As 2020 draws to a close, here's a few posts for my 2020 annual review! 👇

Focus is on the types of trade I made, the underlyings traded, & strategy outcomes, rather than just showing the overall % return

To kick it off, below is the 2020 equity curve of my main account 💰

So what did I trade? As you can see, Options have significantly contributed to 2020 Realized & Unrealized profits, with almost two thirds of gains coming from this asset class. Otherwise I have some net gains on short & longer term Stocks, and a loss in Futures 😊
I traded around 70 underlyings in 2020; here they are, ordered by % contribution to my annual Realized & Unrealized gains

$CRWD, $NET, $WYNN & $FSLY are my top winners! 🚀
I made a bit more than 200 opening trades in 2020. By far the most common are Long Stock and Short Put trades
Best performer = Short Puts, with an 84% win rate! Another 7% were rolled into new strikes, and only 1.43% were a loss 😮

Win rate on long stock is lowest. This is skewed as I’m only using Realized gains, and most of my profitable stock positions are still open
Here’s the avg % win for my main options strategies. What’s interesting to note is the majority of my short calls were winners, but a few huge % losses made the avg gain per trade negative. Thankfully my huge losses on short calls were hedges against long stock
Number of options trades by Underlying: you can see I had a lot of fun with $FSLY this year 😊
Options trades: contribution to PnL by Underlying. $BABA was the biggest winner here thanks to a timely long call trade. Otherwise a good spread across names 💰
@threadreaderapp unroll

More from Trading

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?