CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 66 % 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.

Portfolio by Pulse07

Thank you @CavaliereVerde, there is one more mistake - the quote is alway the profit + 100 (where everyone starts) so again the example for FEG

2.1. quote 227,32
23.9. quote: 258,92

So the profit is 13,9%.

Thank you!

1 Like

It is much more simple and reliable to use the custom zoom . :wink:

1 Like

:grinning: haha this really works nice, thank’s again!

Hi! Great work!

I dont’ understand how you manage when a darwin starts with a Dscore below 70… like WFJ or UYZ… do you take only exit under 60?

Ok, I think the numbers are fine but the calculation not, as @purple stated. If I watch KVL returns since inception:

1/1/2018: return is 20.75%
23/9/2018: return is 52.35%

1/20.75*52.35-1 == 1.5229 == 152.29%

And this seems the problem. So:

KVL:
2/1/2018: 120.75
23/9/2018: 152.35

1/120.75*152.35-1 == 0.2616 == 26.16%

FEG:
2/1/2018: 227.32
23/9/2018: 258.92

1/227.32*258.92-1 == 0.1390 == 13.9%

Is this ok? Please let me know so I can update all the tables.

This is how a community works! :metal:

3 Likes

Yep. The problem is that I think I found a bug with the zoom and I can’t use it for all the darwins :confused: So while it is being fixed probably this is the easiest way.

1 Like

Great question, I forgot to explain. In those cases I just simply wait to the darwin to grow over 70. And then as soon as it goes below, I do as usual.

For instance, on 1/1/2018 KVL starts with 68.3. Then, on 4/1/2018 it gets 70.18. So from that moment I wait to “sell” until it goes below 70, below 65 and so on.

If a darwin D-Score doesn’t grows over 70, I don’t analyze it. I know that we’re missing some info here, but some compromise needs to be done…

So, there are 4 darwins that start below 70… do you buy them when they go above 70? and then analyze them with your method ?

1 Like

This is the reason why result of 70 are a bit flawed, theoretically they are correct but it acts as a take profit.

There are many reason to enter a darwin, it would be better to concentrate on DScore as safety stop more than a target, targets have nothing to do to with buy and hold.

No, I buy all of them on 1/1/2018. Then I wait until they go over 70 to start trying to sell it.

But you’re right, I see now the survivorship bias here. I know which darwins will go over 70 and which not, so I’m just buying the ones that will go over 70.

I guess that the only way to “fix” this test is only buy darwins that are already over 70, but we know that there are promising darwins and good ones that still are not there. So my test should only be taken as that, a test to know an exit indicator. I guess that the idea is to identify good darwins, buy them, and then wait until they grow over 70. If they don’t grow over that, another different exit strategy would be needed.

2 Likes

Exactly! One way should be to buy a darwin if it goes OVER 60 (let’s say that 60=6 is a sufficient score, like in school) and SELL it only if it goes below 50 (insufficient) … but if it does go over 70 then let the “trailing profit with dscore” rise to 65… if it goes above 75… rise it to 70 and then stop. Just mytwocents… I’m waiting for the latest “raw” data to be aviable to do some tests like this.

2 Likes

There are many ways to trade darwins but as a safety stop 70 does not make sense .
DScore is too unstable and not so accurate to be used in a tight way.

Probably it would not make sense neither trading darwins, trading should be something like : entry 65 stop 55 target 75
70 would be more suited as entry than as stop.
There is a ton of darwins floating between 60 and 80.

1 Like

Yes this now is correct.

Ok, table is fixed now. Portfolio by Pulse07

I agree with both statements, but still I don’t know if I’d use it as a take profit as you said, or not. I’ll need to think again about all of this.

Even @ignacio said that 70 was a good entry point (and I bet he knows what he’s talking about…):

"I use sth similar to find good entry opportunities:
Score > 70
DD in the last month higher than 5%
Equity Higher than 10k
Pf > 7
"

So I don’t know what to do :smiley:

2 Likes

IMO you shoud run the test only when the stop is below the entry.
For example 70 will be blank (=0) for KVL and WFJ
65 will be blank for WFJ .
Many times 70 is s good entry or even 65 but if they are good entries they cannot be good exits.
Many investor prefer a 65 and 3 years of trackrecord than 75 and one year and it makes a lot of sense.
So while 50, 55 and 60 make sense almost always , 65 and 70 make sense only if the average DScore of the portfolio is very high.

As I said before, I find that the performance rating is too volatile and that it has too much importance in the D-score.
So I removed the filtering by D-score and Pf.
I created 2 filters to replace the 4 filters I used until now.
The darwins that were present in the old filters are allmost all contained in the new ones.

FILTER 1 (La<7.5):
Risk Stability Score: 7.5 - Max.
Loss Aversion Score: Min. - 7.5

FILTER 2 (La>7.5):
Risk Stability Score: 6 - Max.
Loss Aversion Score: 7.5. - Max

COMMON TO BOTH FILTER:

Risk Adjustment Score: 7.5 - Max.
Return Last Year: 5 - Max.
Experience Score: 10 - Max.
Market Correlation Score: 8 - Max.
Number of trades Last month: 1 - Max.
Investors Currently: 2 - Max.
Days in Darwinex Current: 180 - Max.
Monthly divergence Current: -0.5 - Max.

I also decided to increase the number of Darwins in the portfolio to try to improve diversification.
The investment by darwin is now $ 200.
It is usually not advisable to diversify a portfolio as much, but I think there is much less correlation between Darwins than other types of investment.

In addition, it seems difficult to eliminate potentially dangerous darwins from selection.
As a result, I think that the higher the number of Darwins, the more the underperformance of one of them has an impact on the portfolio.

However, many strategies exploit recurring movements in one way or another.
As a result, when the market behaves in an unusual way, it is likely that many Darwins suffer from it simulataneously, even if they use very different strategies and with a very weak correlation.

So it is not certain that greater diversification brings more stability, but I think the experience can be interesting.

For the month of October, the portfolio contains :
ABH AQA AVI BAS CBH CBY CSP DCD DLI DZL ERQ FEG FER GTD JMP KGL KVL LDZ LLZ LVS LZB LZL MIZ MYQ NSC NTI OLE ONE OSM OVL PLF PUZ PYC QUA SCN SKJ STP STV SYO THA UEI ULI VFL VLS VRT VVC XYF YZF ZTY

Darwins sold :
ICX EZX UYZ OOA IGX IDT TGB SCQ

Darwins bought :
QUA XYF VLS LZL JMP LZB ZTY YZF DCD PLF KGL VFL LLZ LVS ULI NSC OSM LDZ CSP FER VVC MIZ AVI PFI

Have a nice day.

4 Likes

Great post @Pulse07 :slight_smile:

Quick note (for your benefit):

$LZL and $PLF have exactly the same underlying strategy, and are therefore fully correlated.

I’d advise that you remove your investment from one of them so as not to unintentionally experience twice of any outcome (good or bad) :thumbsup:

2 Likes

Thank you for this information.
But I want to manage this portfolio in a very passive way, without taking into account the correlation because it would take too much time.
I will do it if an easier-to-use tool is available.
In the meantime, I think the large number of Darwins in the portfolio should limit correlation issues.

In this regard, I think it would be interesting that when we buy a Darwin, a list of the most correlated Darwins contained in the portfolio appears.
And that those who are also offered by the same provider are highlighted.

An alert that would indicate that Darwins contained in the portfolio exceed a certain threshold of correlation could help me too.

3 Likes

For the month of November, the portfolio contains :
ABH AVI BAS BOT CBH CBY CEM CSP DCD DLI FEG GTD JMP KGL KVL LDD LDZ MYQ NSC NTI OLE ONE OOA OSM OVL PFZ PPA PUZ PYC QUA SCQ SDO SKJ STP STV SYO TGB THA UEI ULI UYZ VLS VRT VVC XYF YZF ZLA ZTY ZXW

Darwins sold :
AQA DZL ERQ FER LLZ LVS LZB LZL MIZ PLF SCN VFL

Darwins bought :
UYZ OOA ZLA BOT PPA SDO TGB CEM LDD SCQ ZXW PFZ

Have a nice day.

5 Likes

For the month of December, the portfolio contains :
ABH AQA ASY AVI BAD BAS CBH CBY DCD DZL EXA FGC HZY JCW JMP JMW KGL KVL LDZ MMQ MYQ NNI NSC NTI OLE ONE OOA PFZ PPA PUD PUZ PYC RVL SCQ SKJ STP STV SYO SZR TGB TRU UEI VLS XYF YZF ZTY ZXW

For the moment the result of this portfolio is disappointing.
Too many darwins are suffering at the same time.
Diversification does not bring the expected result.

But I think that sort of natural selection will end up happening.
The bad darwins will naturally come out of the selection, while the good ones will tend to stay there.
If all goes well, the monthly turnover should therefore decrease as the proportion of potentially interesting Darwin increases.
However, even if this happens, it is not certain that this is enough to make the portfolio profitable.
Time will tell.

Have a nice day.

3 Likes