[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [amibroker] Re: PositionSize / Capital



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links

Al

I originally did the study for finding stocks with low or high volatility compared to a norm. It progressed as after plotting the C v ATR I noticed that there was a common pattern over a wide range of stocks. I now have a defined measure of whether a stock is trading with high or low volatility relative to its peers.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Al Venosa [mailto:advenosa@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 8:22 AM
To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [amibroker] Re: PositionSize / Capital

 

Hi, Graham:

The empirical relationship you developed for ATR as a function of price is interesting, but I doubt one can make a universal statement of its veracity (and I'm not suggesting you are). ATR simply reflects the extent to which traders and the rest of the market bid up the price value of a given security. If the company suddenly comes out with an unexpectedly bad (or good) earnings report, the price will become highly volatile for an undefined period of time. This is due only to human (emotional) supply and demand forces and is independent of price. A $10 stock that just announced a huge earnings report or made a new discovery will shoot up very fast. As the price soars, so, too, does its volatility. This could just  as easily happen to a $100 stock (remember the "irrational exuberance" of hi tech stocks in the late 90s?). So, I really don't think one can make a general statement that price directly affects volatility. It is only a function of the excitement and/or uncertainty that traders impart to the underlying price. Volatility and uncertainty are synonyms. I like to plot the indicator 100*ATR(20)/C directly on the price chart to get a quick picture of the volatility of a given stock at any time. Typically, this figure may vary between 1.5 and 5% or more. Stocks whose ATRs are much higher than 5% of the price are considered highly volatile, regardless of the price. Just my 2 cents.

Al Venosa

Graham wrote:

Sorry I did not fully explain myself
Using ATR as a straight value is not overly meaningful to me. I much prefer
to use ATR v Price as a measure of volatility. I did a study a short while
ago into the relationship between ATR and price and found that the actual
values can be plotted to provide a statistical relationship of the type ATR
= n * C ^ m. Where m is a quadratic function of period for ATR ( m = a*p^2 +
b*p + c ) p is period length, a,b,c,n are constants
It is true the ATR increased with price but the relative volatility ATR/C
decreased.

Just my thoughts


Cheers,
Graham
http://e-wire.net.au/~eb_kavan/

-----Original Message-----
From: Pal Anand [mailto:palsanand@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 3:51 AM
To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [amibroker] Re: PositionSize / Capital



Really?  I just calculated ATR(14) for stock (Guess?, Inc. on NYSE)
GES. It is a $12.15 stock and the value was 0.608 and for AMZN
(Amazon.com Inc., on Nasdaq) which is a $40.13 stock and the value
was 1.317, more than double.

Because of this, ATR readings can be difficult to compare across a
range of securities. Even for a single security, large price
movements, such as a decline from $50 to $10, can make long-term ATR
comparisons problematical.

Just a refresher:

Wilder started with a concept called True Range (TR) which is defined
as the greatest of the following:

The current high less the current low.
The absolute value of: current high less the previous close.
The absolute value of: current low less the previous close.

If the current high/low range is large, chances are it will be used
as the TR. If the current high/low range is small, it is likely that
one of the other two methods would be used to calculate the TR. The
last two possibilities usually arise when the previous close is
greater than the current high (signaling a potential gap down and/or
limit move) or the previous close is lower than the current low
(signaling a potential gap up and/or limit move). To ensure positive
values, absolute values are to be applied to differences.

rgds, Pal
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Graham" <gkavanagh@xxxx> wrote:
> It is my experience that volatility is normally inverse to price
> Higher price = lower volatility
>
> Cheers,
> Graham
> http://e-wire.net.au/~eb_kavan/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pal Anand [mailto:palsanand@x...]
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 2:45 PM
> To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [amibroker] Re: PositionSize / Capital
>
>
>
> ATR shows volatility in absolute terms (cannot predict direction or
> duration, only activity levels), so, lower price stocks will have
> lower ATR levels than higher price stocks.  A $10 stock would have
a
> much lower ATR value than a $50 stock, hence, one would end up
buying
> more shares of the $10 stock than the $50 stock.
>
> rgds, Pal
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "danielwardadams"
> <danielwardadams@xxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I was gone most of the day so didn't have a chance to keep up
with
> > the posts.
> >
> > I agree that the results are the opposite of what one would
expect.
> I
> > think in the cases you cite, the formulas should be
> 100,000*Risk/ATR.
> > So if your risk tolerance is 2% and the ATR is 2, the position
size
> =
> > 100,000*.02/2 = 2000/2 = 1000 where the 1000 is shares of stock
and
> > is independent of the price of the stock, i.e., you can buy 1000
> > shares of ANY priced stock that has an ATR of 2 and your risk
would
> > be the same. In the case of the $50 stock, your position equity
> would
> > be $50*1000 = $50,000 when ATR=2. Similarly, you could buy
> > twice (not half) as much of the stock when ATR=1.
> >
> > Although the position sizing being independent of the price of
the
> > stock seems counterintuitive, I just reread the chapter in Van
> > Tharp's book on this ("Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom") and
I
> > think that's the way it's supposed to be.
> >
> > I'm not sure what this means for our 20% maximum position equity
> > allocation (to achieve diversification).
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Al Venosa <advenosa@xxxx> wrote:
> > > Ed:
> > >
> > > Your formula doesn't make much sense to me. The term
stoploss/ref
> > (C,-1)
> > > is simply the volatility of the stock, expressed as a fraction
of
> > the
> > > price, times a multiplier. Thus, for a $50 stock whose ATR is,
> say,
> > 2
> > > (highly volatile), and if you are using a multiplier of 2 with
an
> > equity
> > > of $100 K, then your positionsize statement specifies that the
> > position
> > > size of the trade will be only $8,000 (100,000 * 4/50). For a
> less
> > > volatile stock (one whose ATR is only 1), then your
positionsize
> > would
> > > be only $4,000. So, you are allocating less money for less
> volatile
> > > stocks and more money for more volatile stocks, and the amount
> > allocated
> > > in each case is tiny relative to your equity. This is the
> opposite
> > of
> > > what volatility-based trading is all about. Did you leave
> something
> > out?
> > >
> > > Al Venosa
> > >
> > > ed nl wrote:
> > >
> > > > well I just mentioned this because the range is rather
narrow. 
> > When
> > > > testing this MM stuff on my system I noticed that it behaved
> very
> > poor
> > > > especially between 1998 and 2001. This is exactly the period
> the
> > > > markets were very volatile. SInce volatility reduces the
> position
> > > > size  my system hardly invested any money.
> > > > 
> > > > I tried giving risky trades more weight using (not sure if
this
> > is
> > > > correct but it does approximately what I intended):
> > > > 
> > > > *PositionSize* = -100 * (stopLoss / Ref(*C*,-1));
> > > > this as I expected gives a better result than just using a
> > constant
> > > > percentage over the last 3 year and also better than the
> correct
> > MM
> > > > approach. Between 1998 and 2001 however it performs worse,
> > suffering
> > > > when the market goes crazy.
> > > > 
> > > > rgds, Ed
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > >     ----- Original Message -----
> > > >     *From:* danielwardadams <mailto:danielwardadams@xxxx>
> > > >     *To:* amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >     *Sent:* Sunday, December 12, 2004 4:06 PM
> > > >     *Subject:* [amibroker] Re: PositionSize / Capital
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >     I love it. This also helps avoid the tiny positions
> somebody
> > (Al?)
> > > >     mentioned yesterday (and I've experienced also). But why
do
> > you say
> > > >     it will usually probably use the 10 or 20% sized
positions?
> > Shouldn't
> > > >     that mean you're setting your risk parameter
> unrealistically
> > low?
> > > >
> > > >     --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >     <mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ed nl" <ed2000nl@x
> > > >     <mailto:ed2000nl@x>...> wrote:
> > > >     > This way you can use a range: Maximum 20% minimum 10%
of
> > equity:
> > > >     >
> > > >     > rsk = -2; // 2%
> > > >     > PositionSize = Min(-10,Max(-20,rsk * Ref(C,-1) /
> stopLoss));
> > > >     >
> > > >     > In practice it most of the time it probably either uses
> 10%
> > or 20%.
> > > >     >
> > > >     > Ed
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     >   ----- Original Message -----
> > > >     >   From: danielwardadams
> > > >     >   To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >     >   Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 3:40 PM
> > > >     >   Subject: [amibroker] Re: PositionSize / Capital
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     >   Al & Ed,
> > > >     >   This is exactly where I ended up yesterday (hours
after
> > my post).
> > > >     >   When I tried it, though, I always ended up taking the
> 20%
> > > >     positions
> > > >     >   rather than those defined by my risk. Thinking it
> wasn't
> > working,
> > > >     I
> > > >     >   gave up and went to bed.
> > > >     >
> > > >     >   But since someone else thinks this should work,
> obviously
> > I need
> > > >     to
> > > >     >   play with it some more.
> > > >     >
> > > >     >   Dan
> > > >     >
> > > >     >   --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "ed nl"
> <ed2000nl@xxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > >     >   > Al,
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   > about the part:   "Your suggestion to limit
> > positionsize not to
> > > >     >   exceed any more than 20% of equity may be the
solution
> > since it
> > > >     goes
> > > >     >   hand in hand with the philosophy of money management.
> > That is, do
> > > >     not
> > > >     >   allow any one position to exceed, say, 10 or 15
percent
> > of your
> > > >     >   equity. The Turtles did that, and I think lots of
> traders
> > do
> > > >     that,
> > > >     >   too. So, I see nothing wrong with that. Have you
coded
> > this in
> > > >     AFL"
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   > I think you can solve this using:
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   > rsk = -2; // 2%
> > > >     >   > PositionSize = Max(-20,rsk * Ref(C,-1) / stopLoss);
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   > now it will never use more than 20% of equity.
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   > About the minimum number of trades I don't know. In
> my
> > system
> > > >     that
> > > >     >   would be impossible because sometimes good entries
just
> > dry up
> > > >     and I
> > > >     >   can't find even find 5.
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   > rgds, Ed
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >   ----- Original Message -----
> > > >     >   >   From: Al Venosa
> > > >     >   >   To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >     >   >   Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 3:11 PM
> > > >     >   >   Subject: Re: [amibroker] Re: PositionSize /
Capital
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >   Dan:
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >   Thanks for the ideas. You're not rambling; you're
> > thinking,
> > > >     and
> > > >     >   this discussion is healthy. Good ideas may stem from
the
> > > >     discussion,
> > > >     >   so by all means, keep posting.
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >   I don't think you need a new built-in function
> called
> > MinPos.
> > > >     >   Maybe TJ came up with a solution the other day by
> > suggesting you
> > > >     set
> > > >     >   the max open positions to some large value like 10 of
> 15,
> > even
> > > >     though
> > > >     >   you plan to take on no more than 5 at any time. So,
if
> > you don't
> > > >     use
> > > >     >   up all your equity using volatility-based
> positionsizing,
> > you
> > > >     might
> > > >     >   add on new positions with this approach. I haven't
> tested
> > this
> > > >     idea
> > > >     >   yet, but I will. The problem occurs when the opposite
> > happens,
> > > >     >   namely, all your equity is used up before you are
able
> to
> > add
> > > >     your
> > > >     >   4th and 5th positions. Your suggestion to limit
> > positionsize not
> > > >     to
> > > >     >   exceed any more than 20% of equity may be the
solution
> > since it
> > > >     goes
> > > >     >   hand in hand with the philosophy of money management.
> > That is, do
> > > >     not
> > > >     >   allow any one position to exceed, say, 10 or 15
percent
> > of your
> > > >     >   equity. The Turtles did that, and I think lots of
> traders
> > do
> > > >     that,
> > > >     >   too. So, I see nothing wrong with that. Have you
coded
> > this in
> > > >     AFL?
> > > >     >   I'm like Yuki: good with concepts buy lousy with
> creative
> > > >     >   programming.
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >   Al Venosa
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >   danielwardadams wrote:
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >     After thinking about this some more, I think
all
> > I've
> > > >     described
> > > >     >   is
> > > >     >   >     what could be accomplished with two more built-
in
> > > >     variables.
> > > >     >   MinPos
> > > >     >   >     could say you want no less than some minimum
> number
> > of
> > > >     >   positions (5
> > > >     >   >     in my example) and MaxPositionSize could say
you
> > want to
> > > >     >   allocate no
> > > >     >   >     more than X% of capital to any one position
(20%
> in
> > my
> > > >     example).
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >     Within these constraints, your actual position
> > sizing
> > > >     methond
> > > >     >   could
> > > >     >   >     be anything you want.
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >     I'm probably rambling .........
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >     Dan
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >     --- In
> amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "danielwardadams"
> > > >     >   >     <danielwardadams@xxxx> wrote:
> > > >     >   >     >
> > > >     >   >     > Al & Anthony,
> > > >     >   >     > I've also seen the lower returns for
volatility
> > based
> > > >     versus
> > > >     >   equal
> > > >     >   >     > equity position sizing in the past and didn't
> > know what
> > > >     to do
> > > >     >   about
> > > >     >   >     > it (assuming I wanted more positions for more
> > > >     >   diversification).
> > > >     >   >     >
> > > >     >   >     > I'm not sure how one would code it in .AFL,
but
> > would the
> > > >     >   following
> > > >     >   >     > represent a reasonable compromise?
> > > >     >   >     >
> > > >     >   >     > (1) Start with an equal equity based model
> based
> > on,
> > > >     say,  5
> > > >     >   >     > positions (position size = -20). So each part
> of
> > the pie
> > > >     >   equals 20%
> > > >     >   >     > of total equity.
> > > >     >   >     > (2) Determine actual position size within
each
> > piece of
> > > >     the
> > > >     >   pie
> > > >     >   >     based
> > > >     >   >     > on volatility based sizing. So, depending on
> your
> > risk
> > > >     >   parameter,
> > > >     >   >     one
> > > >     >   >     > might use only 17% of one piece of the pie,
13%
> of
> > > >     another
> > > >     >   piece,
> > > >     >   >     and
> > > >     >   >     > 20%, 8%, and 11% of the other pieces.
> > > >     >   >     > (3) Sum the used portions of the pie (in this
> case
> > > >     >   17+13+20+8+11 =
> > > >     >   >     > 69%) and see what you have left. 31% in case.
> > > >     >   >     > (4) Allocate the remaining cash according to
> the
> > equal
> > > >     equity
> > > >     >   >     model.
> > > >     >   >     > This means you get one more 20% piece of pie
> and
> > only
> > > >     have
> > > >     >   11% cash
> > > >     >   >     > remaining.
> > > >     >   >     > (5) Apply the above using your ATR based
> position
> > sizing
> > > >     >   >     recursively
> > > >     >   >     > until your cash is minimized. So if you only
> are
> > able to
> > > >     use
> > > >     >   9% of
> > > >     >   >     > the piece of pie left in (4) you take the 11%
> > left from
> > > >     that
> > > >     >   piece
> > > >     >   >     > plus the 11% cash and you have 22% -- enough
> for
> > another
> > > >     >   position.
> > > >     >   >     So
> > > >     >   >     > in this case you end up with 7 positions and
> only
> > 2% left
> > > >     in
> > > >     >   cash.
> > > >     >   >     > So your cash is minimized and all your
> positions
> > adhere
> > > >     to
> > > >     >   the ATR
> > > >     >   >     > based position sizing.
> > > >     >   >     >
> > > >     >   >     > Like I say, I have no idea how to code it but
> > intuitively
> > > >     it
> > > >     >   makes
> > > >     >   >     > sense to me.
> > > >     >   >     >
> > > >     >   >     > Thoughts/comments?
> > > >     >   >     >
> > > >     >   >     > Dan
> > > >     >   >     >
> > > >     >   >     > (And, yes, I'm sure I'm not the first person
to
> > think of
> > > >     it
> > > >     >   so my
> > > >     >   >     > apologies to those who have gone before).
> > > >     >   >     >
> > > >     >   >     > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Anthony
> > Faragasso"
> > > >     >   >     <ajf1111@xxxx>
> > > >     >   >     > wrote:
> > > >     >   >     > > Hello Al,
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > > You stated:
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > > "the lower the volatility, the lower the
risk
> > and
> > > >     >   therefore, the
> > > >     >   >     > smaller the positionsize for that stock. "
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > > Is this a correct assumption ? ...Would you
> > want a
> > > >     larger
> > > >     >   >     > positionsize on a less risk position , and a
> > smaller
> > > >     position
> > > >     >   on a
> > > >     >   >     > more volatile one ?
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > > Anthony
> > > >     >   >     > >   ----- Original Message -----
> > > >     >   >     > >   From: Al Venosa
> > > >     >   >     > >   To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >     >   >     > >   Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 7:53 AM
> > > >     >   >     > >   Subject: Re: [amibroker] PositionSize /
> > Capital
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >   Ed,
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >   I, too, have confirmed many times with
> > backtesting
> > > >     what
> > > >     >   you
> > > >     >   >     > report, viz,, that positionsize = -x gives
> better
> > > >     performance
> > > >     >   >     results
> > > >     >   >     > than using volatility-based MM
positionsizing.
> > The non-MM
> > > >     >   code I've
> > > >     >   >     > used in the past is:
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >   posqty = Optimize("posqty",5,2,10,1); //
> no.
> > of
> > > >     stocks
> > > >     >   active
> > > >     >   >     at
> > > >     >   >     > any given time
> > > >     >   >     > >   PositionSize = -100/posqty; //equal
equity
> > model
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >   I think I know what the problem is, but I
> > have not as
> > > >     yet
> > > >     >   >     figured
> > > >     >   >     > out how to solve the problem with AFL. If you
> use
> > the MM-
> > > >     >   based
> > > >     >   >     > positionsize statement as we have discussed
> (equal
> > > >     volatility
> > > >     >   >     model),
> > > >     >   >     > i.e., PositionSize = -1 * C/StopAmt, and
> examine
> > the
> > > >     >   tradelist, you
> > > >     >   >     > will likely discover that, often, not all 5
> > stocks are
> > > >     active
> > > >     >   all
> > > >     >   >     the
> > > >     >   >     > time. In other words, either you have idle
> capital
> > > >     earning
> > > >     >   nothing
> > > >     >   >     or
> > > >     >   >     > you have fewer active stocks than you want.
Why
> > is this?
> > > >     >   Because
> > > >     >   >     some
> > > >     >   >     > stocks, which might not be as volatilie as
> > others, use up
> > > >     >   more of
> > > >     >   >     > your capital to initiate a position than a
more
> > volatile
> > > >     >   stock.
> > > >     >   >     > Consequently, your capital is used up before
> you
> > have a
> > > >     >   chance to
> > > >     >   >     > enter into your 4th or 5th stock. Instead of
> > having 5
> > > >     open
> > > >     >   >     positions,
> > > >     >   >     > you might only have 3 because of this.
Checking
> > > >     positionsize
> > > >     >   >     > shrinking doesn't help because you'll
discover
> > you might
> > > >     have
> > > >     >   tiny
> > > >     >   >     > positions in your 5th stock. The fewer stocks
> you
> > have,
> > > >     the
> > > >     >   less
> > > >     >   >     > diversified you are, and therefore the more
> risky
> > your
> > > >     >   portfolio.
> > > >     >   >     The
> > > >     >   >     > more risk, the higher the DDs. This problem
> > cannot happen
> > > >     >   with the
> > > >     >   >     > equal equity model since all positions are
> equal
> > in size,
> > > >     by
> > > >     >   >     > definition.
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >   One possible way around this might be to
> > increase
> > > >     your
> > > >     >   margin
> > > >     >   >     so
> > > >     >   >     > that equity is expanded enough to allow full
> > funding of
> > > >     all
> > > >     >   >     > positions. But, again, this also increases
your
> > risk.
> > > >     Another
> > > >     >   way
> > > >     >   >     > might be dynamically setting your risk to fit
> the
> > > >     volatility
> > > >     >   of
> > > >     >   >     each
> > > >     >   >     > stock individually (the lower the volatility,
> the
> > lower
> > > >     the
> > > >     >   risk
> > > >     >   >     and
> > > >     >   >     > therefore, the smaller the positionsize for
> that
> > stock).
> > > >     >   However,
> > > >     >   >     > this changes your model so that you no longer
> > have equal
> > > >     >   >     > volatility/equal risk (getting closer to the
> > equal equity
> > > >     >   model).
> > > >     >   >     So,
> > > >     >   >     > the problem remains unsolved for the moment.
I
> > have not
> > > >     had
> > > >     >   time to
> > > >     >   >     > devote to cracking this problem yet, but some
> day
> > I hope
> > > >     to
> > > >     >   do
> > > >     >   >     this.
> > > >     >   >     > If you have any ideas, I'm all ears.
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >   Al Venosa
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >   ed nl wrote:
> > > >     >   >     > >     Thanks for your effort Al. It is very
> clear,
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >     In one of my earlier posts I posted
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >     // money management block
> > > >     >   >     > >     stopLoss = Ref(bbb*ATR(20),-1);
> > > >     >   >     > >     // trade risk
> > > >     >   >     > >     tr = IIf(Buy,(stopLoss /
> > BuyPrice),stopLoss /
> > > >     >   (ShortPrice +
> > > >     >   >     > stopLoss));
> > > >     >   >     > >     // renormalisation coefficient
> > > >     >   >     > >     rc = 0.02 / tr;
> > > >     >   >     > >     // positionsize
> > > >     >   >     > >     PositionSize = rc * -100
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >     it actually gives the same result as
your:
> > > >     >   >     > >     PositionSize = -2.0 * IIf
> > > >     (Buy,BuyPrice,ShortPrice) /
> > > >     >   stopLoss
> > > >     >   >     > >     except for short positions. Exact the
> same
> > it would
> > > >     be
> > > >     >   if I
> > > >     >   >     > use: tr = IIf(Buy,(stopLoss /
> BuyPrice),stopLoss /
> > > >     >   (ShortPrice));
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >     Unfortunatelly I do not get better
> results
> > this
> > > >     way.
> > > >     >   Using
> > > >     >   >     just
> > > >     >   >     > a simple PositionSize = -10 still gives
> somewhat
> > better
> > > >     >   results.
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >     rgds, Ed
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >       ----- Original Message -----
> > > >     >   >     > >       From: Al Venosa
> > > >     >   >     > >       To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >     >   >     > >       Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004
4:19
> AM
> > > >     >   >     > >       Subject: Re: [amibroker]
PositionSize /
> > Capital
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >       ed nl wrote:
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >         Al,
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >         but how do you implement the risk
> > factor now?
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >         ed
> > > >     >   >     > >       Ed:
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >       Let us suppose you have established
> your
> > risk as
> > > >     1%
> > > >     >   (i.e.,
> > > >     >   >     > the maximum you are willing to lose on a
> trade).
> > Let us
> > > >     also
> > > >     >   >     suppose
> > > >     >   >     > your initial equity is $100,000. So, if the
> stock
> > you buy
> > > >     (or
> > > >     >   >     short)
> > > >     >   >     > goes down by the amount based on your system,
> you
> > lose
> > > >     only
> > > >     >   $1000,
> > > >     >   >     > keeping you in the game. Now, let us say you
> > defined your
> > > >     >   >     volatillty-
> > > >     >   >     > based stop in terms of 2*ATR(20), which you
> > incorrectly
> > > >     >   assigned to
> > > >     >   >     > the variable TrailStopAmount. I
> say 'incorrectly'
> > because
> > > >     the
> > > >     >   >     > TrailStop in AB was designed to mimic the
> > Chandelier
> > > >     exit,
> > > >     >   which is
> > > >     >   >     > basically a profit target type of stock (it
> hangs
> > down
> > > >     like a
> > > >     >   >     > chandelier from the highest high since the
> trade
> > was
> > > >     >   initiated, if
> > > >     >   >     > long). I don't think you want the TrailStop
to
> be
> > your
> > > >     money
> > > >     >   >     > management stop. Rather, the MM stop is the
max
> > stoploss,
> > > >     >   defined
> > > >     >   >     as:
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >       StopAmt = 2*ATR(20);
> > > >     >   >     > >       ApplyStop(0,2,StopAmt,1);
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >       So, if your stock declines by 2*ATR
(20)
> > from your
> > > >     >   entry,
> > > >     >   >     you
> > > >     >   >     > exit with a 1% loss. Let's take an example.
> Stock
> > A is
> > > >     >   selling for
> > > >     >   >     > $40/share. It's ATR(20) is $1/shr or 2.5% of
> 40.
> > Your
> > > >     stop
> > > >     >   amount
> > > >     >   >     is
> > > >     >   >     > 2*ATR(20), which is $2/shr. How much stock do
> you
> > buy?
> > > >     You
> > > >     >   simply
> > > >     >   >     > divide your risk, $1000, by 2*1, which is 500
> > shares.
> > > >     This
> > > >     >   amounts
> > > >     >   >     to
> > > >     >   >     > an investment of $40/shr * 500 shrs or
$20,000.
> > All of
> > > >     this
> > > >     >   can be
> > > >     >   >     > coded in one simple line of AFL plus the 2
> lines
> > above
> > > >     >   defining the
> > > >     >   >     > MM stoploss:
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >       PositionSize = -1 * BuyPrice/StopAmt;
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >       where -1 is 1% of current equity
(0.01
> *
> > 100,000
> > > >     or
> > > >     >   $1000),
> > > >     >   >     > BuyPrice = $40/shr, and StopAmt is 2. Keep in
> > mind that a
> > > >     >   negative
> > > >     >   >     > sign means 1% of CURRENT equity, which means
> > compounded
> > > >     >   equity, not
> > > >     >   >     > just a constant initial equity of $100,000.
If
> > you carry
> > > >     >   through
> > > >     >   >     the
> > > >     >   >     > above math with your renormalization
coefficient
> > > >     notation,
> > > >     >   you wind
> > > >     >   >     > up with the exact same answer.
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >       One more thing. When you place your
> order,
> > > >     assuming
> > > >     >   you are
> > > >     >   >     > trading with EOD data, you do not know what
the
> > buyprice
> > > >     is
> > > >     >   until
> > > >     >   >     you
> > > >     >   >     > buy the stock, which is the next day. So,
what
> > most
> > > >     traders
> > > >     >   do is
> > > >     >   >     > base their positionsize on the closing price
of
> > the night
> > > >     >   before
> > > >     >   >     the
> > > >     >   >     > entry. Therefore, to place an order in the
> > evening to be
> > > >     >   filled in
> > > >     >   >     > the morning at the open, your positionsize
> > statement
> > > >     would
> > > >     >   actually
> > > >     >   >     > be:
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >       PositionSize = -1 * C/StopAmt;
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >       where C is the closing price on the
> night
> > before
> > > >     you
> > > >     >   buy.
> > > >     >   >     So,
> > > >     >   >     > if you use the code SetTradeDelays(1,1,1,1),
> then
> > the
> > > >     above
> > > >     >   formula
> > > >     >   >     > is OK. However, if you use SetTradeDelays
> > (0,0,0,0), then
> > > >     you
> > > >     >   have
> > > >     >   >     to
> > > >     >   >     > ref the C back a day.
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >       This is probably more information
than
> > you were
> > > >     >   asking
> > > >     >   >     about,
> > > >     >   >     > but I hope it helps.
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >       Cheers,
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >       Al Venosa
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >   Check AmiBroker web page at:
> > > >     >   >     > >   http://www.amibroker.com/
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >   Check group FAQ at:
> > > >     >   >     >
> > > >    
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > >     >   >     > >               ADVERTISEMENT
> > > >     >   >     > >            
> > > >     >   >     > >      
> > > >     >   >     > >      
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > > --------------------------------------------
--
> --
> > --------
> > > >     ----
> > > >     >   ------
> > > >     >   >     --
> > > >     >   >     > ----------
> > > >     >   >     > >   Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >     >   >     > >
> > > >     >   >     > >     a.. To visit your group on the web, go
to:
> > > >     >   >     > >     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/
> > > >     >   >     > >     
> > > >     >   >     > >     b.. To unsubscribe from this group,
send
> an
> > email
> > > >     to:
> > > >     >   >     > >     amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >     >   >     > >     
> > > >     >   >     > >     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is
subject
> to
> > the
> > > >     Yahoo!
> > > >     >   Terms
> > > >     >   >     of
> > > >     >   >     > Service.
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >     Check AmiBroker web page at:
> > > >     >   >     http://www.amibroker.com/
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >     Check group FAQ at:
> > > >     >  
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >   Check AmiBroker web page at:
> > > >     >   >   http://www.amibroker.com/
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >   Check group FAQ at:
> > > >     >  
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > >     >   >               ADVERTISEMENT
> > > >     >   >            
> > > >     >   >      
> > > >     >   >      
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   > ----------------------------------------------------
--
> --
> > --------
> > > >     ----
> > > >     >   ----------
> > > >     >   >   Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >     >   >
> > > >     >   >     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > >     >   >     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/
> > > >     >   >     
> > > >     >   >     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email
> > to:
> > > >     >   >     amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >     >   >     
> > > >     >   >     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> > Yahoo!
> > > >     Terms of
> > > >     >   Service.
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     >   Check AmiBroker web page at:
> > > >     >   http://www.amibroker.com/
> > > >     >
> > > >     >   Check group FAQ at:
> > > >    
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     >         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > >     >               ADVERTISEMENT
> > > >     >            
> > > >     >      
> > > >     >      
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     > --------------------------------------------------------
--
> --
> > --------
> > > >     ----------
> > > >     >   Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >     >
> > > >     >     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > >     >     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/
> > > >     >     
> > > >     >     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
> > > >     >     amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >     >     
> > > >     >     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo!
> > Terms of
> > > >     Service.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >     Check AmiBroker web page at:
> > > >     http://www.amibroker.com/
> > > >
> > > >     Check group FAQ at:
> > > >    
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >     Check AmiBroker web page at:
> > > >     http://www.amibroker.com/
> > > >
> > > >     Check group FAQ at:
> > > >    
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >     *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor*
> > > >     ADVERTISEMENT
> > > >     click here
> > > >    
> >
>
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1295sokvr/M=294855.5468653.6549235.300117
> >
>
6/D=groups/S=1705632198:HM/EXP=1102952992/A=2455396/R=0/SIG=119u9qmi7/
> > *http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >     ----------------------------------------------------------
--
> --
> > ----------
> > > >     *Yahoo! Groups Links*
> > > >
> > > >         * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > >           http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/
> > > >           
> > > >         * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > >           amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >           <mailto:amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?
> > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > >           
> > > >         * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > Terms of
> > > >           Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > >
> > > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Check AmiBroker web page at:
> http://www.amibroker.com/
>
> Check group FAQ at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
> Yahoo! Groups Links






Check AmiBroker web page at:
http://www.amibroker.com/

Check group FAQ at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
Yahoo! Groups Links








Check AmiBroker web page at:
http://www.amibroker.com/

Check group FAQ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html




Check AmiBroker web page at:
http://www.amibroker.com/

Check group FAQ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html






Check AmiBroker web page at:
http://www.amibroker.com/

Check group FAQ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here


Yahoo! Groups Links