He probably amended the notional funding requirements on his ddoc, hence the change in proforma reported returns. CTAs do that quite often and I don't think there's anything nefarious going on here.
Isn’t retroactively changing returns (to reflect the increase in notional funding) somewhat disingenuous?
Yeah, right. After the "dot.com" bust, many lost 83-97% of their capital. Not everyone "has the stomach" for that.
Duh. Seriously? Do you also visit local jails and ask crooks to admit to their wrongdoings? And why do you think I posted this information? Because it's visible to everyone on their own website? I did post the exact source in my original message, the screenshots were circulating between traders before and after the fact.
%% Good pic\ good post Nobert. Not everyone has the brains/ guts or work habits to average 29+ %%+ run 13 million to 14 billion, in 13 years .[fibo # LOL]
Well many times we do get the same information when we go to the same website. It is strange that his tail reaper strategy didn't kick in to mitigate the losses. I guess it's either the tail reaper strategy is not profitable enough or his theta scraper strategy is making too much losses, so much that it's not able to be covered by the tail reaper strategy IF it's making positive returns. Like I said, I hope he is not doing naked shorts like many who have failed before him have done. It is disturbing that he has gone back retroactively over one year to average out the drawdowns to make it look like it's not as big as it's incurred. This is almost like what Karen the Supertrader did. Is this allowed in the fund management industry? To average out the returns to mask some drawdowns?
If he reduced his past gains the same proportion as his past losses, the return/risk stays the same and I see little problem (as long as you don't run into geometric issues, like reducing a 100% loss to 50%).
That's what I thought. But for some people who just can't afford the drawdowns that's going to be an issue.