To whoever manages this fund, great job! But the big question is… What on earth happened in 2020? Leverage levels remained the same but somehow generated a 583% return in 2020 but performance was flat for 6 years prior to that. This got me scratching my head.
583% looks correct to me based on 12/31/19 and 12/31/20 values.
And what happened (probably) was he had a large drawdown in early 2020, and realized if he was ever going to get subscribers he had to juice returns. So he disregarded his old strategy and upped the leverage.
My guess at least.
Not sure how you are getting that because the funds lifetime returns aren’t even that high. Must be a glitch.
The few trades I looked at looked legit. No fishy trading or obvious stale pricing. I didn’t check most of the trades, but I saw no red flags. The opening post suggests that there are some math errors. I didn’t check for these, but the individual trades don’t look suspicious in themselves.
He was buying the trendiest stocks around, esp. coming out of the March crash. I think he developed some genuine skill in 2020, at least for that particular market.
What is odd is that his best year before was 2019 at 33.7%. That sounds (and is) good, but it’s only about 4% above the SP500 that year. I haven’t checked but I suspect that even that 33.7% return is below the NASDAQ that year. And that’s his BEST prior year.
For that reason, you would be buying into a strategy with one fabulous year, which (unfortunately) is still longer than many of the top-ranked strategies on the leaderboard.
Would I invest my own money in a strategy that had mediocre results for most years and a 53.6% DD when the worst intraday DD that the SP500 has done since 2010 is 36%? Probably not, but if he continues his amazing returns for another year or two, I should.
Dude. Come on. This is basic math.
Annual Return (Compounded)
The math is correct, Greg.
The way annual return percentages work is: you do not simply add together the return percentages of each month in the year in question.
You can see this out for yourself by playing around in Excel. Even a simple three-month example would demonstrate this for you:
Example: Start with $100 dollars. Then see what happens if the first month makes 10%, the second month 10%, the third month 10%. (Fill in the dollar amounts that implies: $10, $11, $12.1) You will find that the total dollars earned in that period is not 30% (see for yourself; measure the final dollar value [$133] versus the $100 starting amount.)
I hope you’ll forgive me if I don’t spend a lot of time trying to explain this in great detail. I suspect this is a pretty common misunderstanding. Just take some time to work out some examples, and I think it will be more clear.
It was the YTD total that was in question. Nothing specifies that it’s compounded. It is in fact 584%. All good.
The YTD number is not compounded. It’s just a simple annual return.
I see greg has withdrawn his posts questioning the calculations, so I’ll close this thread.