Every closed year red …?
correct, but he/she proves to be a responsible trader that know how to manage his account during years, many part of a trader life is more to know how preserve capital to be in the game then anything else…
we will see virtudes or not of filter to “catch” PYS ( surprisingly among 13 as they are now. I find 7 with almost 0 visibility and with all to be invested today… next days/weeks we will see) now all investors had the tools to catch good investments in appropriate time, (also when to sell them…)
all the best,
How is returning -10% in almost 6 years „good work“? I just don’t get if…
Is there more alpha in trader enduring bad times and trusting his trading with a significant amount of money or in a spectacular straight growing line?
Past return is easy to find.
If past return were a good indicator of alpha and future results there would be a crowd of profitable investors.
thk for your post, a good or bad work, of course is a personal opinion, absolutely nothing more, and all can disagree, but:
i design my filter ( i had many attempts in the past, and only effective this week with new darwins…), to had all that i think important to an investor, if you wont check criterion i had on it…, invest is all about the moment and how good and responsible traders face market conditions…, sometimes trade made profits, other no, but what matters is keep in the game ( know how to lose…)
so to make my point, besides that darwin is in “best” darwinex filters, now there are 13 of all darwins, one of them is on sold mode at the moment, but those 13, order by return last 3M, that darwin is in first place, one of the most shining star darwin is also on that filter at the moment, and it is in 10 place, so the filter must had something good, as it can join now invested a “making money machine” and a darwin that never make a profit year in 5 ( not the case of trader account +10%).
all the best,
New definition of alpha?
Bad over years?
Or are losses not bad?
I would say past returns are indicative of a good Trader, granted ist not the good old track record farming (I love that word, I learnt it through you @CavaliereVerde). Of course it’s never a guarantee as you as you say. In my opinion if a trader isn’t able to generate Risk adjusted above average Market returns,(SPX as a benchmark) I personally see little to no point in Investing. As pointed out the probability of that changing in the future is not very high. But that is just my 2 Cents
Past return is indicative of a guy that know how to show to investors what they want to see.
I am not saying that investing negative returns is the way to go but investors have to start to think different.
When you find a ugly trackrecord at least you know there are no manipulations.
If Return/DD were a good way to find alpha inventing DScore would have not been necessary.
Also DScore can be fooled but works better than return.
DScore is not enough to find alpha but works to find traders that are improving while on many “grails” all the return is at the beginning.
Dscore strongly depends on the performance of last 3m amd 6m , it can be luck of course but it can be also an improvement.
So you are saying if a native Darwin is successful ist basically Manipulation? Sorry thats hard for me to understand and a stretch!
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume you did not at all mean to imply this literally… there’s a better way to say this
Please let me be right in that assumption…
Ok I will reword:
Past return is too many times a product of playing with survivorship bias to show to investors what they want to see.
If you are referring to backtests, then this statement has some validity.
If you are referring to verified track records, it has no validity.
That’s why I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here… I think you’re trying to say something important, but painting everyone with the same brush, which I’m sure is not your intention or is it?
Think of it this way:
I’m reading your statement and thinking “Great, so by this definition, PLF’s track record is engineered to show investors what they want to see”.
See what I mean? Words are powerful things, they should be used such as to reinforce the point, not create confusion
Ok suppose I open 10 accounts on darwinex, after one year one is at +30% the other 9 are losers.
I turn the winner into a darwin,
Am I a winner?
The trackrecord is verified of course, it is real but not significant.
It is only the product of brute force farming, not relevant, not indicative of the alpha/skill of the trader.
You are not hiding your losing darwins, so the context of PLF is the right one, that is what investors have to learn: the context has more value than the trackrecord.
Now we’re getting somewhere … This captures your point better than the previous statement.
Now you should also state why you think it isn’t significant I’m genuinely trying to help you make your point clearer to the rest of the audience here, believe me.
Define “brute force farming” for the rest of the readers here, so they can contribute responses accordingly
But what if I was hiding them?
Then what do investors have to judge PLF?
It’s important to make this clear, so your claim invites adequate responses
It could be significant if you are aware of the reason why that strategy worked and the other 9 failed.
There you go, now you’ve added context to your argument, and provided an example of what you consider significant
By doing this, the reader can now respond better - previously, the reader (me) would pay zero attention to your claim
This is why I intervened here - to prevent a good conversation from potentially going bad
My opinion of you would be a bit lower but nothing dramatic.
And that is your absolute right, of course
I would simply counter your opinion with a verified track record going back to 2013
This is the choice that we need to give each other when making any claims on this forum.
When making a claim, it’s important that we do it so as to give everyone a chance to respond adequately
That’s all I wanted to say