Sorry but these are totally unrealistic expectations and a recipe for distaster. Especially in conjunction with averaging down if price goes against you.
A wise man said: “It is not difficult to make good results. It is difficult to do it again.”
So, I can understand the logic of your opinion, in absence of a long-term historical data and the existence of disastrous strategies that may seem similar.
I also understand that you don’t understand very much about my way of working.
But when we talk about other people’s strategies, it would be useful and appropriate to complete them with precise reasons. If not they are just to talk
For example: what’s for you “unrealistic” and “disastrous”. And why?
NFA in March had a performance 7.31%. It means 80 USD on 157,000 units traded (0,028%): it seems me an affordable, minimal and amateur result, as I am. Do you think that 0.028% it’s an “unrealistic aspectation”?
Gordon Gekko can do absolutely better, sure!
In few days it has already produced profit that covers 1.5 times its max DD parameter… Where do you see a “disaster”?
Personally, in a leveraged market, my first look go to profit x lots, because 10% obtained with 1: 1 leverage is 10% real. But 10% obtained with 1:30 leverage can be 10% but also 0.33% real
Then … I agree with you: none of us knows the future
@securix uhmm … I not identify my strategy as “contrarian retail” (but stress maybe the same ). It can become it, sometimes, but I hope to avoid it. At least, but not all: maybe only in a small part, main on high volatility returns.
@marketserpent: max 6 trades open on the same cross. Max 3 different pairs open at the same time. Max volume 0.15 total lots (only once with 3 trade).
It’s not my intention to mock on you or your trading.
However, I have NEVER in my 10years of trading seen a strategy that is able to accumulate monthly returns in the dimension of its maximum total drawdown.
I have seen many traders claiming they can do this and even more investors that wish to achieve those returns.
Traders that claim to achieve those returns are most often operating on some kind of grid strategy (averaging into losing positions) and sometimes even in combination with some sort of martingale (increasing leverage) as those strategies look the most appealing to investors striving for unrealistic returns. Sooner or later this mix always ends in a disaster.
In the end, it doesn’t matter if you compare leveraged or unleveraged returns as the drawdown will have the same leverage. You were talking about an average return of 6-10% with a max drawdown of 8%. I am sorry but this isn’t sustainable in any way.
You are of course free to prove me wrong but this will take some time as sustainability isn’t a matter of a few months
OK, thanks for clarifying :). I dared to define it as “contrarian” based on your post presentation .
Contrarian is indeed stressful !
Anyway : whatever is your trading style, the most (only ?) important part is the results / performance / risk management : wish you the best !
Welcome! let see us what you can do! at soon
@KlondikeFX I got my first real gain 32 years ago, in 1987, during the NY crash. Other times, other tools.
I see that your best account on myfxbook has a 7 year and performance of 263%.
Lots are private, but I see a result of $ 1.16 x trade. My result is $ 1.01 x trade. Both seems to me to be rational and comparable results…
From 10/1/2018 your account has lost 10.98%. Mine has gained 265% and I hope to be here again in 2027…
How to judge? No one it’s a guru.
Like you, I struggle every day to get a positive result, even a small one.
So I agree about danger of some types of strategies (martingale, etc.). I don’t agree about leverage.
With right strategy and right money management, Average price can be very useful.
If you check the data I posted, you will see that my balance is based on the MINIMUM operating parameter, needed to cover margin on maximum operating volume and max DD.
This parameter, imho, tells us if a performance is really interesting or if they are just numbers.
I could double my balance, but it would have no logic: I will always have the same profit, but the percentage of yield and DD will be halved. In practice, I only have money left in an account. This is not good for an investor.
My accounts you are mentioning are just small reference accounts to track the performance of a single strategy. I have various other accounts that are not publicly visible for a number of reasons. But that’s not important.
It’s not about lotsizes or balance or whatever.
Also I am not saying that my trading is better than your or anyone elses trading. So there is really no point in this.
All I was trying to point out is that it’s not a realistic goal to reach monthly returns in the same dimension of maximum drawdown. But let’s leave it at that. I have made my point and I hope you will prove me wrong.
Of course, we all have experimental accounts. No one works 7 years to earn $ 3,000 / 4,000
What I would like to explain: it is not the profit that establishes a DD max, but me. I established that max DD (based on a hypothetical and reasonable profit and historical data)
So you can’t say that “it’s not real”, etc. etc.
Limiting DD is better than to set monthly profit targets, usually people that set monthly profit targets burn the account.
If you set a max DD of 8% you will probably earn 16% ANNUAL.
Nice to met you. I look your strategies: they seem interesting, balanced and very professional.
Profit depends on how many trade opportunity the signals offers to me. I can have 16% or 160%: now we can’t know.
- NFA has never touched this famous 8%, that also means 50-80 pips medium price far to break-heaven. That represent just a simply one thing: a wrong trade! Better to close, I think. Also if NFA balance can support DD until 25%.
NFA proposes itself to the investors and (I hope) they will assign to it not all of their portfolio, but a quote.
Never can promise future returns, it’s true. But I can specify a maximum loss.
I don’t want anyone to risk on NFA more than they are willing to lose.
Respect for investors is the most important thing, for me.
If I will make a mistake, investor must easily recover losses, that are a “quote of 8%”. Also choosing another Darwin, if necessary.
Thanks again for your opinion
Money management it’s the most difficult.
Especially when I have little time to set up trades.
Last 3 months ranking:
Pos. #31/100 best drawdown
Pos. #85/100 best return
Pos. #49/100 as investors capital
Last month ranking
Pos. #18/100 best drawdown
Pos. #49/100 best return
Pos. #49/100 as investors capital
Unfortunately, few signs and few trades in the first 10 days of April
Less than 50% of the usual working average! .
- Lots: 0.37 only - average profit per lots: 40.74 $ approx.
- 12 trade-cycles only: win 11 - loss 1
- 26 trade: wins 19 - lost 7
We hope the market will move a little… …
RunnerRunner keeps his run
NFA always ON FIRE - ranking #25
last 3 month ranking: Pos. #44 for best return - best return/drawndown ratio
17.44% profit - 3.72% DD from beginning on 02.20.2019
76% winning trade working on 18 pairs and gold, but, unfortunately, April saw few signals, cause of little volatility and very close targets.
96 trades only for 1,24 lots, only, approx, 35 USD x lot (30 EUR)
May starts better: 3,31% at now
Keep running, so !
May started well, but 3 fake signals on GBPCHF caused a DD of 6% which was then quickly recovered before end of the month
In any case, even May closed at + 1.74%.
Small but profit, continuing the positive series started on February 2019.
June also started well (+4.02%, at now) and NFA entered in the “promising” ranking
Next post, I will try to explain to investors some tips and tricks about how to best manage investiment on NFA, multiply potential profit and minimizing risk at the same time.
Would like to express my gratitude towards such professional attitude. That’s exactly the behavior I refer to in my manifesto.
Great Results .
As a potential investor, could you please explain the discrepancy between the projected average expected return per month and the current approx 3% average (very good return) . have you adjusted strategy .
Hi Muiris, thanks for your question: absolutely no change in my strategy!!
Simply: few volatility on April, one bad cycle on GBPCHF on May.
This very bad cycle lost approx 5%, but, afther 3 fake signals, I preferred to close the three losing positions.
During this trade, I lost few money, but many time mostly…
Remember the first, and for me most important, rule: max 8% DD, that means: 80€ on the 1000€ based balance.
Another important factor for performance is the number of trades on Gold, as you can verify in the statistics.
More trade on Gold, more profit, because they are more easy to manage. At now they arrived at 15.27% of the total, 53 trades, 100% won
However at now, June 6th, we are at +4,02% profit: average it’s right.
I hope it will always be better.
@SECURIX: i go to read your “manifesto”
Thanks @RunnerRunner !
Tips & Tricks
n.1 - NFA Set Risk: € 8 max risk x € 100 base invested. (€ 16 x € 100 if you work with leverage x2)
As I explained, the maximum risk of NFA is set at 8%, that means a fixed value of € 80 x € 1000 initial balance. Will be absolutely wrong to set a lower risk: for ex. 3%, 5% or 6.18%, because you’ll work against the standard strategy parameters, with high losing risk.
At the same, have no-sense set a bigger risk (for ex. 25%). If this ever happened, it will not be caused by NFA strategy, but by external factor as very high volatility, fat finger, etc., etc.
Protecting yourself from this, with a suitable and logical risk set is even more important!
To know and to understand it’s essential for an investor.
To understand how much money he is willing to lose. How much he wants to earn. How to maximize profit, compared to an acceptable and clear risk.
Above all, clearly identified monetary risk, it helps us, for ex., to understand if to use a leverage x2, but with a maximum risk of “only” 16€ x 100€ invested, may offer more interesting opportunities or not.