolishly covered SBUX at 57.50. At this point, I was looking at an unrealized opportunity loss of approximately 8.04/share (68.00 – 57.50 – 2.46).
Act 3 — Staying Afloat (Barely)
Fortunately, you do have some (ahem) options when a trade goes against you like this one did. I could just accept the lower gain and let my SBUX shares go, but there were two big problems with that: first, I would have a huge capital gains tax bill, since I had bought SBUX many years before for a split-adjusted price of roughly $9/share. That meant that I was sitting on a very large, unrealized profit that would turn into a taxable profit of nearly $51/share (57.50 + 2.46 – 9) if my calls were assigned and my shares were called away. Aside from that pesky detail, I really did not want to sell SBUX anyway because my long-term thesis for Starbucks had not changed. It was an investment that I wanted to continue for many years to come. (Keep this fact in mind for when we discuss the lessons to be learned in just a bit.)
Since I was not willing to sell SBUX, a second possibility would be to buy-to-close the July-2013 57.50 calls. At the time, they were trading at 11.80 so that would result in a net loss of 9.34 (11.80 – 2.46), or $934/contract. Not an ideal outcome.
Finally, I had the option to roll the calls out and up. Rolling an option means to close the current contract and simultaneously open a new contract with a later expiration (rolling out) and possibly with a higher strike (rolling out and up). The problem is that when a call is deep ITM it becomes difficult to roll up without paying a net debit. That is, you have to spend real cash to roll it out and up. Nevertheless, rolling the covered calls gave me a chance to keep my SBUX shares and avoid a large tax bill so that is the path I took.
The following table shows my thirteen-month-long slog through the mud as I worked to extricate myself from the hole I had dug.
Each BTC/STO pair in the table represents a single transaction in which I bought back the current calls and sold new calls to maintain the position. Since I was rolling up, I essentially was buying back either 2.50 or 5.00 dollars of strike-price gain for the cost of the roll. For example, the first rolling transaction cost 4.20 (11.80 – 7.20) which bought me a five-dollar higher strike price (62.50 instead of 57.50).
Capital gains taxes aside, was that first roll a good investment? At the risk of getting too math-geeky, let’s calculate the return on investment (ROI) for that first roll. ROI is defined as follows:
The cost of the roll was 4.20 and I gained 5.00 from the increased strike price:
In this case, the ROI was 19% in just over two months, which makes the annualized ROI just over 163%. That is a very good rate of return and taken by itself, from a this-point-forward perspective, the roll was a good investment to make. Likewise, you can calculate the ROI for each additional rolling transaction over the lifetime of the position.
Thirteen months later, after three more rolling transactions, my call’s strike price caught up to and surpassed SBUX’s then-current price. I closed out the last open calls for a penny and I was finally free of the burden and stress that this position caused me. All told, this ill-advised covered call on SBUX cost me $7.00/share when you take into account commissions ($.10/share over the lifetime of the position).
Lessons That Became Rules (or the Good Part of the Story)
Everyone makes mistakes, whether in life or investing or trading. If you aren’t able to accept and learn from your mistakes, then for sure do not start trading or doing anything else with the stock market, because you will be very unhappy a lot of the time. The best traders embrace their mistakes. Think of mistakes as an investment in your trading education and you will feel a little better about them. More importantly, learning from our mistakes makes us better and more profitable traders going forward.
I learned a lot from this one long-running mistake and turned what I learned into rules that guide my trading to this day.
Rule #1: Do not ever write calls on stock that you are not willing to sell.And when I say “willing,” I mean that you absolutely, positively must be really and truly willing to let that stock go. If there is even a tiny bit of doubt or if you will have any regret if your call options are assigned and you lose the underlying equity position, then step away. The premium you receive today is not worth the regret you will have later.
Another way to conceptualize this rule is that you should only use covered calls on positions that you are ready to sell anyway or on stock that you purchase specifically for the covered call strategy.
Rule #1(a): Ignore what could have been; be happy when you close a successful trade with a profit .Let’s say that instead of using existing Starbucks stock, I bought 100 shares of SBUX for 56.90 back in March of 2013, and I simultaneously sold one 57.50 call for 2.46. My cost basis would have been 54.44 and about four months later, the 100 shares would have been called away at 57.50. The profit for this hypothetical position would be 3.06 and I would be perfectly happy with that. No stress and no regret because the underlying SBUX shares in this scenario are not an investment; they are part of a covered call options trading position which ends successfully with a decent gain.
Since I know you want to know, the ROI for this trade is 5.62% and the annualized ROI is 18.64%. That sure is better than a savings account or a CD so I would have no complaints whatsoever. I do not care that I could have sold the 100 shares of SBUX for 68 in July, if only I had not covered them (oh woe is me, I’m so dumb!). Buying SBUX stock and then selling it later was not this hypothetical position’s strategy so any alternate trade has absolutely no bearing on my actual trade. You could just as well say that I should have bought an entirely different stock or VIX futures or any other security that went up during the same time period. Not relevant, don’t care, no regrets.
Rule #2: Strictly follow your own guidelines, rules or system. Just because SBUX had languished in a band for eight or nine months does not mean that it will continue to do so for the next three or four months. I did very little analysis of using a covered call on SBUX before I dived in. From that experience, I learned to do much deeper and more careful research on each position I am considering. Develop a system or process for evaluating each trading strategy that you use, and then apply your system diligently and thoroughly to each potential position. Do not let yourself be rushed. Trading is not, and should not, be the same as gambling. If you feel emotionally like you’re gambling with your positions, then you are. Step away and reevaluate what you are doing.
Rule #3: Look at each trade as if the position is starting today.Do not worry about or consider what happened in the past. Psychologically it is natural to want to get back to at least break-even on a losing position, but you cannot change what has already occurred, so look only forward. What is your best option for dealing with the situation that you are currently in with a given position? Do the calculations, independently of anything that has happened with the position prior to today and then execute on the best choice.
For example, what was the best option in my SBUX story? Let my shares get called away and take the 9.34 loss or try to reduce the amount of that loss by rolling out? Think of each step in terms of the ROI, as if it’s a new position. Sure, overall, I put myself in a hole with the SBUX covered call, but on the other hand, going forward, I could get a 163% annualized ROI for that first roll. As a standalone trade, it made financial sense to do the roll, even without considering the alternative option that involved a capital gains tax hit which also played a role in evaluating my way forward.
It can be very hard to psychologically let go of the fact that you are negative in a position because you want each and every one to be a winner. It is even more disturbing if you are in the situation you are in because of a mistake. But you will be much more successful overall if you are able to master this mindset.
Am I Still Embarrassed?
Sure, kind of. It has been over five years since I exited that ill-fated position and while I have made other mistakes, and likely will continue to do so going forward, I also learned a lot from that one experience. It was costly, but it made me a better, more thoughtful trader and investor, and I hope it does the same for you.