Drawdown measured tick by tick. E.g. if you lost 50% intraday during the 1987 crash then made it all back a few hours later, you still had a 50% drawdown.
Interesting results, thanks. The best hedge fund managers seem to do a bit better. IMO it is hard (at least with larger accounts) to compound at much more than your maximum drawdown e.g. if you keep drawdowns to 20% or less, it is pretty hard to exceed 20% annual compound returns.
Oh, what a bunch of jokers. Risk 20% probably means you'll make about that much. Trying to make 100% will usually cut you in half. And, I might add, if there were traders out there that do that, we'd have a lot more Warren Buffets. Since we only have one, I can safely assume there's probably only going to be one.
when you say "compound", does it mean the account used to trade keeps growing or is it kept in 7 figure range?
Totally depends on the trader of course. I would be very upset if I couldnt do 100% over that period of time.
it says the returns are annual, so it is clear that it is not total_return/20_years. what i don't understand is whether the working capital is presumed to stay the same (~7 figures) or grow with the profits. i think cutten meant to keep the account size stable and pocket the profits periodically. but by using "compound" he made this poll confusing (at least to me)
Keeps going. Otherwise, it's not compound returns. Oh, and I am asking for a *maximum*, not the average. I.e. I am talking about what is realistically possible as a best performance. Put simply, what would be the trader equivalent of Ty Cobb's batting average.
Yeah, for maximum clarity I should have said "annualized" not annual. I just thought it was obvious what it meant, since annualized compound return is the way all long-term performance is measured. So I am talking about someone making say 30% and growing 1 mill to 190 mill over 20 years by compounding the return each year.