|
|
Post by PikesPique on Aug 3, 2014 8:04:30 GMT -5
Travis noted that 411k contracts out of 481k contracts expired worthless last week. The minis are invisible. This coming week, open interest is significantly lighter (less than half), possibly indicating capitulation among weekly option traders. Weekly options have been working great for me - selling them, not buying them. |
|
marcellus
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by marcellus on Aug 3, 2014 8:40:20 GMT -5
I see iWearables pretty much the same as iPod, iPhone, iPad. Why wouldn't Apple make one itself? Oh, I think they will, maybe in two sizes. But if you want corner the market (and sell more iPhones), open it up to all. There's enough margin at the high end to have Apple making 30-35% just from reselling iWatches produced by others, Might Apple have a new table for its version and others? They're doing that now with headphones (e.g. Beats). |
|
|
|
Post by mjuarez on Aug 3, 2014 9:55:02 GMT -5
Travis noted that 411k contracts out of 481k contracts expired worthless last week. The minis are invisible. This coming week, open interest is significantly lighter (less than half), possibly indicating capitulation among weekly option traders. Weekly options have been working great for me - selling them, not buying them. Which strike prices have you been selling? I'm assuming you're selling call verticals? |
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Aug 3, 2014 10:15:03 GMT -5
Off the wall idea.
The iWatch is an add on to existing watches.
The screen is clear when not activated so a Rolex looks like a Rolex. Activate the screen now you see the iWatch user interface.
The electronics, battery, sensors etc are a in the wrist band. That might be disruptive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Aug 3, 2014 10:18:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Aug 3, 2014 10:30:10 GMT -5
I see iWearables pretty much the same as iPod, iPhone, iPad. Why wouldn't Apple make one itself? Oh, I think they will, maybe in two sizes. But if you want corner the market (and sell more iPhones), open it up to all. There's enough margin at the high end to have Apple making 30-35% just from reselling iWatches produced by others, Might Apple have a new table for its version and others? They're doing that now with headphones (e.g. Beats). If There was an Iwatch that carried the Cartier or Movado brand but took the Commodore's blood pressure twice a day so that portable cup she uses now could be discarded, she'd make me buy it for her in a minute......  |
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Aug 3, 2014 10:48:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by PikesPique on Aug 3, 2014 12:08:23 GMT -5
Weekly options have been working great for me - selling them, not buying them. Which strike prices have you been selling? I'm assuming you're selling call verticals? Covered calls @ 101 to 102, recently. Cash secured puts (I.e., naked puts) @ 92 to 94, recently. One to two weeks out. Rinse and repeat, adjusting strikes as needed. YMMV. This is not advice! Beware the risks! You may be put shares or have them called away. |
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Aug 3, 2014 12:59:20 GMT -5
It might be interesting to calculate a moving exponential average for each data set and then look for correlation. As you vary the weight of the decay factor, you might smooth out some noise. Just an idea How does one calculate the moving exponential average (re: and would this be for both VX and stock price), or vary the weight of the decay factor? I did look at the Poorman's Algo and since 1/1/14 some interesting numbers. For all numbers it assumes buying AAPL on the close Friday. Selling on Tuesday there are 7 losing trades and 23 winning trades. (assuming one share of stock up 17.8879) Selling on Wednesday there are 10 losing trades and 20 winning trades. (assuming one share of stock up 19.7684) Selling on Thursday there are 8 losing trades and 22 winning trades. (assuming one share of stock up 19.7761) Maybe some one can check my work. but it is interesting that Wednesday had the lowest % winners but the second highest gain. This is only working with stock, time decay if doing options could be a killer. |
|
|
|
Post by bud777 on Aug 3, 2014 13:48:17 GMT -5
Wait.....Someone actually reads my posts? Here is a link to a pretty good explanation of how to calculate it stockcharts.com/school/doku.php?id=chart_school:technical_indicators:moving_averagesIt just seemed to me that correlation could be confounded by random noise. Also beware that most people ignore the question of independence in the data. Most statistical techniques require independence, but price data seems to be strongly auto correlated. I think you are safe from this since you are comparing stock price and volatility. Oh, and yes...compare EMA's for both |
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,766
|
Post by Mav on Aug 3, 2014 16:13:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowhandman on Aug 3, 2014 19:05:29 GMT -5
In recent weeks, I've also come around to thinking that the iWatch may well be a licensed technology package that allows third-parties to make watches, alongside Apple itself.
If the iWatch is really an accessory rather than a separate platform, then the analogy with iPod, iPhone, iPad is wrong. Instead, it should be just like accessories such as earphones and speakers - Apple licenses the dock connector / Lightning etc. and the 'Made for iPhone' mark - but otherwise anyone can play.
What a person wears on his wrist is an extremely personal choice - there's no way that Apple can come out with a 'one size fits all' solution for something like this.
|
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Aug 3, 2014 19:12:53 GMT -5
Wait.....Someone actually reads my posts? Here is a link to a pretty good explanation of how to calculate it stockcharts.com/school/doku.php?id=chart_school:technical_indicators:moving_averagesIt just seemed to me that correlation could be confounded by random noise. Also beware that most people ignore the question of independence in the data. Most statistical techniques require independence, but price data seems to be strongly auto correlated. I think you are safe from this since you are comparing stock price and volatility. Oh, and yes...compare EMA's for both I'll try but have patience. |
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Aug 3, 2014 19:14:59 GMT -5
I guess that's better than saying,"oh hell I just pooped my pants!". |
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,766
|
Post by Mav on Aug 3, 2014 19:19:38 GMT -5
In recent weeks, I've also come around to thinking that the iWatch may well be a licensed technology package that allows third-parties to make watches, alongside Apple itself. If the iWatch is really an accessory rather than a separate platform, then the analogy with iPod, iPhone, iPad is wrong. Instead, it should be just like accessories such as earphones and speakers - Apple licenses the dock connector / Lightning etc. and the 'Made for iPhone' mark - but otherwise anyone can play. What a person wears on his wrist is an extremely personal choice - there's no way that Apple can come out with a 'one size fits all' solution for something like this. iPhone?  I do get the watch angle, but for the longest time iPhone (so, yeah. 7 years  ) was as "one size fits all" as it gets for a device. Apple solved the iPod variety "issue" by making multiple versions. It could be the same with an iWearable over time. Licensing a platform entails packaging. There may be a reason why none of the current smartwatch makers out there haven't partnered with any of the "big name" watch companies. Or, at least the high-end ones? |
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,766
|
Post by Mav on Aug 3, 2014 20:06:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Aug 3, 2014 20:53:27 GMT -5
Nice analysis Mav... So are we going up or down?
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,766
|
Post by Mav on Aug 3, 2014 22:31:13 GMT -5
|
|
marcellus
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by marcellus on Aug 3, 2014 23:58:37 GMT -5
In recent weeks, I've also come around to thinking that the iWatch may well be a licensed technology package that allows third-parties to make watches, alongside Apple itself. If the iWatch is really an accessory rather than a separate platform, then the analogy with iPod, iPhone, iPad is wrong. Instead, it should be just like accessories such as earphones and speakers - Apple licenses the dock connector / Lightning etc. and the 'Made for iPhone' mark - but otherwise anyone can play. What a person wears on his wrist is an extremely personal choice - there's no way that Apple can come out with a 'one size fits all' solution for something like this. iPhone? I do get the watch angle, but for the longest time iPhone (so, yeah. 7 years ) was as "one size fits all" as it gets for a device. Apple solved the iPod variety "issue" by making multiple versions. It could be the same with an iWearable over time. Licensing a platform entails packaging. There may be a reason why none of the current smartwatch makers out there haven't partnered with any of the "big name" watch companies. Or, at least the high-end ones? When we're talking about wearables, Apple is crossing a line into fashion and jewelry, which is an expression of individual style, taste and preference. Apple could easily kickstart things with an Apple-branded wearable, allowing others to fill the need people have to personalize the functionality of a "smart" wearable. It could disrupt the staid watch industry and breathe new life into their business. I think it's a much bigger challenge for Apple to do it by themselves when we're talking a wearable. Let Apple sell Tag Heuer's take on a functional, yet stylish, smart watch inside the Apple store, retaining a healthy gross in the process. Was out at Seafair for an air show and hydroplanes. This is the closest I got to the Blue Angels.  |
|
marcellus
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by marcellus on Aug 4, 2014 0:01:27 GMT -5
This is the weekend thread, so here's kind of an abstract one (not the Blue Angels this time)  |
|
) was as "one size fits all" as it gets for a device. Apple solved the iPod variety "issue" by making multiple versions. It could be the same with an iWearable over time. 
