As has become my end of year tradition, I’ve broken down the Steady Options 2024 trade performance by trade type.  Numbers were taken directly from the data in the Performance screen (plus some recently closed trades).  Here’s are this year’s stats along with some comments from my perspective.  Where applicable, I added totals from prior years for comparison.

2024 was a year where market volatility was calm with VIX under 20 for the first half of the year.  The second half of the year turned more volatile with several VIX spikes into the 20’s and beyond, along with a general run-up into the election and a decline afterwards.  So, we had both calm periods and more volatile periods.

Pre-Earnings Calendars

• 54 Trades – 43 win, 10 loss,1 break-even (81% win) – Average Gain +12.13%
  • 2023:  65 trades (85% win) – Average Gain +9.56%
  • 2022:  11 trades (64% win) – Average Loss -9.55%
  • 2021:  110 trades (79% win) – Average Gain +12.82%
  • 2020:  33 trades (85% win) – Average Gain +21.97%
  • 2019:  54 trades (65% win) – Average Gain +9.27%
  • 2018:  40 trades (78% win) – Average Gain +9.61%
  • 2017:  31 trades (84% win) – Average Gain +13.81%
  • 2016:  44 trades (80% win) -  Average Gain +15.07%
  • 2015:  51 trades (80% win) – Average Gain +12.67%
  • 2014:  48 trades (71% win) – Average Gain +13.80%
  • 2013:  24 trades (88% win) – Average Gain +20.60%

Comments:

• We were able to a good number of calendar trades this year, the majority of which occurred during the calmer period of the year when VIX was lower.
• Very good overall winning percentage and average gain per trade.   We avoided big losses that can sometimes happen when stock prices make very large moves.
• Earnings calendars continue to be a core SO strategy.

Straddles/Strangles

• 57 Trades -  41 win, 15 loss, 1 break-even (73% win) – Average Gain +4.72%

Breaking down further by hedged and non-hedged:

            Non-Hedged – 38 win, 14 loss, 1 break-even (73% win), average gain +5.18%
            Hedged – 3 win, 1 loss (75% win), average gain +0.95%

• • 2023: 166 trades (64% win) – Average Gain +1.65%
  • 2022: 148 trades (71% win) – Average Gain +4.89%
  • 2021: 129 trades (68% win) – Average Gain +3.27%
  • 2020: 118 trades (67% win) – Average Gain +2.80%
  • 2019: 106 trades (68% win) – Average Gain +3.58%
  • 2018: 72 trades (83% win) – Average Gain +5.40%
  • 2017: 77 trades (79% win) – Average Gain +5.02%
  • 2016: 18 trades (72% win) – Average Gain +5.19%
  • 2015:  44 trades (68% win) – Average Gain +2.61%
  • 2014:  74 trades (62% win) – Average Gain +2.54%
  • 2013:  104 trades (57% win) – Average Gain +1.35%

Comments:

• Lower number of straddle/strangle trades compared to prior years, due primarily to introduction of double diagonal (DD) trades which will be discussed later.
• Overall winning percentage and average gain per trade were at the upper end of the range based on prior year performance.  
• From a downside risk perspective, only 2 losses above 10%, with one larger loss on a hedged straddle that saw an RV drop orders of magnitude higher than prior cycles.
• 37% of trades hit 10% gain target, which is at the upper end of the range compared to prior years.
• Very low risk trades as it takes RV dropping much more than their prior cycle tendencies to be significant losers

Double Diagonals

DD trades were introduced this year with the goal of having performance similar to straddles/strangles – but have the ability for the trades to be open for much longer periods of time (up to 3 weeks prior to earnings) giving the stock more time to move but still have minimal downside risk.

• 52 Trades -  38 win, 14 loss (73% win) – Average Gain +4.86%

Comments:

• High winning percentage, with roughly 3 of 4 trades being winners.
• All losing trades were under 10% losses, majority of losses were under 5%.   So this is a very low risk trade type with minimal downside risk
• Average gain was at the upper end of the range compared with straddle/strangle results of prior years – so the goal of performance being similar to straddles/strangles was achieved.  
• 35% of trades hit 10% gain target, which is at the upper end of the range compared to straddle/strangle trades in prior years.

Other Trades

• Non-Earnings RICs:  4 win, 1 loss (80% win) – Average Gain +3.52%%.   These non-earnings trades have higher downside risk if stock price doesn’t move.   In this case the 1 loss needed 2 wins to compensate.
   
• Hedged ratios and BWBs:  4 win, 7 loss (36% win) – Average Loss -10.55%.   These were hedged directional trades, a few oversized losses hurt the average.
   
• S&P500 addition date trade:  3 win, 1 loss (75% win) – Average Gain +3.28%.   These trades play for stock price decline (or at least staying flat) after the S&P500 addition.  The one loser hurt the average as all 3 gains were 10%+.  We will likely do trades like things with future S&P500 stock additions.
   
• Other:  A few successful index Iron Condors and the closure of one long-term UNG ratio diagonal for an oversized loss.   Net result of these trades was basically break-even from a percentage gain/loss perspective.

Summary

2024 Steady Options model portfolio was up around +118% for the year.   This result was right around the average yearly return since SO’s inception.  It’s good to be able to say that trades based on SO techniques had such a high return as “average”.  

As always, I’d like to highlight and thank the SO community.   We continue to have a group of very smart people that seems to grow each year who share their ideas and knowledge – this is what makes SO great.  

Looking forward to 2025.

2023 Year End Performance by Trade Type
2022 Year End Performance by Trade Type
2021 Year End Performance by Trade Type
2020 Year End Performance by Trade Type
2019 Year End Performance by Trade Type
2018 Year End Performance by Trade Type
2017 Year End Performance by Trade Type
2016 Year End Performance by Trade Type
2015 Year End Performance by Trade Type

"I researched all the companies in your portfolio, there is just one I had an issue with: ALPHABET, I googled it but can't find out which company it is."

As I do at the end of each year, I’ve broken down the Steady Options 2025 trade performance by trade type.  Numbers were taken directly from the data in the Performance screen (plus some recently closed trades).  Here’s are this year’s stats along with some comments from my perspective.  Where applicable, I added totals from prior years for comparison.

Unfortunately, 2025 was Steady Options worst performing year.  I’ll try to present what I believe to be the main reasons for this as they apply to each type of trade.  From an overall perspective, here are some key points that I believe factored into the performance: 

•  Most SO trades are Vega positive trades leading up to earnings events, so volatility plays a key role in the outcome of our trades.  Volatility rising helps trades and volatility declining hurts trades.
•  2025 saw 4 VIX spikes that occurred rather quickly (not a gradual rise), most spikes were relatively short in duration with declines starting shortly after the spikes.  When you look at the year in total, the vast majority of the time we were in time periods where volatility was falling.
• Trades that were in place prior to the spike performed well, but other trades that did not encompass a spike commonly dealt with falling volatility and RV declines bigger than prior earnings cycles.   This meant that trade that would have been small to moderate gains in prior years turned into small to moderate losses this year.  Losses above 10% were also more common.

There were some things that worked very well this year, although they were in some of the portfolios outside of SO.   Steady Yields (SY) and Simple Spreads (SS) performed very well as many of their trades were helped by the same things that hurt the SO trades.   Most trades in SY and SS tended to be Vega negative, meaning that they were helped by declining IV – so both time decay and declining IV helped these trades.

Pre-Earnings Calendars

• 24 Trades – 21 win, 3 loss (88% win) – Average Gain +8.77%
  • 2024:  65 trades (81% win) – Average Gain +12.13%
  • 2023:  65 trades (85% win) – Average Gain +9.56%
  • 2022:  11 trades (64% win) – Average Loss -9.55%
  • 2021:  110 trades (79% win) – Average Gain +12.82%
  • 2020:  33 trades (85% win) – Average Gain +21.97%
  • 2019:  54 trades (65% win) – Average Gain +9.27%
  • 2018:  40 trades (78% win) – Average Gain +9.61%
  • 2017:  31 trades (84% win) – Average Gain +13.81%
  • 2016:  44 trades (80% win) -  Average Gain +15.07%
  • 2015:  51 trades (80% win) – Average Gain +12.67%
  • 2014:  48 trades (71% win) – Average Gain +13.80%
  • 2013:  24 trades (88% win) – Average Gain +20.60%
• Comments:
  • Overall winning percentage was at the high end compared to prior years, but average gain per trade was at the lower end.  This year lacked some larger gains that we got in prior years (likely due to volatility declines).
  • Number of trades was much lower than most prior years as this year saw the calendars for many stocks having their calendar RV significantly higher than prior cycles, and therefore trades were not opened in these cases.
  • There was a learning here to take forward into next year.  For calendar trades entry we look to enter at lower RV levels and/or on stocks that show a pattern of rising calendar RV heading into T-0.   Many stocks show a tendency for calendar RV to rise regardless of current levels, but we didn’t open trades on these stocks if the current RV was elevated.   While we wouldn’t want to enter if calendar RV was sky high, hindsight showed that opening trades when RV was slightly to moderately elevated wound up being winners.
  • Earnings calendars continue to be a core SO strategy.

Straddles/Strangles

• 42 Trades -  21 win, 20 loss, 1 break-even (51% win) – Average Loss -0.56%

Breaking down further by hedged and non-hedged:

            Non-Hedged – 21 win, 17 loss, 1 break-even (55% win), average gain +0.24%
            Hedged – 0 win, 3 loss (0% win), average loss -10.97%

• • 2024:  57 trades (73% win) – Average Gain +4.72%
  • 2023: 166 trades (64% win) – Average Gain +1.65%
  • 2022: 148 trades (71% win) – Average Gain +4.89%
  • 2021: 129 trades (68% win) – Average Gain +3.27%
  • 2020: 118 trades (67% win) – Average Gain +2.80%
  • 2019: 106 trades (68% win) – Average Gain +3.58%
  • 2018: 72 trades (83% win) – Average Gain +5.40%
  • 2017: 77 trades (79% win) – Average Gain +5.02%
  • 2016: 18 trades (72% win) – Average Gain +5.19%
  • 2015:  44 trades (68% win) – Average Gain +2.61%
  • 2014:  74 trades (62% win) – Average Gain +2.54%
  • 2013:  104 trades (57% win) – Average Gain +1.35%
• Comments:
  • Lower number of straddle/strangle trades compared to prior years, due primarily to double diagonal (DD) trades which have similar gain targets to straddles and strangles but can be kept open longer.
  • Overall winning percentage and average gain per trade were at lows.  This is primarily due to the decline volatility which saw straddle RV dropping by larger percentage compared to cycles in prior years.  When the stock price did moves, gains were often muted when factoring in the larger RV declines. 
  • From a downside risk perspective, we saw more losses above 10% compared to prior years with 7 of the 20 losing trades having a loss greater than 10%.
  • 12% of trades hit 10% gain target, which is lower compared to prior years.
  • These trades remain low risk trades as it takes RV dropping much more than their prior cycle tendencies to be significant losers – unfortunately we saw more cases of the outsized RV drops this year.

Double Diagonals

DD trades have the goal of having performance similar to straddles/strangles – but have the ability for the trades to be open for much longer periods of time (up to 3 weeks prior to earnings) giving the stock more time to move but still have minimal downside risk.

• 48 Trades -  28 win, 19 loss (60% win) – Average Gain +0.79%
  • 2024:  52 trades (73% win) – Average Gain +4.86%

Comments:

• Winning percentage was down from last year and average gain per trade was only slightly positive.   Again, a result of RV declines more than prior years.   What were small winners last year because small losers this year.
• Last year, all losing trades were under 10% losses (majority of losses were under 5%).  This year we saw 6 losses above 10%, but all losses were under 20%.   The DD trade is a low risk trade type with minimal downside risk, but this year has shown that when RV declines are more than expected then losses in the 10%-15% range can occur if the stock price doesn’t move.
• 25% of trades hit 10% gain target (compared to 35% last year).  This is not a huge difference, it means that when the stock price moves you can hit that 10% gain target regardless of what happens with RV.

Pre-earnings Iron Condors

In the 4^th quarter we introduced the pre-earnings Iron Condor (IC) trade as a way to get a Vega negative trade type into the SO mix of trades.   We targeted stocks that have a consistent and large straddle RV decline heading into earnings whose historical straddle performance show mostly losing trades (meaning the stock price doesn’t tend to move a lot prior to earnings).

• 10 Trades -  7 win, 3 loss (60% win) – Average Gain +0.07%

Comments:

• Large percentage of winning trades, but one of the three losing trades was an oversized loss when stock price made a big move corresponding to a larger market downturn.
• Will continue with these trades in the future, trying to limit those bigger losing trades by keeping risk vs reward near equal and by selecting stocks whose straddle RV decline is both large/consistent and happens in a relatively short period of time.

Other Trades

•  Non-Earnings RICs:  2 win, 1 loss (67% win) – Average Gain +0.00%.  These non-earnings trades have higher downside risk if stock price doesn’t move.   In this case the 1 loss equaled the 2 wins.

• Hedged ratios and BWBs:  2 win, 3 loss (40% win) – Average Loss -10.90%.   These were hedged directional trades, the losses were larger when the stock price didn’t move in the right direction.
   
• S&P500 addition date trade:  1 win, 2 loss (33% win) – Average Loss -14.50%.   These trades play for stock price decline (or at least staying flat) after the S&P500 addition.  The pattern of prior year additions was broken this year.  Several of the additions this year had much less lead time compared to prior years, so this might be a factor.

Summary

2025 was a very challenging year for the Steady Options model portfolio.   We used the same types of trade setups and analysis that has worked for us year after year.  However, the market behavior this year yielded underperforming trade results.  Going forward, we will continue to try to optimize trades and limit losses – but one underperforming year does not mean we need to re-think every type of trade as they have performed consistently well in prior years  

As always, I’d like to highlight and thank the SO community.   We continue to have a group of very smart people that seems to grow each year who share their ideas and knowledge – this is what makes SO great.  

Looking forward to a better 2026.

Update: For those who don't want to read the whole thread, it seems like most members really like IB. Barrons's agrees:

Based on Barron's numerical calculations, Interactive Brokers (interactivebrokers.com) claims the No. 1 spot overall for the third-straight year. 

http://online.barrons.com/articles/SB50001424053111904628504579433251867361162

Sold a SPX call credit spread (6685/6700) for a net credit of $0.40 ($0.67 - $0.27) with same-day expiration (Oct 17).

SPX was around 6645

I opened a "Buy to close" for SPX6685 with a stop price of $2:00. At around 2:10 PM, When the SPX touched 6658, the SPX6685 Call was around $1.8. I was not ready to loose money so I canceled my order. I was glued to the screen just hoping that SPX won't rise any further. It went to 6672 at around 3:10 PM and the SPX6685 Call was around $6.00 at that point. I was down almost $550 at that point. SPX came back to 6664 and my SPX6685 call was around 1.3. I was happy that I dodged a bullet but knew I was very stupid. Later around 3:20 PM, SPX went to 6678.88 and the SPX6685 call was back to $4. Still I didn't do anything. Was just hoping the day will end somehow. For next 40 mins, SPX hovered around 6670.

 Somehow, I ended the day without a loss with SPX at 6664.

 What should have been my strategy? When should I have closed my position and how much risk should I take? Any better strategy for same-day expiration SPX spread?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAN69ARdBo0

Quote

Dan Sheridan has filed for bankruptcy last week, along with SOM which he dissolved last year. You may want to warn your customers because he is still selling his services on his new website. He still owes us a significant amount in damages but interestingly, the IRS and US Attorney’s Office are also registered as creditors, along with a financial services company and lawyers. Potential customers can then make their own informed decision as to whether they want to risk buying services from him. He was already found guilty of breach of contract and copyright infringement, and he’s now being sued for fraud. Buyer beware!

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/60218423/Sheridan_Options_Mentoring,_LLC

https://businessbankruptcies.com/cases/sheridan-options-mentoring-llc

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/60218431/Daniel_Gerard_Sheridan

• We are struggling with a change in the fundamental behavior of volatility at the moment. Our trades rely on RV and therefore also IV and this has not been acting as expected.
   
• Periods of extended VIX decline have always been some of our worst performers. The main problem now is that we have been in a long period of VIX decline that’s been going for months - there have been a few spikes but in general VIX has gone from 30+ to the 20’s to the mid teens (and making things worse is many periods of minimal stock price movement during this timeframe).  
   
• Our core trades do well when volatility is stable or rises. When volatility started to drop, it created some large percentage losers on a few trades that had an oversized negative impact on the portfolio performance. 
   
• We had much less trades in 2025, which made the impact of those larger losses bigger. We had less trades because some options became very expensive, so it became difficult for many trades to fit into a $1K allocation, and for many stocks with moderate liquidity in normal times, now had less liquidity and very wide bid/ask spreads. This made them much more risky to use for options trades as slippage was a big concern.
   
• We used some directional trades, and the stocks did not follow historical patterns in those trades. When a directional trade goes against you, losses can grow very quickly. This is what happened with TTD, XYZ, KO, FL etc. Some of the non directional trades also experienced outsized losses. We will reduce the number of directional trades going forward.
   
• We used less calendars than usual because many of them were way too expensive compared to previous cycles. Now with VIX in the mid teens, we expect to trade more calendars, which is one of our best performing strategies.

We are having extensive internal discussions on how to adapt to the current environment.

Our strategies are designed to make money in any market. They are not guaranteed to make money, but our long term objectives are still in place. 
 

No strategy works all the time. There’s no room for ‘never’ or ‘always’ in the financial markets. 

https://www.tradingview.com/news/financemagnates:723d87023094b:0-the-25k-rule-that-s-blocking-millions-from-day-trading-is-about-to-change/

I get that most traders do not stick to a particular strategy consistently. Or manage risk correctly. And that brokers take money through swaps, commissions, and other fees so that even if each trade was 50/50 they’d lose in the long run. But none of this seems to explain my results through three years of trying to find a profitable edge.

It seems no matter which strategy I pick, with risk managed correctly, I lose far more trades than I win. To the degree that my net returns are negative even with my fewer wins being greater. The loss/win ratio is significant. In love trading in backtesting.

https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/robinhood-touts-rock-bottom-fees-for-options-trading-then-come-the-hidden-costs-8d745bd8?reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

That said what are the must have tools to understand why certain trades are taken? I would like to understand how we look for a potential trade and how we decide to go for a specific trade? Do I need to buy any paid subscription or do I need to install any software free or paid to be able to achieve my goal?

Basically what are the must have tools to master the in and outs of the 2 Strategies?

Hi everyone,

I'm a returning paid member currently focusing on deepening my options education. The "Stages of a SO Trader" guide has been invaluable – I've achieved reasonable returns following official trades and now want to master OptionNET Explorer and ChartAffair to develop independent strategies.

My questions for experienced members:

Account Scaling: The materials suggest a $100K limit for official trades. Have any of you successfully applied SO strategies to larger accounts (e.g., $250K+) after gaining proficiency?

Strategy Performance: Could anyone share recent 12-month results or long-term insights on:

Anchor Strategies (stability/returns in current market conditions)

Steady Collar Strategies (effectiveness for capital preservation)

Tool Integration: For those using OptionNET Explorer, what specific features have helped you transition from following trades to developing your own?

I'm particularly interested in balancing larger position sizing with SO's risk management principles as I work toward trading a substantially larger account in the future.

Thanks in advance for your insights!

• 95% of all traders fail.
• 80% of all day traders quit within the first two years.
• 60% of all day traders quit within the first month.
• Trading is a profession and requires skills that need to be developed over the years. 

Yes, there is a steep learning curve in trading, like in any area in life. It takes 4-7 years to become an engineer, a lawyer or a doctor. Why people expect it to be different with trading? Can you become a doctor by following a skillful group of doctors?

'If you are not willing to learn, no one can help you. If you are determined to learn, no one can stop you.' - Zig Ziglar

We have under contract a 55,000 square foot building in College Station, Texas (see 3101 University Dr E, Bryan, TX 77802 - Office for Lease | LoopNet).  

It used to be a Wayfair call center, but it is currently unoccupied.  The property is quite close to Texas A&M University, on one of the main streets (University) in town.  

We are currently in negotiations with Texas  A&M University to lease the entire property.  However, those negotiations will not be finalized until the end of Q1 next year.  Given that the property owner's loan (and other issues) are coming due at the end of the year, they are very eager to sell.  

We originally put the property under contract for $7.5m (sellers asked for $10m).  However, we canceled the contract when we realized that the status of the lease is up in the air with A&M.  The seller's called back and asked what we buy it for and we tossed out $6.5m assuming we'd be laughed out of the room.  To our great surprise, they accepted, provided closing could occur by the end of the year.  This means we have to take the property down for cash.

Due diligence is done (title, inspections, etc).  IF (and right now its an if), Texas A&M takes the entire property down, it becomes an incredible deal.  The property itself is over 10 acres and the entire back can be developed (which we plan to do).  If Texas A&M does NOT take the property down, it will be leased as medical office, as it is in the medical office district.  Our local partner/sponsor is a doctor who spent the last few years improving the Physician's Center in College Station (http://thephysicianscentre.com).  We are quite confident this can occur over the next three years.  Given the property will be taken down for cash, there is very little carry cost as well.

The basic terms of the deal are as follows:

Purchase Price:  $6.5m

Needed outside investor capital: $4.5m

Investor Pref Rate: 8%

Waterfall: 60% investors (after pref) 40% to GP

Management fee: 1% (after cash flow positive)

Leverage:  No leverage for the purcahse of the property, bank loans will be used to do tenant improvements and buildouts if needed

I normally am not interested in unoccupied property.  But this is a large piece of land, with development opportunity, that has a TON of potential, with low carrying costs.  

If you have any interest, or more questions, please email me at cwelsh@lorintinecapital.com

Last year I made the move to Germany and became officially resident, only to find out that the tax laws had been changed a couple of years earlier to make options trading ruinously expensive. When it came time this January to file my taxes here, I discovered that I'm facing a tax bill of some several hundred percent on my trading profits from 2022, which fortunately were only modest. If it had been a good year this could have been ruinous but even so the tax is bill is still going to hurt quite a lot.

My tax advisor here (Steuerberater in German) advised me to leave the country. Another possibility apparently is to consider setting up a limited liability company (GmbH) as a vehicle through which to trade, since these regressive tax laws only apply to individuals and not companies. There is a Steadyoptions thread where these tax laws were discussed here. Here is a link to the accountants KPMG on the subject.

I currently have two Reg T margin accounts with Interactive.  To make it as simple an example as I can... let's just say they each have $50K in them.  I want to use margin to buy $50K of stocks plus up to $50K of options in each account.  

In account 1 I own $50K of stock and it will then let me open additional stock and/or option positions (can purchase on margin).  

In account 2 I own $50K of options positions and it will then not let me open any additional stock or option positions (can not purchase anything on margin).

The net position of the two accounts would be the same  ($50K of stocks + $50K of options) but the order in which I purchase them makes a difference.  Is this the way Reg-T really works or am I missing something?  

Thanks.

.PLTR241108C41.5+.PLTR241108P41.5

The chart shows the mid and the bid/ask at the top in the data section, but doesn't actually display a chart: it just keeps spinning "Waiting for data...". Do I need to tweak a setting or does this functionality no longer work on TOS, or perhaps only work for certain spreads?

This notice is intended to assist with monitoring your U.S. option orders for purposes of the Professional Customer designation. As background, the option exchanges require any retail customer who submits over 390 listed option orders on an average daily basis for a given month to be designated as a Professional. Professionals are then treated the same as broker dealers for purposes of execution priority and transaction fees in the following quarter.

Based upon a review of your activity in U******* and any related accounts for the month of Oct 2024, you’ve submitted orders totaling 7078 contracts, representing a daily average of 373 contracts through 25 Oct 2024. Based upon this data, we project that you will meet the Professional classification if your total orders for the remainder of this month exceed 1892.

I have no clue what the ABBS mean, and what their purpose is.

Anyone her to help me out?

Which Order Type do you need / use for multileg Steady Options trades

Ernst Radema

Amsterdam