Watch HowardCohodas Trade Index Options Credit Spreads

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is impossible to make 65% return from 60 trades that yield on average a .2% return.

Asked and answered. Your questioned is overruled. Again!

Did you read my post in response to this repeated question where I used "puzzled" in the first sentence? I've given you a search term, but you must do some of the work to back up your claims, don't you think?

If the answer to "Did you read" is no, then read it.

If the answer to "Did you read" is yes, then reread it.
 
Asked and answered. Your questioned is overruled. Again!

It wasn't a question Howard - it was a statement.

Did you read my post in response to this repeated question where I used "puzzled" in the first sentence? I've given you a search term, but you must do some of the work to back up your claims, don't you think?

If the answer to "Did you read" is no, then read it.

If the answer to "Did you read" is yes, then reread it.

Yes - I re-read it. Apparently the .2% is bigger now :rolleyes:

The .2% number that seems to hold such interest was not provided unsolicited. It came as a result of a question I was asked. And I reported it as one spread (two options) relative to the size of my account as of today. Since the account is larger now than when I opened it, that number (.2%) would have been larger for a smaller size account. Even though weeklies are in pre-production, you cannot make any inference from what I reported regarding the number of options involved.

Regardless of how big your .2% is, it is still .2%.

It is impossible to make 65% return from 60 trades that yield on average a .2% return.

It seems you are saying that when asked for average return for your trades, you didn't state in terms of average return an trade gave you on the account at the time but the average return of a trade in relation to current account size.

I think you slipped up there, didn't you Howard?
 
It wasn't a question Howard - it was a statement.
Point taken. It is a statement and it is accurate.

And it has nothing to do with anything I have said regarding the positions I take and their contribution to the profitability of the account. Selective quotes without context from my posts will not make it so.

Yes - I re-read it. Apparently the .2% is bigger now :rolleyes:
No it isn't. Without context eyerolls are cute but unpersuasive.

Regardless of how big your .2% is, it is still .2%.

It is impossible to make 65% return from 60 trades that yield on average a .2% return.
Yes it is and it is still irrelevant to any analysis of my trading. Go back and reread the entire post. I'll give you an additional hint. It has to do with number of options for each position (spread).
 
03 JAN 2010 Trading Plan

2010-12-31_journal.png


03 JAN 2010 Trading Plan

I thought a detailed review was timely to focus on the trading planning process. My trading plan for the day is largely derived from this Dashboard.

There are two areas of importance when making my trading decision; areas of opportunity and areas of jeopardy.

Opportunity - IC
In areas of opportunity we have two columns; IC and Spread P/L. The IC number is just a serial number of potential Iron Condors in my trading since I started trading this strategy in the account I report on in this journal. "Potential" Iron Condors, because it is not always possible to find a companion spread with acceptable risk and credit. However, as can be seen in today's Dashboard, most spreads have their companion.

When the cell containing the IC number is highlighted in yellow, that indicates to me that is a spread without a companion. Thus I will examine these opportunities to complete the Iron Condor if the conditions meet my requirements.

The attraction of forming an Iron Condor is that the companion spread will earn an additional credit without adding to the funds quarantined (sometimes called margin requirements). Some caution is still required as it does result in some additional risk.

Opportunity - Spread P/L
I track the Spread Profit/Loss in this column. The focus here is that there is opportunity when the spread nears its maximum profit, especially early in the life of the spread. In this column, I highlight the cell if it exceeds 80% of its maximum profit. You will note that spread number 39, a PUT in IC 17, is currently at 89% of its maximum possible profit.

When this happens I try to roll the spread. I.E., I will try to close the spread that has neared its maximum profit and open another closer to the underlying price. This means I earn another credit on the same series with the same quarantined funds.

Note IC #15. Spread number 33 was closed having reached 86% of its maximum profit and yielded 8.1%. Spread #48 replaced it and has already reached 67% of its potential with 17 days still left before expiration.

I have had as many as 5 spreads make up an Iron Condor due to rolling and have ended up earning over 50% return in one case.

The spread could also show a loss, however that is not dealt with here, but in the Jeopardy section.

Jeopardy - Probability of Touching
Our next area of focus for our daily plan is areas of jeopardy. The first is the probability of touching. This metric is a proxy for an estimate of my chances of having to close (bail out of) a spread at a loss. It uses information about current price, volatility, days to expiration, etc. to create its value.

This metric is meant to function as the "canary in the mine," giving early warning to upcoming required action.

Jeopardy - Days Until Expiration
The days until expiration is not a metric of danger as much as an indicator that managing these spreads require more time and attention. Some will choose to exit the spreads before the last week to avoid the extra work involved in managing during this period. They may have a work schedule that does not permit this level of effort, or they may not be confident in their skills in determining when to exit and when to let the spreads expire.

I let the spreads expire if the conditions are good. Good conditions in this context is a probability of touching of less than 10%. Otherwise there is a market gap risk between the time the options cease to trade and their evaluation at expiration. The RUT for example takes two days. For index options (the only underlying instrument I trade) market gap risk must be carefully considered before making the choice to exit the spread or let it expire.

Jeopardy - At Risk P/L
The capital at risk when trading credit spreads is the difference in strike prices less the credit received. It is approximately equal to the funds your broker will quarantine (margin) to protect them from the trader suffering maximum loss. "Approximately" as they often round up for their convenience.

At risk P/L is my key focus in risk management. If it exceeds 20%, I will issue an "at the market" closing order on that spread. Since I am bailing out of this spread without any protection, I may suffer as much as 30% depending on bid/ask spread.

So here we go with today's trading plan.
Opportunity - IC
Spread #68 is not yet paired to complete an Iron Condor. This is a weekly option series and this is Monday, so there is still time to complete this Iron Condor if conditions permit.

Spread #61 is also unpaired and their 45 days left until expiration.

Opportunity - Spread P/L
Spread #36 has reached 89% of its maximum profit, so a roll will be considered. The 89% is based on the Mark price, so bid/ask spread realities may not permit closing the spread at this level. Furthermore, a spread worth rolling to must be available before making this decision. In my experience, only rarely will a spread be closed and a new spread will no longer be available.

Jeopardy - Probability of Touching
No areas of concern at this time.

Jeopardy - Days to Expiration
One area of special attention. Spread 68 will expire in 4 days.

Jeopardy - At Risk P/L
No concern at this time.
 
Last edited:
How do I get these pretty smart people who have a lot to offer me in terms of their experience, to do some homework rather than ask the same questions repeatedly or repeat the same inaccurate statements repeatedly? Wise counsel is always welcome.

I'm going to hunt around for the description Howard.

In my opinion, I think MR, DT and others are struggling to understand what your performance metrics because you have deviated from commonly understood ways of measuring performance - like you've created your own unit of measurement rather than adopted common parlance that we all understand.

Capital, maximum capital at risk (expressed in % with base as capital), max risk per trade (expressed as % with base capital) and performance (expressed as % return with base capital) are what's commonly used.

Anyway, I'm off hunting....
 
Found the post....

So, if I've got this right using spread 36 as of today, that would provide you an 8.8% return on the capital at risk for that trade.

Your baseline for measurement is not percentage return for entire capital base, it is percentage return for capital at risk.

Please tell me I've got it......
 
Found the post....

So, if I've got this right using spread 36 as of today, that would provide you an 8.8% return on the capital at risk for that trade.

Your baseline for measurement is not percentage return for entire capital base, it is percentage return for capital at risk.

Please tell me I've got it......

Perfect.
 
So, is the equity chart in this post HC's performance based upon a percentage return against capital at risk and not total account equity?
As your question illustrates, that chart adds confusion rather than removes confusion and I may remove it, since I host it. :)

What is reported in the Dashboard is a view of return from the point of view of the spread and the Iron Condor of which it may be a part. This is without consideration for trading costs.

The month on month return, my replacement for the total equity chart, is meant to show total return in my account including the effects of trading costs, reserve capital and how I apportion my capital among the various spreads, i.e., money management.

Is your capital at risk per trade the same for each trade (i.e. is your baseline for performance consistent)?

Not necessarily.

I have this model regarding trading systems that they are composed of at least two key components; the trading strategy and the trader. A successful trading strategy can still lead to a failed trading system if the trader fails to perform well.

I believe I may have found a successful trading strategy. I look to those with much more experience than I to help me understand its possibilities and its limitations. Many have been generous in their attempt to educate me and I suspect some are frustrated and some of the stuff I still don't get.

I try to characterize the strategy's risks as I understand them. I describe my methods and criteria for entry, methods and criteria for managing and the methods and criteria for closing these trades. This encompasses the strategy party of the system.

As discussed above, I show the results of using this strategy in my account with my risk tolerance and my money management skills.

Issues of money management are one of the purviews of the trader. That is not in the scope of this journal. I don't believe one trader can teach another to be a trader. I do believe that one trader can teach another a strategy which can be a key component of a successful trading system.

Where I seem to get into the most trouble here is when I answer questions that mix the two components of a trading system and rather then demur, I go ahead and answer them without context. Now that I have come to better understand the implications of mixing the two components in one answer, I shall try to avoid it here.
 
Can you see that any performance measurement needs an absolute and consistent denominator to make it meaningful?

For example, let's say I take a trade per month. In month 1, I choose to put $5000 at risk and this trade nets me a $7500 return - I was rewarded 1.5 times what I risked or 150% using your chosen performance metric.

In month 2 I choose to risk $30000 and this trade nets me a $7500 return - I was rewarded 0.25 times what I risked or 25% using your performance metric.

I then show a graph of two months performance with month 1 @ 150% and month 2 @ 25%

Can you see how the information does not purvey the essence of the strategy because the lack of consistency in the capital @ risk makes the numbers meaningless in terms of strategy performance?

On a trade by trade basis, trade 2 is lunatic for a directional strat.

Can you not see that your performance measurements, without a consistent denominator across all trades taken make your %ages completely irrelevant in terms of performance? All that can be derived is that you have roughly < 1:10 risk reward ratio per trade.
 
Last edited:
I think what you're saying and paraphrasing is this then:

HC has a credit spread strategy that generates +ve returns in relation to capital @ risk of circa 65% over 4 months. The risk:return ratio per trade is < 1:10 but the strat generates a very high win rate (48 out of 52 trades) and losses are capped at 30% of capital at risk through trade management. Please figure out your own risk per trade in relation to your account size which will determine the expectancy of this strat, I am not covering money management or trade management.

Fair?
 
So if I'm understanding this: IF Howard had risked, say, 10% per trade, he would have made 6.5% in 4 months, and I'm guessing that that 30% loss would of been 3% of his account gone.

Correct?
 
So if I'm understanding this: IF Howard had risked, say, 10% per trade, he would have made 6.5% in 4 months, and I'm guessing that that 30% loss would of been 3% of his account gone.

Correct?

I think so Hotch. It also fits in with what I have read about IC strats on index options where you have a really high win rate generating little and often. Flip side is that trades that go offside can wipe out your profits easily if not managed well.
 
I think what you're saying and paraphrasing is this then:

HC has a credit spread strategy that generates +ve returns in relation to capital @ risk of circa 65% over 4 months. The risk:return ratio per trade is < 1:10 but the strat generates a very high win rate (48 out of 52 trades) and losses are capped at 30% of capital at risk through trade management. Please figure out your own risk per trade in relation to your account size which will determine the expectancy of this strat, I am not covering money management or trade management.

Fair?

That's really close. My quibbles are small.

The overall performance of the account should be understood as the result of compounding. That's why I now believe that month on month performance is more meaningful for a cash flow strategy.

I would think that expectancy could be figured out by looking at the probability of winning and the average win and the probability of loss and the average loss. I don't see any need to include account size here.

That I'm not covering money management is quite right. Not sure what trade management particulars you are referring to.
 
So if I'm understanding this: IF Howard had risked, say, 10% per trade, he would have made 6.5% in 4 months, and I'm guessing that that 30% loss would of been 3% of his account gone.

Correct?

65% not 6.5% in four months. That is also compounding results. That's why I believe month month return presents a more honest picture.

However, consider that the number of spreads in play at the current time is 13. And the funds are not equally divided.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top