Traders That Beat The System.

[Same Lazy Element]

I think this conversation is getting over my head and level of comprehension. All I was attempting to do was tell the OP it's possible as I know a trader who averages 2 losing days per year. Anything else I bow out and will concede to your points.

Dude, we are not fighting and I am not trying to score a point. I hear what you are saying, just simply that it's a multi-faceted business and there are so many ways to make money.

 

[trdes]

Dude, we are not fighting and I am not trying to score a point. I hear what you are saying, just simply that it's a multi-faceted business and there are so many ways to make money.

Ok, it's all good. There's a lot of people like that on these boards, so I was just going to concede if that was your angle. But it wasn't so I got caught assuming again. I do that a lot.

 

[ironchef]

Since we’re not talking about zero losses but “beating the system” then maybe @destriero would qualify since he had like 10x higher profit than drawdowns. Too bad the guy appears to be dead now (suicide?).
While even Renaissance’s Medallion had large drawdowns, implied by the recent book.

Ask @PoopyDeek, quite sure he is doing very well in this market. Pros love volatility, not like us retails.

 

[MattZ]

There are many databases of hedge funds and Managed Futures CTAs where they publically disclose the returns.
Get a list, then review and see if something fits.

My experience is that most do not have the minimums that good money managers require.

 

[MattZ]

Professional traders that evaluate other traders look at a minimal 3 year track record with some skin in the game. Not uncommon to have a stellar 1-2 years - than fade out or blow up.

Even if you made a million so what, big deal - the much harder part is keeping it & driving an equity curve north year after year.

They look for a lot more than what you mentioned. They look at AUM (Assets Under Management), the underlying strategy, margin to equity, Black Swan Events, trading background, and operational procedures.

I agree that a million AUM and a track record of two years is not a guarantee of success.

 

[Same Lazy Element]

My experience is that most do not have the minimums that good money managers require.

Actually, you likely don't want to invest there anyway. Think of it this way - an ideal strategy is the one that has consistent performance, does not blow up in the times of stress and has high capacity. Unfortunately, in the real world you can only have two out of three. That means if you see a fund with a consistent performance that is open to the public, it is probably selling tails in some form. Recent string of hedge fund blowups has shown exactly that.

 

[ValeryN]

Assuming that absolutely no one makes money in a market without losses - one of the greatest individual trader I know is Marsten Parker.

He started trading fulltime in 1998 with his own 100% mechanical/quantitative strategies. Over 22 years his average annual return is 23%, with only 2 losing years. From what I know - likely due to the impact of his family situation at the time and lack of attention to trading. Yes, even mechanical strategies need some level of supervision... His longevity and consistency are exceptional.

He is a very low key and doesn't have a significant online presence, though he has been recently interviewed by Jack Schwager and might be featured in the next Market Wizards.

Val

 

[MattZ]

Actually, you likely don't want to invest there anyway. Think of it this way - an ideal strategy is the one that has consistent performance, does not blow up in the times of stress and has high capacity. Unfortunately, in the real world you can only have two out of three. That means if you see a fund with a consistent performance that is open to the public, it is probably selling tails in some form. Recent string of hedge fund blowups has shown exactly that.

I do not share most trader's opinions and sentiment when it comes to discussing "consistency."

Successful funds and money managers are not consistent in the way most traders think. They don't have a fixed return per month or year that is consistent. What we can discuss about them are averages. We can say they averaged X per year or month after a Y period (which better be years). Also, they go through drawdowns, just like the market does now.

 

[Same Lazy Element]

Successful funds and money managers are not consistent in the way most traders think. They don't have a fixed return per month or year that is consistent. What we can discuss about them are averages. We can say they averaged X per year or month after a Y period (which better be years). Also, they go through drawdowns, just like the market does now.

You are still looking for "consistency", just define it differently from an average ET citizen. One way or the other, you are trying to relate profit of the strategy to the volatility of the returns (you can use Sharpe or whatever your favorite metric is).

My point is that these smooth returns are achieve at the expense of either safety of the strategy or at the expense of capacity. A capacity constrained strategy that is highly profitable would not be open to the public and likely to be ran as a prop endeavor. On the other hand, a money manager that has a smooth PnL profile and is open to the public is likely to be selling tails in some way.

PS. Everyone goes through drawdowns, it's the depth of the drawdowns that matters. The type of the drawdowns that were presented by Malachite, JD Capital etc is not really something you'd want

 

[ironchef]

Actually, you likely don't want to invest there anyway. Think of it this way - an ideal strategy is the one that has consistent performance, does not blow up in the times of stress and has high capacity. Unfortunately, in the real world you can only have two out of three. That means if you see a fund with a consistent performance that is open to the public, it is probably selling tails in some form. Recent string of hedge fund blowups has shown exactly that.

Would funds that buy tails be better bets then? Lumpy performance but outsize returns, e.g. Ackman.