Update: the abrupt reversal of the dollar threw us off our plan and hit us hard this week. Gasoline should rebound from here and wheat still looks weak. Dollar is still likely to resume uptrend and base metals to reverse downward.
@TheMonk, any update as to why your strategy has been on the losing side of many recent trades?
Also has trades where shorts were made, which would’ve been profitable if it just dropped out at the moment the future hit the 3-month valley.
Good ol’ fashion being wrong. The macro is still valid but got whipsawed a few times.
I just have to keep culling the losers and position myself for the trend.
Update: our theme of strong dollar and weak metals are playing out as anticipated. Added to crude oil long because of extreme oversold technicals - not bullish long term. Soybean steadies in bearish macro - we suspect it is done dropping for now.
I look at your equity curve. It is all over the place and I see nothing beyond an average trade leader on it. Are you happy at your equity curve as a
I am not happy at all but portfolio volatility will calm down as equity grows and I’ll explain why. Trading futures with $20k-$30k starting capital forced me to use 60%-70% margin/equity ratio to express the trading theme and resulted in large swings.
Eventually the target M/E ratio is <40%. In my other trading programs this ratio is 5%-10%.
Why don’t you just reduce your contract size then?
I’m just doing 1 or 2 lots per position but the portfolio construction has to make sense too.
I saw some 3 or 4 contract trades. But yeh u need to manage stops and targets if you do trade with larger size.
I know right?
Or just start with a higher balance from the get go?
This is in the strategy description:
“Risk management is based on return per unit of risk, not per unit of equity.”
I will reiterate, contract size limitation, especially trading multiple asset classes, is not useful as a practitioner. It only makes sense as a casual observer. I explained this in detail earlier in this thread. There is a reason why exchanges set different margin rates for different commodities because they move differently, e.g. natgas vs wheat. Think about sizing positions for stocks vs bonds.
Also, I try to build internal, cross-commodity hedges. Positions that don’t all respond to the same event the same way. It requires some portfolio construction thoughts and holding multiple instruments.
Lastly, I started out this program thinking a lower starting capital ($20-$30k) is appealing to retail base. Maybe it doesn’t make a difference. I can use some insight here.
@TheMonk, personally I would raise the starting capital to make the drawdowns and returns more realistic in scope.
Basically to the uninformed investor they could get their account blown up by matching the starting capital and seeing that you have drawdowns of over 15k already that would equate to more than 50% drawdowns. But obviously the returns would look higher too…lol
If you are serious about sticking around and not looking for a quick buck you should actually raise the starting capital to lower the risk.
You can contact the support and have them resize your model account. This way you don´t need to start over. Historical trades will be scaled up in proportion so your performance stays the same. However, your strategy needs to be flat before the resize can happen.
I would very much recommend this step if you want to appeal to the more conservative minds here (smaller customer base). If you want many subscribers fast you could probably just continue as it is unless you blow up of course. High return systems are still the bread and butter if you see your C2 endeavour as a business. Just get a positive November and you´re golden.