CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. -- % of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.

Passive Investment Portfolio by Qaytarlah

Just kicked off the two following real portfolios.

Portfolio 1 (not leveraged. 75% of the capital). 7 Positions: SYO, UYZ, PLF, FEG, MJP, WFJ, ZXW&LVS

Portfolio 2 (leveraged x2. 25% of the capital). 10 Positions: [Portfolio 1] + ULI, NSC, GTD&VRT (sharing a postion of 1/10 at 50%-50%, like ZXW and LVS)

  • I am happy with my Darwins selection.
  1. All of Darwins’ Managers are either very responsive/active in the Darwinex Community and/or show significant signs of profesionalism through their reports, websites, communications, etc. Also, I got the impression most/all of these darwins are acknowledged and trusted by this community. Exception being NSC.

  2. All of them have at least 3 years of trackrecord. No exceptions.

  3. Non of them seem to have high divergence. At the moment of purchase, only 3 out of 12 showed negative divergence (monthly estimation) in their mainpage.

  4. Except for LVS and MJP all Dscores are above 60 at the moment of purchase.

  • Ofc I am likely to be biased, (choice-supportive & survivorship) but the truth is that the resulting equity curve looks pretty sexy (and steady) to me. Core portfolio 3year backtest from 9Mar17 to 9Mar20:

  • I am happy with the 75-25 leveraged-notleveraged split. This way, the total leverage is at 1.25 which is a nice compromise for the first year and I get exposure to leveraged wins and losses and my reactions to them.

  • The average year performance of both portfolios, given all data available in Darwinex, is around 20%. 23% for the core portfolio and 19.28% for the 12 Darwins of the extended one. But accounting for suvivorship bias and out of caution, I’ll be very happy if over the years I am able to obtain around 10% of profit without too much volatility. Which leveraged would be around 20%. And all of it with a complete decorrelation of whatever combination of viurses, tradewars, interest rates, etc. are going on in the world… Will see where my expectations end up.

Bonus. A summary table of the 12 Darwins involved.


This is a professional job. Period. :+1:


Thanks mate, truth be told I wound’t mind getting paid hahaha.

1 Like

Thanks for sharing such information.

This seems to be illogical to me. Is there a link or something to this demonstration in English? Is there some thread about this “buying a darwin on a dip” somewhere?


Beautiful work, I like a lot the effort you put into it.

Since you have been using a lot of your diligence and your desire to learn, can I advise you to read (if you have not already done) these TABs present in the EDUCATION?

In particular way to understand deeper the “detection of behavior change” you have to check how Darwinex rapresents in graphical way a strategy with it’s metrics and their evolution in “t” time:

To fully understand some metrics, it is much easier if you have a background as a connoisseur of strategies, this does not mean that with the right amount of study you cannot understand a lot about the processes of some strategies, but ofc this only comes with a lot of time and effort. Understanding the changes of a strategy is very important, obviously changes especially if motivated do not only lead to a deterioration of a strategy. I wish you the best for your journey.

VolcanoFX :volcano:


It sounded “interesting” to me too, I didn’t take it very seriously. For passive long term investmenet doesn’t sound crucial to me. Plus, volatility seems to be arriving now and I want to be in, that’s why I sort of ignored that point and just bought all Darwins at once. Also, I don’t know if that statement considers the loss of opportunity of having money still.

Can you share more details on why it sounds illogical? What do you think of my reflection?

To your question. I don’t know of more places were this has been published by Darwinex. My source is this (spanish) episode, the segment starts at minute 05:30. Javier says that new comers have a tendency to invest in Darwins when they’re having a very good performance and there is where he says they have quantitatively found out that isn’t the best way to do it.

Maybe some older community members can point us somewhere else in the forum where this has been discussed before. I’ve seen it’s a prevalent idea but I don’t know if the basis for it have been discussed in depth… Even @PrimeZor manager of ZXW is suggesting this approach


Thanks a lot for your inputs :)! I’ll definetely look at those resources carefully. I can sense how there’s a lot of work behind, but it’d give my decission making a more robust basis, specially in those difficult times (surely will come) when I’ll have doubts whether to remove/keep a Darwin because of potential fundamental changes in its underlying strategy.


I have to agree with Bendex on this.
Buying on drawdowns gives the impression of being smart because you get a better price, but you don’t consider all the potential profit that you are missing while you wait for a drawdown.
If someone has an edge, you should enter as soon as possible, without waiting for a drawdown.

If I pay you $15 when we flip the coin and we get tails, but you pay me $10 when the result is heads, would you wait for 3-4 heads in a row before playing or you’d rather play as soon as possible?


Agreed but if you enter 5 darwins on highs you have to be prepared for several months underwater.
If you invest 10-20 you can avoid to care about the entries, good and bad entries will compensate.

1 Like

If Darwins are random walks it is better not to invest at all! :smiley:


As a continuation of an interaction with @bendex in his portfolio topic

Not sure how interesting is it going to be but I’ll share my thought process around correlation. As a case study will use ZXW and LVS.

Maybe I’ve been using it wrong, but for some reason I didn’t like the correlation Darwinex calculation. As a long term investor, it seemed very short sighted to me, when I looked at the correlation between LVS and ZXW some days/weeks ago, the value was low (didn’t take a screenshot, sorry). When I look at it today, it shows -0.55. So it seems too volatile.

I could be totally wrong here but I have a sense it doesn’t capture something I am really interested in, which is if two Darwins suffer/benefit from the same market cycle. So I did this.

I tried to visually capture the best and worst (multi-weeks) periods of each Darwin, with the intention to see if they suffer/benefit from the same market cycles. I am not trying to capture a 2 days DD here. This method has obviously has a lot of flaws but it helped me spot a possible correlation between LVS and ZXW, and then I just looked at them closer…

It’s not 1to1, but it made me (maybe wrongly?) conclude they are too much correlated to invest in both:

Also, their behavioural stats are similar. Both trade for about a day or more, similar stops ratio, similar frequency trade, similar assets.

So my conclusion was that LVS and ZXW are positively correlated, not a trade to trade level, but at trend level. And that’s why they share a position in my portfolio.


We are discussing on that statement. As I interpret their position, Bendex and Federico argue your statement is false. So I ask you…

What, do you think, are the fundamental reasons for which a Darwin that did very well on a given week/month is more likely to start losing than to keep winning?


Yes, there are darwins that behave well on sideways market, other that behaves well on trending market.
Some do well on high volatility some do well on low volatility.

The point is the we don’t know what will be the market in the future but on average there are cycles, so better not to invest after a good cycle for the specific trader.

It is almost impossible to pick a bottom but it is not so difficult to avoid an all time high… :wink:


100% agree. That’s why I find extremely interesting that one of the cofounders of Darwinex, @javicolonbo states in public that they have quantitatively demonstrated that is not a good idea to buy Darwins on peaks.

What do you think of my thoughts on why I think the “coinflipping case” is not valid here?

1 Like

Weeks are coinflips, maybe months are coinflips, but quarters and years are not coinflips.
Their results depends on how well a strategy is fitting the market.
Good and bad cycles tend to alternate, like seasons.

1 Like

But what about the frequency of trades. Surely a trader that makes 12 trades a year could be considered a coin flip in the same way as a trader that makes 12 trades a day, or week.

It has not to do with frequency but with time and fundamentals.
If a given quarter/year is volatile it will be no matter your trading frequency.
Summer lasts the same time no matter how many times you go swimming. :slight_smile:
If you fix the ruleset the performance will depend on the market.

Hey @Qaytarlah

I totally agree with you, you cannot compare a trading strategy to a coin flip. My example was only used to create a game with positive ROI and ask if you’d still wait for a drawdown, before investing.

Also, as CavaliereVerde pointed out in different terms, trading strategies do well only with certain market conditions. Since market behavior is not always the same, you can expect that, during some periods, the strategy is not performing at the best, facing a drawdown.

I take my IRY as example.
IRY performs at the best during trends and, generally, when volatility is high. In November 2019, market was dead. Very small movements, mostly in ranges. IRY closed the month at -1.99%.
December 2019 has been a very good month, especially for GBP/USD, with the election in UK. IRY closed the month at +11.49%.

Now, investors might think: “this guy just had an incredible month, I’m not stupid, I’m not gonna buy it now. I will wait for next drawdown”.

January: +3.12%
“Ok, drawdown should be around the corner, let’s wait!”

February: +4.88%
“Oh, that’s unfortunate. At this point, I wait for a big drawdown in March.”

March: +4.03% so far

The point is: how long are you going to wait before investing? You already missed a profit of 12.03%, from the end of December 2019, where you were waiting for a drawdown.
Do you think that next drawdown will make up for the 12.03% profit that you have missed?

This is my point and my opinion :slight_smile:


Yeah, I’m with you.

It’s better to invest when a darwin is in a current drawdown” I’ve read the argument many times before on this platform, every time it catches my attention and I quickly come to the same conclusion as you.

Some experienced investors are treating the drawdown in the equity curve of a trader as if it were the same as a pullback in a market trend where you usually start a position with a better price but the psychological reasons why the one and the other happen are not the same.
And your example is the proof.

Meanwhile some novice investors are probably buying high and selling higher, doing the right thing unknowingly and by chance (and of course losing money in other cases as well).

The thing is that investors can only pray that they have chosen genuine traders behind their darwins and protect themselves by creating a diversified portfolio and/or using stops in case sh!t happens… but coming in at just the right time and blindly (with no direct contact with the trader) is a matter of luck (only traders “kinda” know what the future might really hold in terms of P/L).


IN a DD! Never! That’s the highest risk to lose immediately!
I also read that too often and I think: take care about your wording. To buy AFTER a DD could make more sense, but who is able to tell when the DD is over? Funnily enough nobody of the Darwin sales monagers used this wording. :slight_smile: