No "facts" to speak of from you. And where are your videos and/or trading results, since you're so quick to toss stones at others? And can you come up with insults that require more than 16 IQ points?Facts burn your little butthole that badly?
No "facts" to speak of from you. And where are your videos and/or trading results, since you're so quick to toss stones at others? And can you come up with insults that require more than 16 IQ points?Facts burn your little butthole that badly?
https://macro-ops.com/karen-the-supertrader-goes-rogue/What was her fee structure?
Karen was using a “0 and 20” fee structure for both HDB and HI. This meant she took a 0% management fee on total assets, plus a 20% incentive fee on all profits.
...
Instead of basing her incentive fees off her NAV’s high water mark, Karen based them off realized profits.
This was handy because she could defer trading losses by never realizing them and still take an incentive fee every month, despite her NAV not exceeding the high water mark.
I don't even know who Karen is...
Here’s what Karen has said.
She never lost money for any of her traders.
The SEC investigators did not know how put options worked.
She settled with them to avoid lengthy legal battles and high attorneys fees.
If she had lost investor money, don’t you think she would have been sued by her investors? Can one of you point to one instance of a lawsuit against Karen or a public statement
that a single investor has made against Karen?
The only complaints against Karen come from you blowhards on ET who are too scared to sell a naked put and couldn’t manage a portfolio if it were a monopoly game! You guys are jealous and miserable and a pathetic excuse for traders .
You are incorrect.It’s non-sensical for a put seller to say the SEC doesn’t understand puts.
The documents are really clear. She had mtm losses but charged customers only on realized gains. She managed this by rolling deep in the money options and booking the premiums as gains even though the premiums were 90percent intrinsic value that had been lost on the older contract.
You are incorrect.