Thanks! That is very kind of you (and observant). I got there too late, though… I am still trapped in my mind and in research due diligence. I don’t think I am (yet) in the paralysis-because-of-analysis zone, but I’ll get there if I don’t make a move soon. Anyway, Oakladder says is working on increasing the AuM capacity so I am sure that will happen.
To your assumption of me being interested in ERQ: Ofc, I am, but: As someone who doens’t know how to read trading journals and has zero experience in algo trading, often I can only rely on my reading and cognitive skills to judge a Darwin (+ the wisdom and kindness of this community): And I have observed that the idea of Darwins with very low VaR’s being (potentially) dangerous seems or has been prevalent in this community, which would post questions on investing in ERQ.
Here is where I am left with doubts, being a noob here, looking at the curve equity and the numbers ERQ is probably the Darwin that looks best of all and having read everything I could from @OakLadder I have no reason to not admire his skill and honesty. So how do I reconciliate these two facts? 1) Micro VaR potentially being dangerous and 2) ERQ looking awesome by all the criterias I can judge it with.
@IlIlIlIlI, I’d like your inputs here. (sorry, my friend, as far as I’ve read you’re the only person in the community with doubts around ERQ, gotta pull you in here hahaha)
Would you mind, being specific and sharing the reasons (I believe) lead you to think ERQ is not a good investment long term because of its likelyhood of crashing down anytime?
This is how far I can get myself into why low VaR could be dangerous, let me know if this is your concern or goes deeper than that: If the underlying strategy is trading with a 0.2% VaR and a series of Stop Losses happen, the effect of them will be magnified by 50 (0.1/0.002) in the Darwin. At the same time, having read for some time here I know/sense it’s not as simple as that, but I don’t understand the details of it all. I could also argue, the positive trades are also being magnified at x50, if the x50 is constant there shouldn’t be a problem. [You see? I don’t fully understand this… Help!]
Ultimately I don’t have a reason to not believe Oakladder when he says
Which btw, he doesn’t seem to want to increase the VaR because it’s risky for the investor, but because it’s preventing him to increase the AuM capacity.
You seem to think he’s not doing the best choices to achieve the best possible risk-profitability relationship for the investor, and I am very curious about that.
Ps- Sorry If I miss-interpreted you.