ManyHorses":1vyxlmay said:
Forget about headcount...
We can't do that, Richard. We're cattlemen. You seem to keep forgetting that. When most cow-calf producers figure costs to determine revenue, we use averages based on head counts. I used the $2/hd on that first setup as an example to show you the difference between you and I. Those commissions expressed in a lump sum don't sound like very much money to you high-rollers. You traders probably spend that on lunch. But that sum translates into per head costs for us. Those are the costs that determine profit or loss for us.
ManyHorses":1vyxlmay said:
Premium decay hopefully is mine to keep...
Assuming futures prices declined.....
I added some emphasis to a couple of your words here. You know,
hopefully, we could
assume that we will have advancing markets and won't need any protection at all.
ManyHorses":1vyxlmay said:
So given the costs vs. benefits, a few bucks in commissions is certainly worth your while.
All of those benefits you keep talking about are based on your hopeful assumptions, aren't they? The commissions are our's to pay regardless, right?
ManyHorses":1vyxlmay said:
.... notice how I keep my position constantly hedged against itself.
Yes, I notice that. I also realize that you continue to accumulate commissions and fees with every new position. More dollars per head. One thing doesn't change---
the only sure thing are those commissions and fees. In my opinion, those are just added costs of production that you're advising us to incur.
ManyHorses":1vyxlmay said:
Note: The best traders in the business only average about 50% right/wrong trades... but the ones their 'right' on, far outweight the ones their 'wrong' on... no different that buying and raising cattle.
Richard, that's a helluva lot different than being in the cattle business! Cattlemen that make their living in this business aren't satisfied with a 50/50 proposition. So the "best traders in the business" are only right half of the time, huh? Why would I want to bet my money against their's?