Hi Mark,
Glad to hear you don't bet the farm. ^_^
I was
trading probably before the 'Wizard' writers were out of
high
school.
And I believe Richard Dennis, whose successes
were kind of the
inspiration for those books, eventually tapped out,
as in blew the
whole bankroll. Pardon me if I have that
wrong.
Nobody gets those returns consistently, and the basic
reason behind
that statement being clearly true should be obvious:
The geometrical
growth of the money would soon have such a successful
trader with
such a large amount of capital that percentage return
gets
progressively more and more difficult to keep in the
stratosphere.
Eventually, position sizes become a problem because of
market
liquidity. Or did you harken onto the grail? ^_-
Look
at Warren Buffet's problem ... too much cash, not enough
qualifying
opportunities. And he's not even a trader.
Of course, you could
be talking un-compounded. But I still have
serious doubts about
sustainability.
I stand by my statement that outsized returns,
particularly the
super-jumbo outsized, require outsized risk. I
haven't seen any
cases in which that risk didn't ultimately pose a
problem. And I
also stand by my opinion that percentage returns in
that league are
unsustainable. If they were not, a very few managers
would be
managing most of the world's capital. But that is not the
case.
Yuki
Tuesday, June 20, 2006, 9:36:27 AM, you
wrote:
MH> Yuki:
MH> Thanks for your kind warning.
However, you got it wrong. I am trading a strict mechanical system
including position sizing algorithm. So "bet it all" is not applicable
here. There were no big
bets and no big wins either. Just small bets
and small wins/losses, and a lot of them. Since you stated "nobody gets
those kind of returns", I would recommend that you read a few of
those
wizards/hitters books to get some inspiration.
MH> Good
trading,
MH> - Mark
H
