Signals. Account monitoring. - page 4
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
The leverage used, or in one figure, the maximum leverage used is a good indicator of risk. You look at the peaks in the leverage graph (or the value of the max leverage) and you see how much risk the provider got for his returns. Even the actual drawdown is not so informative in risk evaluation.
Leverage is not an indicator of risk at all. There are systems that should work with high leverage. For example, there are lovers of triangles or synthetic spread trading. They create a portfolio that is close to the market-neutral, which loads the deposit up to the eyeballs, but it won't lead to the deep drawdown.
On the contrary, there are long-term investors, i.e. forced investors that opened a position with a small lot six or six months ago and fell into a deep drawdown. The leverage used is minuscule and the drawdown is close to a stop out.
So leverage is not informative here, but only the actual drawdown in funds is a measure of risk.
No, I have absolutely nothing to do with this field. More than that: I am familiar with it and therefore want nothing to do with it.
So why are you diagnosing me?
And about the formula for calculating profitability. Let me repeat. It has been implemented in many places. There is no big problem here. The logic is simple. At certain intervals we calculate the profitability on open positions corrected for non-trading operations. What is the problem? Is it more complicated than for closed ones? Yeah... I guess.
And about the balance/equity thing. Yeah, well, there's that.
I don't know about the drawdown with balance sheet operations. But whatever.
I repeat, the main claim is to build "Gain" chart on closed operations. The rest is not so principal.
Leverage is absolutely no indicator of risk. There are systems that should work with high leverage. For example, there are lovers of triangles or synthetic spread trading. They create a portfolio that is close to market-neutral, which loads the deposit up to the eyeballs, but it does not lead to deep drawdowns.
On the contrary, there are long-term investors, i.e. forced investors that opened a position with a small lot six or six months ago and fell into a deep drawdown. The leverage used is minuscule and the drawdown is close to a stop out.
So the leverage is not informative, and only the actual drawdown is a measure of risk.
Well, that may happen. In simple trading approaches it is a good indicator. But all sorts of complex trading schemes of supposedly uncorrelated instruments also sometimes get stuck. In times of crisis, everything can sync up. The story of LTCM also allegedly unsinkable comes to mind. But never mind the shoulder. I agree and without it:)
You must be referring to equity on open trades (equity on open positions) - the third chart on each signal page (called "Funds").
This is from the article (as I understood the term "Funds" here is our usual equity on open trades)
Funds. The amount of funds in the trading signal's account at the moment.
Maximum drawdown of the signal as a percentage of the balance/funds.
I do not understand. Does"Maximum drawdown of the signal" count with adjustments for deposits/withdrawals?
I don't understand, does"Maximum signal drawdown" count with adjustments for deposits/withdrawals?
The equity of theopen positions is the equity.
If equity is negative in relation to balance, the maximum difference between them is the maximum drawdown.
The balance is the initial balance (independent of the deposits/withdrawals, i.e. the one that has been on the ball since the beginning.
The equity of the open positions is the equity.
If equity is negative in relation to the balance, the maximum difference between the two is the maximum drawdown.
Ababasit:). That's not clear at all:). I.e. drawdown is the difference between equity and balance, or between equity and maximum balance? Roughly speaking, are these just terminal indicators (balance/funds) or is there an adjustment for deposits and withdrawals?
Ababasit:). That's not clear at all:). I.e. drawdown is the difference between equity and balance, or between equity and maximum balance? Roughly speaking, are these just figures from the terminal (balance/funds) or is there an adjustment for deposits and withdrawals?
The difference between the equity and the balance is in percentages at a given moment. But there is a nuance: once a high drawdown threshold is reached, it is fixed and will not decrease when the balance increases.
The difference between equity and balance at a particular point in time. But there is a nuance: once achieved, the high drawdown threshold is fixed and will not decrease further when the balance increases.
Oh, I see. It turns out that the drawdown is not a drawdown:). Usually drawdown is calculated from the maximum yield. And it is calculated cumulatively. And here, if I fix a shorter drawdown (eg 1%), but the drawdown eventually by 90%, the drawdown will be the maximum of the drawdown (ie 1%)?
Ah, I see. It turns out that the drawdown is not a drawdown either:) Usually the drawdown is calculated from the maximum yield. And it is calculated cumulatively. And if we capture short drawdowns (e.g. 1%) and drawdown of 90%, the drawdown will be the maximal drawdown (i.e. 1%)?
This is where it is correct (we are talking about the maximal drawdown).
The difference between the equity and the balance as a percentage at a particular moment. But there is a nuance: once achieved, the high drawdown threshold is fixed and is not reduced further when the balance increases.
Ah, I see. It turns out that the drawdown is not a drawdown either:) Usually the drawdown is calculated from the maximum yield. And it is calculated cumulatively. And here, if I fix a shorter loss (eg 1%), but the drawdown eventually by 90%, the drawdown will be the maximum of the loss (ie 1%)?
You are wrong. If you take 90 losing trades in a row with a 1% loss, the drawdown will be 90%. No offense, but it seems that you are just deliberately looking for something to pick on. Instead of getting a proper understanding of your surroundings.
Drawdown is not only calculated by equity, but also by balance. The maximal drawdown is the maximal drawdown fixed as a percentage. It can be fixed both on equity and on unprofitable trades closed in a row.