The opinions expressed in these forums do not represent those of C2, and any discussion of profit/loss
is not indicative of future performance or success.
There is a substantial risk of loss in trading. You should therefore carefully consider
whether such trading is suitable for you in light of your financial condition. You should read,
understand, and consider the Risk Disclosure Statement that is provided by your broker
before you consider trading. Most people who trade lose money.
This strategy has both of the indicators for failure or huge Drawdowns at C2. It has a win% above 79% and it has a ratio of av. $$ win/av. $$ loss of less than 1.2.
Further, it has a staggering average leverage of 19.96. Very roughly speaking, that suggests that just a 5.2% adverse move in your total (unleveraged) positions would wipe you out. (-5.2% x 19.96 = -104%.)
I hope that you continue to do fabulously, but the odds are strongly against you.
I just looked at the Old-Timers list on the Leader Board, which lists the 36 strategies over 3 years old that have outperformed the SP500.
Unfortunately, your new strategy has a higher win% (94.6%) than any of them and only one of them has a lower Win$/Loss$ ratio than you do. Like your strategy, that one has a very high win% and a slightly too low Win/Loss Ratio–but it has a devastating 82% maximum drawdown.
One more strategy among the 36 has a slightly higher than ideal win% of 80.9% and two more strategies have Win$/Loss$ ratios between 1.16 and 1.2, just under the cutoff.
31 of the 36 Old-Timer strategies have av. leverage of less than 3.4. Among the five strategies with 4.0-11.1 av leverage, the DDs range from 49% to 82%. No one is even close to your av leverage of 19.96.
Your strategy got its first autotrader on Dec 23. That’s important because the trades become real: no more stale pricing and it’s harder to do any scalping even with only the few autotraders you have.
At the stock market close that day, the strategy was worth $172,484. As I write this Thursday afternoon, it is worth $133,054. So the strategy is down 22.9% in 2 weeks.
To get that wondrously negative 22.9% return, someone would have to endure margin calls and a 49.2% drawdown.
I would say that so far the skeptics are right. Since it got its first autotrader, Soft Power is probably one of the worst performing strategies on C2.
But we’ll have to wait and see what happens in the longer run. You may yet be vindicated. I hope for your subscribers’ sake that you are able to deliver great returns.
[UPDATE later Thursday afternoon]:
This strategy has continued to fall in value. Indeed, since Graff’s last post on this thread early on Wednesday (less than 36 hours ago) his strategy has lost almost half (48.5%) of it value, falling from $236,954 Wednesday morning to $121,924 at Thursday’s regular market 4pm close. Over $115,000 in value has disappeared.
As of earlier this week, it appears that he might still have had 4 accounts autotrading his strategy. His current sub fee is $395.
I just looked at the grid. Soft Power is the 13th worst performing strategy (-28.1%) over the last 14 days out of all 805 strategies. But if you exclude the strategies that do not have any positive annual returns (which of course no one would initiate investments in), then Soft Power is indeed the worst performing strategy over the last 14 days out of the 511 strategies with overall positive annual returns.
And the 14 day period is not an arbitrary one. It’s approximately the period since autotrading started, so it’s the period most representative of Soft Power’s real ability to time the market.
But it’s a short time period. Maybe he’ll turn it around. We can hope for the best.
It’s up to every sub to do their own risk assessment. The strategy leader does state he uses maximum leverage trading futures. That is more than extremely risky factoring in SPAN margin requirements let you use more leverage than trading their ETF counterparts.