Taking 103K to 1.2million by Year End 2008

[Cutten]

Quote from IluvVol:

With all due respect for Neke, statistically he is about 5 in 100 who made it this far (especially with the risk he is dragging along), and this comment should make it clear that I even respect him the more for his outstanding performance.

But lets be clear about the fact that this is an outstanding and exceptional performance most others dont have the stomach and mentual make up to mimic his returns. Also, I think its bullocks to use Neke's returns to criticize the comment below, whoever may have given it. I also find it laughable to hear each and every week some wannabe traders and high school kids who made Neke to their new trading-guru. Neke's risk levels make it very clear that he has got to endure some very nasty drawdowns (which he already went through) and that there is a risk of complete blowup should he hit a streak of losing trades that exceeds statistical normalty.

I am not one of those doomsday sayers and proclaim a sure blow up for Neke but what I do say is that his performance is a direct function of an extremely high risk level he is accepting to take. Most here love the returns but dont want to take the risk -> This does not go together!!!

I will predict he either blows up, or (if lucky) he realises the risks being run at some point and scales down his size beforehand.

Constant adventuring will leave you broke, and the longer you get away with it, the more likely it becomes, due to overconfidence. I know of no exceptions, and the logic is basic maths/stats, so I don't see why neke would escape this fate when tens of thousands before him have not.

There is a reason why *every* trader with a long, successful track record emphasizes risk control. That's because without it, you don't get to have a long, successful track record in the first place. Notice the lack of uber-traders who say "Sure, risk 5-10% per trade, and 20% down weeks are just the price of doing business". There are old traders, and there are bold traders, but there are no old, bold traders.

 

[Cutten]

Just to clarify my last post, I don't mean this as a personal attack of any kind, it's just my view on the whole notion of taking big punts in trading. Too many people who would otherwise be successful - and keep their gains - have got badly burned by constantly swinging for the fences.

 

[kxvid]

Quote from neke:

Based on current balance, I should be mopping up 150K in two week's time.

Watch out on low volume next week. Money flowing like water = bad because guard goes down.

 

[riskfreetrading]

Quote from Cutten:

I will predict he either blows up, or (if lucky) he realises the risks being run at some point and scales down his size beforehand.

Constant adventuring will leave you broke, and the longer you get away with it, the more likely it becomes, due to overconfidence. I know of no exceptions, and the logic is basic maths/stats, so I don't see why neke would escape this fate when tens of thousands before him have not.

There is a reason why *every* trader with a long, successful track record emphasizes risk control. That's because without it, you don't get to have a long, successful track record in the first place. Notice the lack of uber-traders who say "Sure, risk 5-10% per trade, and 20% down weeks are just the price of doing business". There are old traders, and there are bold traders, but there are no old, bold traders.

I have a different view on Neke's account/trading:

1. It is not necessarily inconsistent with money management a-la Kelly. Kelly's fraction can also have people throw up.

2. I am also not ruling out that what we see is just 1/4 of Neke other assets. So his ground is not zero, but probably 400K (which may be dorment somewhere earning a little but safe). I did not read all what Neke wrote, but if he wrote that is all he owns, then I will believe it, and he would be a very/too brave man!

 

[neke]

Quote from riskfreetrading:

I have a different view on Neke's account/trading:

1. It is not necessarily inconsistent with money management a-la Kelly. Kelly's fraction can also have people throw up.

2. I am also not ruling out that what we see is just 1/4 of Neke other assets. So his ground is not zero, but probably 400K (which may be dorment somewhere earning a little but safe). I did not read all what Neke wrote, but if he wrote that is all he owns, then I will believe it, and he would be a very/too brave man!

I shall take time to compute all the statistics, and respond to the issues, but attached here is the list of returns of all trades taken this year (since 1/13/2008 when this thread started), split between options and stocks. options are long calls and long puts, and stocks are long or short. For options and long stock the figure presented is saleprice / purchaseprice (so buying an option at 12 and selling at 20, gives 1.66666). For short sales, the figure is 2 - coverprice / shortprice (example short 100, cover 80, gives 1.20 (20% gain). No leverage (percentage of account used) is given, just the raw entry/exit prices.


Average leverage on options was 16.6% of equity balance at the time of trade, while for stocks it has been 83%.

I guess the question to be answered is : what percentage of account could I have used on the options per trade, and on the stocks per trade, to maximize returns, assuming these trades were sequential (one completed before the other). Have I exceeded that limit in reality?

 

[neke]

Quote from riskfreetrading:


1. Why you do not work with ITM options (sell ITM calls instead of buying puts for instance)?

For options I prefer to know my maximum risk beforehand. That is determined by the premium I pay for the calls or puts, so basically I only go long,

never short.

Quote from riskfreetrading:



2. If you can look at your money management, how does it compare to Kelly's fraction? (are you above it or below it).

See the answer below

Quote from riskfreetrading:



3. If you can give your ratios: prob of win, average win, average loss, it would be good!

I took time to analyse my trades till date (1/14/2008 - 12/12/2008), and these are the statistics:

OPTIONS

Average win: 17.5%
Average loser : 18.5%

(Note the figure is based on cost price, not percentage of my total account. So if I bought at 10 and sold at 15, that is 50% win irrespective of the

leverage used).

Number of of Trades: 322
Win Rate : 63.04%


STOCKS

Average Win : 2.04%
Average loser: 2.46%

(Same comments on percentage as for options).

No of Trades : 805
Win Rate : 59.1%
---------------

I went ahead to determine the leverage for Options and Stocks separately, that would have maximized the returns assuming all trades were sequential, and

that I could have obtained the same prices irrespective of size. For options the maximizing leverage was 61% of account (simple spreadsheet simulation,

could be determined as well by differential calculus or kelly formula). At that leverage the options alone could have generated 6300% compounded. For

stocks the optimizing leverage was 156% of account. At that level the stocks alone could have generated 262% compounded. Compounding both stocks and

options at each of the maximum would generate a total compounded of 24000% (My head is spinning!). The draw-down associated with that would undoubtedly

be mind-boggling.

From my earlier statement on my average sizing it is apparent, on average, I am operating at way below the optimizing level. I am much more risk-averse

than Cutten and some other folks think!

Quote from Cutten:

I will predict he either blows up, or (if lucky) he realises the risks being run at some point and scales down his size beforehand.

I have given all the thoughts I possibly can about the risk level I am taking. I mentioned at the start of the thread I am operating at a level I could

expect a 40% draw-down. The maximum that has happened this year has been less than that! Last year it was about 50%. I am not sure what you are seeing

that I haven't already seen in all the 4 years since I bottomed in the market, and have been generating gains every year since then. I would appreciate

concrete analysis based on the facts presented rather than some notion that a fast run-up inevitably precedes a blow-up. If you are just throwing darts

without an edge, yes!, but if it is based on proven edge, I need a better explanation than that.

As the account grows, i will probably scale down the average size, not because of risk-aversion, but because of the impact of size. It would be silly

trying to exploit a 1% intra-day mis-pricing on a stock trading only $10million worth of shares per day with 100% of an account with $50million balance.

The slippage will simply wipe out the edge and more.

 

[Daal]

neke
what is your optimal F?as a long one stays very away from that, the only are risk big painful drawdowns

 

[riskfreetrading]

Quote from neke:

For options I prefer to know my maximum risk beforehand. That is determined by the premium I pay for the calls or puts, so basically I only go long,

never short.




See the answer below



I took time to analyse my trades till date (1/14/2008 - 12/12/2008), and these are the statistics:

OPTIONS

Average win: 17.5%
Average loser : 18.5%

(Note the figure is based on cost price, not percentage of my total account. So if I bought at 10 and sold at 15, that is 50% win irrespective of the

leverage used).

Number of of Trades: 322
Win Rate : 63.04%


STOCKS

Average Win : 2.04%
Average loser: 2.46%

(Same comments on percentage as for options).

No of Trades : 805
Win Rate : 59.1%
---------------

I went ahead to determine the leverage for Options and Stocks separately, that would have maximized the returns assuming all trades were sequential, and

that I could have obtained the same prices irrespective of size. For options the maximizing leverage was 61% of account (simple spreadsheet simulation,

could be determined as well by differential calculus or kelly formula). At that leverage the options alone could have generated 6300% compounded. For

stocks the optimizing leverage was 156% of account. At that level the stocks alone could have generated 262% compounded. Compounding both stocks and

options at each of the maximum would generate a total compounded of 24000% (My head is spinning!). The draw-down associated with that would undoubtedly

be mind-boggling.

From my earlier statement on my average sizing it is apparent, on average, I am operating at way below the optimizing level. I am much more risk-averse

than Cutten and some other folks think!



I have given all the thoughts I possibly can about the risk level I am taking. I mentioned at the start of the thread I am operating at a level I could

expect a 40% draw-down. The maximum that has happened this year has been less than that! Last year it was about 50%. I am not sure what you are seeing

that I haven't already seen in all the 4 years since I bottomed in the market, and have been generating gains every year since then. I would appreciate

concrete analysis based on the facts presented rather than some notion that a fast run-up inevitably precedes a blow-up. If you are just throwing darts

without an edge, yes!, but if it is based on proven edge, I need a better explanation than that.

As the account grows, i will probably scale down the average size, not because of risk-aversion, but because of the impact of size. It would be silly

trying to exploit a 1% intra-day mis-pricing on a stock trading only $10million worth of shares per day with 100% of an account with $50million balance.

The slippage will simply wipe out the edge and more.

Neke: I like what you are doing! Your ratios for options tell me that you selling $68.45 for $110.02 (if I did not make a miscalc). That is a profit margin of 60% on each trade.

I also like your analysis of size once you are heavier. I have a different analysis, that can help you determine your bar and horizon. I can share it with you in private.

I think that what you should do later is have two subpositions. The options account traded for lower holding periods, and a stock position with fatter bars and longer periods to address the question of stock capacity. You need more bodies to pay you, and since there is only a limited number of them during a day, going higher will allow you to milk more pockets. You will have a problem with options if you were to use them for longer period because of premium decay for longer holding.

I will PM you.

Also did you check how profitable you were on these occasions:

1. Options expiration day or day before.
2. Thursday for puts buying.

My guess is that your numbers should be better on these days.

Could you check this?

PS: Shortie: if you are reading this, imagine team: RFT+Neke. They should be able to clean the markets!

 

[ML_QUANT]

Quote from MandelbrotSet:


I know that if I had almsot half a mil in my account, I could effectively retire and have an extraordinary slush fund to trade with.

Is this why you are so resentful and envious of the more successful persons here?
I sincerely wish you would put aside your hatred and accept your present status, always remember the only person responsible for your failure in life, beyond yourself is your father and no one in this forum owes you anything for your short falls in education and life. Hence I don't think you should be trading utilizing the little sporadic income you have at times.
I hope you wouldn't engage in trashing this fine thread too, just continue with your ass licking and you'll be fine!

 

[neke]

Weekly Update for week 49 ended 12/19/2008

Good week, up 70K (16%).

Looks like a jinx for me on Mondays, always starting out on losses. Must be the eagerness to start making money after the week-end. Lost 17K total, shorting BIDU, longing SPY and a couple other trades.

Made some comeback on Tues, buying SPY on the rally after the fed cut, offset by my decision earlier in the day to short BBY after earnings.

On Thur, shorted 2000 FSLR at 138 (thought it had rallied too much). Covered later at 142, losing 8K. Came back Thursday, and the stock opened strong again, shorted 3000 @ 145, watched as it fell, bounced again to 143.5, hit it with another 3000 shares, and covered later in the day @ 135.70, netting 52K. Good revenge, although a bit overleveraged!

Friday enjoyed the rally on RIMM shares after earnings. After being beaten so much, it was obvious that any good news on earnings will be cause for a rally. Bought 8000 shares on open @ 40, closed 2 minutes later at 40.86, netting 7K (thought it was toooo fast!). Watched as it went higher, then pulled back to 41 shorted after noon, hit it with 10000 shares and exited an hour later at 42.33, netting another 12K.

Good note heading into the last trading week before the holidays.

Opening Balance:               	    	450,546
Net gain for the week 		         69,882
------------------------------------------------
Net Balance:                   		520,428
Number of Trades	            	 19
Number of Profitable Trades    	    	 13

Since Inception of Thread   01/13/2008 - 12/19/2008

Opening Balance:                   	102,615
Net gain (Less Margin Interest)		442,813
------------------------------------------------
Balance Before Withdrawal:            	545,428  (Up 432%)
Cash Withdrawal				-25,000
------------------------------------------------
Net Balance				520,428

Number of Trades	           	1146
Number of Profitable Trades        	 678


Top/Bottom Discretionary Trades for the week

TICKER	ENTRY DATE/TIME		EXIT DATE/TIME		QTY	PURCHASE AMT	SOLD AMT	GAIN/LOSS	TYPE

FSLR	2008-12-18-09-41-31	2008-12-18-15-25-09	6000	813319		865500		52176		SHORT
SPY	2008-12-16-14-39-38	2008-12-16-16-07-43	10000	898080		918000		19915		LONG
RIMM	2008-12-19-12-03-54	2008-12-19-13-09-32	10000	410000		423300		13298		LONG
RIMM	2008-12-19-09-30-52	2008-12-19-09-32-12	8000	320000		326990		6988		LONG
--------------------------------------------------------
SPY	2008-12-15-12-22-42	2008-12-15-14-13-18	10000	879000		874000		-5005		LONG
BIDU	2008-12-15-09-33-55	2008-12-15-10-03-08	3000	349410		342689		-6722		SHORT
FSLR	2008-12-17-10-45-47	2008-12-17-15-54-47	2000	283991		276000		-7993		SHORT
BBY	2008-12-16-09-05-34	2008-12-16-16-23-16	30000	812372		802588		-9789		SHORT