Is this track record good enough to attract new capital

Quote from newtraderg:

Intradaybill -

Thanks for your analysis and the results.

I double checked for dec 2009 and dec 2010 and the returns were indeed 13.88%

You are right I wonder myself if I just got lucky over the last 3 years. The main reason for that is I trade based on basic chart patterns and then I see all these people on TV or write articles with all kinds of big numbers and major analysis.
More...

You are just part of a ditribution of traders who base their decisions on such analysis, without a well-quantified edge.

IMO, you just got lucky. Others with your style weren't as lucky. It's not a matter of skill. It is a random process who wins and who loses with this style.

I cannot discount the possibility that you belong to a minority that can see things in charts other people do not see. However, I think with this style the mean monthly return, about 8% now if I recall the numbers, will start slowly reverting to zero.

There is also a posisbility of a sudden reversal to zero if the underline conditions that enabled you to match patterns and trades change.

I think that nobody would invest serious money in such trading style although you were straightforward and sincere to admit it and you did not claim of some fancy algo like others do, even well-known fund managers, some of them throw dice or darts actually.

My advice: invest the money you made in real estate and start with the same capital all over again. Something I failed to do when I was 35 and I was making 1 million in profits with 100k capital because I thought my method was robust. It broke down suddenly and I gave back all my profits in 6 months.
 
Quote from chipmunk:

why do you say this?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A start up fund now has virtually no chance of attracting any real institutional money at all.
More...


When I say "institutional money", I am refering to Pensions, endowments, Fund of funds's. Somethink like 90% of hedgefund allocations last year went to the sizeable funds (billion +). I guess its a safety issue - complience, etc. Maybe because a majority of the new start ups dont last. Probably a number of reasons but whatever it is, thats just how the business has gone.

That being said there are a few FoF's that will invest in emerging managers, but as I said before...dont expect much more than a couple mil.
 
Quote from jesseah:

When I say "institutional money", I am refering to Pensions, endowments, Fund of funds's. Somethink like 90% of hedgefund allocations last year went to the sizeable funds (billion +). I guess its a safety issue - complience, etc. Maybe because a majority of the new start ups dont last. Probably a number of reasons but whatever it is, thats just how the business has gone.

That being said there are a few FoF's that will invest in emerging managers, but as I said before...dont expect much more than a couple mil.
More...

The cost for infrastructure and system back ups demanded by institutions is simply cost prohibitive for start up funds. institutional money is a pipe dream for start ups, they would be much better served by pursuing the HNW market.
 
IT looks like you have some good numbers there.

Become a certified CTA

Commodity Trading Advisor to officially be able to trade others money.

Get series 63 and look up more information on it at the National Futures Association
 
Quote from intradaybill:

I statistical test for randomness in your returns produced a p-value of 0.4828, actually a terrible number that indicates that there is virtually no evidence against the hypothesis that your returns are simply due to pure luck (null hypothesis).

You have some huge outliers there, like a 56.82 return followed by a 37.54 return. Thus, a good chunk of the performance was distributed in a small region and the statistical algorithm catches that as potential luck.

If these two returns are set to 0, the p-value is improved to 0.1692, a drastic improvement but still not close to desired 0.05.

I also noticed that the number 13.88% can be found twice in your series. This is very peculiar also because it is for the last month of two consecutive years. Is this an error?

Since I am considered an expert in analyzing numbers for randomness and also fraud, I conclude that these are actual returns but the element of luck cannot be removed. There is no evidence of an edge at this point.

I suggest you continue for this and next year. IMO 5 years is a good sample for reaching rigid conclusions.
More...

Can you tell me how you tested for randomness? Also could you give a series of performance figures (you can make them up) which would indicate non-randomness? TIA
 
Quote from Visaria:

Can you tell me how you tested for randomness? Also could you give a series of performance figures (you can make them up) which would indicate non-randomness? TIA
More...

I cannot reveal my tests because I will lose part of my edge. testing for randomness is part of the edge one has, if any.

I have done several tests (for free of course) for several ET members who contact me via pm. Some of them have very good performance with p-values indicating strong evidence against randomness, i.e. they probably have an edge.

Of course, etsts are just that, tests, and they can leak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top