Protected Trader Webinar 12th September

[Ian]

Did anyone go on this call? If so I would love to know your views..

I felt that it just stated the obvious about account fluctuations for stocks, but chose to ignore the protected trader methodology. As such they were trying to reassure us that large fluctuations in account value are normal. However as we were repeatedly told on the mentorship, account values can only move by a maximum of 10% if you have a protective put.

I asked them to explain how Minesh's account value went down over the 6 months that we did the group mentorship, when at a minimum growth of 3% a month, even allowing for a 10% fluctuation it should have been up - they chose not to answer that question. To be fair they said they will deal with some questions offline - I'll let you know if I get anything back!

[Ever hopeful]

:-/
The first part of the webinar put me to sleep but when Ash started talking about the drip feed, I thought that sounded very interesting.

Has anyone signed up to the Dividend Trades and are Ash's figures realistic?
I realise that his figures used included the stock increasing by 1% every single month which I know is not very realistic.

Would like to hear others views on Saturday?

[smith]

......be careful with high dividend paying stock (particularly where you are not hedged). If it sounds too good to be true...... have a look at this speech in 2002 by David Einhorn at (its 20 mins long but well worth a look)

foolingsomepeople.com/main/

[Ian]

Here is the response from Minesh.....

Obviously this is completely ignoring the question and I have asked him to respond again.


Ian,

If you were on the webinar we did last Saturday - this was all explained on the webinar.

The account value is a short term representation, we concentrate on cash-flow as you know.

Thanks,

Minesh
www.TheProtectedTrader.com

On 14 Sep 2009, at 19:26, Ian wrote:


Minesh,

On the group mentorship, you started with $35k. After 6 months, collecting premiums of a minimum of 3% the account value should be $ 41,792. Allowing for a 10% account value fluctuation the minimum value should be $37,613, yet the account was $33k. Can you please explain that?

Thanks

Ian


By the way has anyone seen the latest offer from CFL to become an affiliate??

Ian

[Guest 4 Now]

Ian,

Thanks for updating us. I can't say that Iam surprised by Minesh's response as he will always dodge the question by giving some account value fluctuation response or that we are all making mistakes. Hang on there, we have all paid £3-£5k to be "mentored" so surely we can't all be making the same mistakes. Either we all don't understand what they are teaching, or they can't teach or finally that we have been well and truly scammed. I tend to think the latter.

If their system was working for so many, where are all the testimonials now? Have you noticed that in recent workshops that no tesimonials are given ? Says it all really!

The simple fact here is that we have been missold a "system" which has not delivered what it promised to. When I was attending their workshops, their system promised extraordinary monthly income to quote " pay your monthly mortgage and put food on the table" I have not met anyone who has used the system, who has actually withdrawn any tangible income.


As for affiliates - Only a fellow scammer would promote their product. The term "Product" used very loosely.

Good luck all and hope you can recover your accounts.

Minesh - Ash, If you are reading this, redeem yourselves by having the balls to repair the damage your antics have caused.

[Ian]

Guest4now, you mentioned testimonials. There seems to be a lot of "testimonials" on the CFL website by people who have lost money and judging by conversations I have had with them, are now either unhappy or extremely unhappy with CFL.

Has anyone asked CFL to remove their videos from the promotional material?

Ian

[raj]

Ian,

I have had similar conversations with all I've met who have given testimonials who have all said that the system does not do what it set out to. Furthermore, others including myself are not impressed by the changes in the continual changes in the management rules and the fact that what started out as cash for life developed in to the protected trader and is now dividend investor. My point is that if the system works so well in their eyes, why are they not teaching it?



Therein lies the problem, If you bought any product from a shop and it did not do what it said on the box, then surely the vendor has a case to answer?


Raj

[francisco]

Ian,

So they told you during the webinar that they would anwer offline, and they they told you offline that they had explained it during the webinar.

"The account value is a short term representation, we concentrate on cash-flow as you know"

The point is: THE CASHFLOW WAS NEGATIVE!!!

The stocks were going up, we would have made money if we were not selling calls. The accounts (including Minesh's) were losing money because the CASHFLOW WAS NEGATIVE!

We were selling calls, the stock was going up, we were buying the calls back AT A HIGHER PRICE, and selling new calls, the stock kept going up, so we had to repeat the money-losing process, because, we were told, stocks move in a range.

We've invested during a rising market and lost money because of negative a cashflow! The problem was that they were not explaining what they were doing, most of the time not following their own rules, and we followed because they were our mentors; they were suposed to know better than us and they would enlighten us later. The mentorship "finished" and we were not enlightened. We were left with bad positions and really bad advice.

The "let the calls get deep into the money and then buy them back, sell the stock and keep the naked put in a rising market" is the one that personally killed my trust. The other one was: "ALWAYS sell calls".

I'm doing much better since I'm not following their advice and reading proper sources. At least my account is not going down and I'm still learning and developing my skills. The positions that are doing worst are the ones with naked puts, thanks to the brilliant advice. Luckily I didn't do it for all my positions as some people did.

Francisco

[optimist]

Hi all, I was on the webinar too - there were 11 of us I calculated. Nothing much new was talked about I thought. Neither of my two questions were answered. I couldn't believe that Minesh did the "what % are you making each month poll?" and then didn't give out the results. What was he thinking! I suspect the answers were in the <1% per month category!

[Ian]

Latest response from Minesh, either maths is not his strong point or he is completely deluded.



Hey Ian,

The cash-flow of 3% to 6% can be earnt as we saw in the group mentorship account. As we've said numerous times before, this is a long term investment strategy, and over the period of 6 months to a year, a 3-6% per month return is achievable.

You need to understand that the "account value" is not what we're going for with this trading strategy. The "account value" is just the net liquidation value of all of your assets at that particular time. That is what the broker is obliged to show you. For example, if you were to look at your property portfolio now and get every property valued at it's current market value - that would be your "account value".

When you've protected your stock, say with a 5% risk, then at the end of the put term, there is no way that your account could go down by more than 5% in the worst case scenario. That is pretty simple, and I hope you understand that.

In the short term, an average stock goes up and down by 10-12% per month. Sometimes this may be more, like in the crash we experienced. However, as I said above, the "account value" is not really something that is important for a long term investment strategy.

Also - the account value is affected by the leverage on the account. Obviously if you're using 50% leverage, then a 5% risk is now a 10% risk, etc.

I hope this answers your question - remember, this strategy is about generating cash-flow with minimum risk.

Thanks,

Minesh Bhindi
www.TheProtectedTrader.com

On 1 Oct 2009, at 13:45, Ian wrote:


Minesh,

Can you please address the point below.

Ian

From: Ian
Sent: 24 September 2009 16:16
To: 'Minesh Bhindi'
Subject: RE: Account value question

Minesh,

Can I put this more plainly…

1/ CFL said that you earn 3-6% a month

2/ CFL said that using the protected trader methods that the account value fluctuated no more than 10%

As such it should not have been possible to get the results you did on the group mentorship account.

Can you let me have your answer to this question as it is fundamental to the whole credibility of CFL.

Ian

[rob45]

Minesh's reply is clearly Bull**it and he obviously does not understand what he is talking about.

Account Value is all that is relevant (ANYTHING ELSE IS JUST HOPE VALUE AND YOU CAN'T EAT HOPE).

In the current bullish market, the strategy does not work and if you are leveraged (eg portfolio margin), then you will be loosing a lot of money.

The strategy may come into its own if the markets turn or stagnate-until then the strategy does not work

[francisco]

Ian,

Sorry but this doesn't make sense.

We started the group mentorship in February 2009. The market hasn't done anything but going up since. Our account values and Minesh's account value did nothing but go down.

We were selling calls for "3%". Is this the return Minesh is talking about? Only problem was, 2-3 weeks down the line we were buying the calls back at double the price (i.e. negative cashflow) because the stock was going up, and the put down. Even if we sold another call at a higher strike, this wouldn't recover the loss but maybe get even, and frequently we would have to buy back this new call again at more loss.

If we did not buy back the calls or roll them up, then we would be called out, and left with an overall loss, because the put had gone down more than the call premium and the profit from the stock. We would have the option of selling the put and start again, locking a loss, or buy the stock again at a much higher price and repeat the process from a worst situation than the start.

The deltas of the put and the call combined, were lower than -1 (e.g. ITM put's delta: -8; call's delta: 5, as the calls were short this would equate to -5). The stock's delta is 1. Therefore the the more the stock went up, the more our account values went down. The puts and calls were working against the stock. And as we were advised to roll the puts and calls up continuously, it was getting worst and worst (we were buying expensive ITM puts and selling cheap OOT Puts; we were selling cheap OTM calls and buying back expensive ITM calls). Everytime we had to roll a call up, any profit for that month evaporated and we were at a loss. This sometimes happened more than once a month.

Our cashflow was negative! That's why the account values were down in an up market.

Am I missing something?

Why does Minesh keep comparing this situation with a property that goes down in price but gets rental income? If anything, this is a property that went UP in price, we were receiving the rent from the tenant, only to pay back to the tenant double the amount a few weeks later. We paid more money to the tenant, insurance and brokers, than the property went up. And this is why the overall acount is down.

And the final blow, after we had rolled the calls a few times, and they were still getting deep in the money, we were advised to sell the stock "for a profit" and buy back the calls, therefore being left with only puts in a raising market. The idea was to "wait until the stock comes back down to buy it again at a cheaper price". The overall positions were at a loss then, and since then, the naked puts have done nothing but lose value.

Regarding protecting the stock with a 5% risk. Again, this is downside risk! The stocks haven't gone down, they have gone up. And we have lost on the upside, so the 5% downside risk is irrelevant in our situation. We lost the upside risk again and again, because of this strategy in a raising market. Even if the downside risk was minus 300 million %, we would have lost on the upside. Is Minesh talking about the same group mentorship that we were in?

Francisco

[Guest 4 Now]

Francisco,

You've accurately summarized how paying someone thousands will teach you how to lose money.

I seriously think that we as a group need to discuss ways of taking action against these guys in at least recovering what we paid them.

Larry, It would be great if you are able to send out an email to the list you have to gauge whether people are taking this lying down or whether they wish to pursue these conmen. This discussion should not be on an open forum.

[larry]

OK, I've just checked in and taken note of the last few comments and I have been hoping that this is the soert of sentiment that would ultimately start to arise. I will take this further by private mail.

Ian, is it possbible to set up a private, password protected thread to take this discussion further?

[mm10]

Can you please add me to the email list on this topic as well? Thanks.