It is so true that our system Currency Intraday Portfolio closes everyday BEFORE THE FIGURES OF 8:30 AND REOPENS AFTER the FIGURES OF 10:00.
Nevertheless a stop on my opinion is mandatory.
It seems that the customers here in this site are Warren Buffet.
They are fellows that we should protect.
Obviously only options can protect against the bypass of the stops in a crash day, but the writer of the options also can fail. So really there is no protection, but there is manner and manner. We are speaking probably of the 95% of the days or not?
Fair enough. Here is the exact text:
"Track records from January 1,2003 for the four instruments together (without any leverage, covering 100% of the facial amount) are the following:
r2 0.98545 (exceptional) called also good or fitness or linearity, probably more important than the Sharpe ratio. The value 0.98545 means that the equity line is in practice a stright line.
Maximum draw down -5.381% daily computed
Yearly return 41.14%"
Here is what I said:
I DO agree that systems should be held accountable to their own rules and claims. This could be reflected in the C2 “ratings”. For example
Seleukos has an “excellent” rating. However he claims:
"Maximum draw down -5.381%
Yearly return 41.14%"
C2 shows:
"Max Drawdown 26.33%
Annualized % 2.80% "
OK, I’m curious why your example only shows data from 2003? Wouldn’t it be fair and honest to show how the energies did in flat and bear markets using this system? Or are you suggesting the energy markets will always look like the roaring bull from Jan. 2003?
I see: “Yearly return 41.14%” and "Facing a possible 15% draw down, you could use a 3 leverage, where gains could be very high."
I don’t see any disclaimer about past performance and future results. I see an ACTUAL “Max Drawdown 26.33%” using 2X leverage vs $100K correct? Is it possible you curve fitted your data and jumped in just when the market changed character? Or is the actual “Max Drawdown 26.33%” (im)possible? How could your “Track records from January 1,2003” to the present not reflect the actual C2 DD if they are correct and complete?
Here is another pet peeve on disclosure:
"Max Drawdown 26.33% (20060427 to 20060613)
Risk of 20% account loss 2.4%"
I assume C2 looks at the Monte Carlo Simulation from
a 100K starting point to find this "Risk of account loss", but
the reality is a customer could sign on at any time. So
the actual risk, based on the actual data, is 100%
"Risk of 20% account loss" since someone may have
signed up at the systems equity peak.
What am I missing? Is "Risk of account loss" something
other than "Risk of account loss"? If so what is "Risk of
account loss"?
