Thread: Good returns realistic by trading with higher time frames?

I'm not sure whether it's within reach, or if I am dreaming.

I'd like to achieve two things simultaneously:
A fairly decent return of ten per cent consistently per month with low risk.
Yet not need to stress with lower times frames, ONLY trading daily charts.

I don't know if this is attainable, or (if it is) how to make it a fact.

Remarks, traders?

BTW my spelling of Probability is jacked up in those screens LOL! Excuse the spell check-less typing.

Originally Posted by ;

If Moody's says they are AAA rated, does not that imply they're??

Are you around the moon throughout the fiscal crisis?

Each of the CDO's were rated AAA, but actually they were much from that.

Originally Posted by ;

YOU're correct, I overlooked a zero. I supposed.

What does unlevered mean? You mean unleveraged?

For me, any reference to anything aside from yields ON YOUR CAPITAL, is misleading and pointless. My opinion.

My question was if it had been feasible to create on average 10 percent a month. That's about 200 percent per year, not 9, and that's the end of that.
I would much rather make 9 percent by simply investing in stock funds, than spend a whole year trading without a zero extra return, not stating inventory funds ALWAYS return , but you get the idea.

Incorrect, it's 313% per year, not 200 percent. Don't forget that you will compound your yearly yields.

For me, any reference to anything other than yields ON CAPITAL, is meaningless and misleading. My view.

Absolutely correct, try to pay your rent with your leveraged profits, it´s about the money in your pocket. .
10% a month is feasible, you would eventually become (if consistent), among the best traders ever.
And by the way, 95 percent of players loose (consistently), including most Funds. . .Big winner is obviously the broker, consistently.

My question was if it was possible to make on average 10% a month. That's about 200% per year, not 9, and that is the end of this.
I'd much rather make 9 percent by simply investing in stock funds, than spend an entire year trading for no zero extra return, not stating stock funds ALWAYS return , but you get the idea. [/quote]

Dice,

if you're able to perform 10 percent a month for 15 decades, you'll be one of the best traders in the world.

Everything is possible...

Most professionals aren't trading for the greatest return% low volatility is being traded for by them. They could make higher returns but that is what their institutional customers need. Clients aren't likely to spend.

The top CTAs in a given year typically return over 100% but you barely see the very same CTAs on top of the record for consecutive years.

You can find performance amounts in various areas and make up your own mind

http://www.barclayhedge.com/research...b/discret.html

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/83669414...-30th-june-_2_

PS. Just because your maximum drawdown has been 40% does not mean that you couldn't have a drawdown that is much bigger.

Originally Posted by ;

have you been on the moon during the financial crisis?

Each of the CDO's were rated AAA, but actually they were much from that.

This has been a joke in case you missed it...

Originally Posted by ;

incorrect, it is 313 percent a year, not 200 percent. Do not forget you will compound your yearly yields.

No, it is about 200% yearly gain, as I said.

Originally Posted by ;

To me, any reference to anything other than returns ON YOUR CAPITAL, is misleading and meaningless. My opinion.

Absolutely correct, attempt to cover your lease with your leveraged profits, it´s about the cash in your pocket. .
10 percent a month is feasible, you would become (if consistent), among the greatest traders in history.
And by the way, 95% of gamers loose (consistently), such as most Funds. . .Big winner is always the broker, always.

My question was if it was possible to make on average 10 percent a month. That is about 200 percent per year, not 9, and...

Part of the day job entails discovering levered vs unlevered returns, so knowing both is vital. My trading leverage is about 12x, my avg monthly return is 9% and normal drawdown is 20%. So yes, my money in the pocket gain is 9% of my account size per month, and that's been consistent over two years.

Now if 20 percent drawdown is too much (or to use my maximum, 40 percent ), then you're able to reduce my leverage in half to 6x and see I'd get a 4.5% return per month with a 10% average drawdown. Or use no leverage at all and get a 0.75% monthly return for a 1.7% drawdown. The unlevered return lets you find the relative risk/reward of a system, and then you can choose if you want to use less or more leverage to get a greater return or risk.

Originally Posted by ;

Most professionals are not trading for the greatest absolute return% they're investing for reduced monthly volatility. They could make yields but that is exactly what their institutional customers need. Customers are not going to spend with people who have 20 % drawdowns.

The best CTAs in a given year typically yield over 100% but you hardly ever see the very same CTAs on top of the list for consecutive years.

You can find performance amounts in a variety of places and make your mind

http://www.barclayhedge.com/research...b/discret.html

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/83669414...-30th-june-_2_

PS....

40% was my highest, but I left alterations whom I believe correct for that downturn. Since then I have maxed out at 25%. Forex is my risk money though, so I'm OK with the volatility. I would not tolerate this in my own retirement account.

Additionally, to forestall some of their criticism (10 percent for 15 years...), no amount of exponential growth is sustainable long term if it bigger than the growth of the world's markets. World GDP growth is forecast at little more than 3% p.a. so any fund growing fast than that will *eventually* absorb the full world market (it could take 100s of years) . A small account with a max used leverage of 12x can quickly grow to seven figures or bigger before growth becomes unsustainable, so that provides the sub-$10,000 accounts at least 6 years of growth.

15 Decades? lol. Not possible. Accounts in the 8 figure range would be difficult for retail Foreign Exchange brokers to service, I think.