Trading System Result Summary
7 different methods covered in the FM instructions. (FM instructions are not for sale at any price and are being 'replicated'):
171.3% average annual return over the last 9 years* and 106.9% ave. annual return over the last 14 years*, 455 trades, mechanical, automated trading of low cost OEX options. Made a profit each of the last 9 years. Market volatility the last 9 years suited the method. (The market wasn't suited to this method the first 5 of the 14 years and almost certainly wouldnít have been actually traded - yet the 14 year total ave. stands at 106.9% return.)
* 9 & 14 yrs will be up at the end of 2003; simulated options prices during the early 90's and backtesting assumed delta of 0.5 ATM options. Commission calculated @ 1% of margin (probably excessive), $15 per trade. Like those below, incredibly simple rules fully divulged that make extreme sense, very small # of parameters, impossible to call curve-fitted.
As of this writing, brokers are currently quoting an account can be opened with a mere US$2500 and I've even heard of less. 1x Margin is only $1500. Last 9 years profits on a $2500 account size is still 102.9% ave. annual return. 99% net this year as of start of October 2003. 264.0% net for 2002. A beginning method, this is actually a mechanical subsystem of a larger method that requires judgment. But when you're starting with 103-171% net, judgment is that much easier (and it wasn't even used to get these returns). With experienced judgment and the entire method, returns should be much higher. Returns are before my management system described below.
Another beginning method's 8(+) year test of an option trading system: 75%-85% win, double digit, and up to triple digit returns every few days for 8(+) years on winning trades - with little or no judgment; incredibly simple.
Beginning Futures/Options trade secret managers (I call them my "Fund Managers" [FM's]) can start by learning from someone who actually turned a $2500 account into approx. $1,000,000 in real time trading and real dollars (evidenced by account statements and brokers receipts). My trading replication represents over 197 years (real-time) trading experience on the parts of the designers and myself.
The 75% win, 18,000 trade "sub-system" chosen out of the other 99(+) systems similarly tested. (On page 'What makes this different to marketed trading systems & "training"?') Simple algorithm the same across all markets tested (like the other system tested in the 11,000 trades). Rules (fully identified) contain "zero" changes to tailor to any individual market (although doing so may increase profits in certain markets).
Learn to trade in real time on a one-on-one basis from personal interaction with someone who has been explaining to FM's for over 4 years the following:
- why he left his million dollar a year Wall Street job to concentrate on his own method.
- a method with trading results that astound the so-called 'experts'.
- how a $12,500 account would be worth over $850,000 today, after 1 year or less of trades.
- A 60-70% winning trade method that regularly hits options trades that result in 5 times their capital outlay and has mechanical indicators - with up to multiples of that 5 times return possible on individual trades within 1-3 days.
- how 40%-50% or more a month, not a year, is possible, on a regular basis, (before compounding, before annualization); compare to 5% per annum on your savings account!
Your bank is making money like this, or at least trying; they take methods and returns like these seriously. I know the proprietary trading systems and techniques some banks, financial institutions & trading firms use - I designed some of them. (In cooperation with a trading systems development firm and a few of the treasury traders of major banks. This was a firm that worked with leading banks and financial institutions to provide proprietary technical analysis trading solutions. The goal of our collaboration was to provide bank treasuries with technical & fundamental based trading systems for their day to day proprietary trading for the bank. This was separate to what I did with the leading independent trading institution on the Biography Page**). Ones I didn't design for bank traders are covered in the beginning FM instructions. The banks were never given access to anything similar to the FM methods (I've originated more trading systems than I can count - and tested them. Testing marketed methods is valuable but very different).
(When you give your money to the bank, the last thing they do is turn around and give "your" money you "invested" with them in your savings account to another bank or anyone else who pays "them" 5 or 10% interest. They're making much more. Your bank would laugh at being paid 5% or even 10% interest itself. Yet that's what they're paying you. They're paying you what they would laugh at because they know you donít know how to trade - or you wouldnít be keeping the majority of your money in savings or bank accounts.)
- This trader will also explain how, if you apply yourself and learn the method well, just a few trades over matter of days has the "potential" to make you "hundreds of thousands of dollars" - even into the millions (starting with just a $10-$20K account).
- oversee and approve of your first trade(s) and do all they can to ensure you start out properly.
Only one of many methods. Yes I've developed ones that have achieved better results described elsewhere here, but the best require experience and a track record using beginning & intermediate methods like this one.
** Re: my work with the leading independent trading institution and global conglomerate with diversified business throughout the world [specified to avoid envious supposed competitors context-dropping my accomplishments into some "boiler room" operation]. The conglomerate I was working with owns its own bank, finance, insurance, and asset management companies. It is diversified into semiconductors, construction, property, manufacturing, resorts & hotels, among other businesses. During my involvement (and I like to think because of it), the company became the countries' #1 leader in the derivative exchange and equity index futures. (Keep in mind the daily value traded on the Exchange here has been larger than that of New York.)
That said, I know some of what the banks use (including those previous to my involvement). Most traders will be very surprised. Can you imagine that unlike methods used in the FM position, traders in the banks are using extremely basic outdated technical analysis coupled with some news thrown in. They use simple MACD crossovers, stochastics and RSI - all of which have actually been disproven by extensive independent tests in a wide variety of markets.
Half the time when they traded, institutional bank traders were just following the crowd and market rumors. Generally, they traded just by instinct. I was in complete disbelief when I saw what they were doing.
Most people think that bank treasuries should have the most sophisticated trading systems. Yet they don't come close. They donít possess anything comparable to the FM position's trade secrets or even those of some traders interviewed in "Market Wizards". (I met some international hedge fund traders -and they do the same as these bank traders.) They are multiple leagues removed from my favorite interview in Schwager's first book in the series, Mark Weinstein, and his quoted results. Yes, these institutional traders have complicated looking quote screens, Bloomberg, Reuters, Telerate and the works, but when it comes to really systematic trading IMO they are just gambling. Note the difference between trading and gambling as pointed out in the Mark Weinstein interview. This shouldnít come as a complete surprise to those versed in objectivity - no matter how shocking it is to witness at first. Traditional trading / investing is far removed from "total-integration".
The point however is banks and major financial institutions, regardless of how they go about it, even "just" by instinct & rumor, "know" returns like I'm describing are possible, as opposed to what they "pay" you. They are actively trying to make these returns themselves and enticing traders with known track records to manage their money. The "progressive" institutions take "maverick" traders seriously as long as they know the traders are honest and they won't get burned. They know there's a money to be made for the bank - the magnitude of which canít be made otherwise.
In this case, the designer of # 5's method has been explaining to (my) FM's that he left his US million dollar a year Wall Street job because he could no longer be paid enough to "manage money" for "other" people and got tired of selling his skills to the highest bidder.
This isn't the only method with a per trade profit potential like this. "Various" other methods covered in the FM instructions have produced individual trades with a 15 - 30 times ROI. These have happened not just once or twice but on a regular basis - before money-management, before reinvesting with most of these systems. Even I have a hard time believing the potential profits when you begin to reinvest funds with returns like this. With a 25 fold return, $10,000 becomes $250,000 in 1 trade. I can show you how to do this needing nothing more than a $2000 account (and actually less). A $2,000 account becomes $50,000 at 25 times return in one trade. (I've had over 100 times return on single trades - repeatedly, and over 150 times in backtesting. These happen infrequently, but if you test long enough with with these methods they've happened.)
My goal the last decade has not been to find or create one "ultimate trading method" but to find "all" worthwhile and profitable methods (regardless the source) and integrate them for a synergistic effect - without ruin by method sales or public disclosure. Some may be marketed by other sources very minimally (the 0.1-1% of marketed methods that are worthwhile). Others are proprietary and unavailable anywhere else. As is the identification of the 0.1% of marketed methods that work to my standards. Each of these are trade secrets being replicated in a business context where you manage the methods for me furthering their research/development and splitting the profits.
"System selling" is a maze, and, especially the high-priced ones, are not to be bought or tested lightly. I know the cost in time and money (huge) when testing even my own ideas let alone marketed ones.
Instead of being essentially unguided as I was, having to figure everything out on my own, which included buying $200.00 "and up" initially "low-priced" course (/ method / book / system) after course to get everything (a background which got me thinking before I abandoned 90+% of it), you can be part of a business with access to it's trade secrets - everything described here and more. There are many systems on the market, but I'm only identifying those 0.1% -1% or less that have worked profitably in the past to my standards.
Price is not necessarily an indication of a method's worth, one of the best methods on the market costs ~ $375.00. Compare this to Larry Williams, who has the reputation of sells specific systems at his seminars (seminars which alone cost $3,000.00) for $35,000.00 and 50% of profits! I donít involve myself in any "franchise" cost methods. My FM's and I don't need them.
What I am "not" doing here: functioning as a broker, a method / service seller, a manager of other people's money, or a writer (except to find the proper people to fill these "replicated business" positions). Nor am I giving specific advice on individual trading or doing anything "for you". I am inventing and identifying trade secrets I use myself and through others like yourself who can manage them for me (if you qualify and are awarded them while they're available). This is not training, mentoring, leasing, licensing, coaching, or franchising (all other words for sales).
Unlike most trading sites, books and literature, I will not treat you like an idiot. Self-guidance (which includes honest work) is the ultimate cause of success. This is why you cannot blindly trust even a highly rated "fund manager" to generate buy / sell signals for you. If you ever want to make a decent amount of money, to my standards, you must learn to do it on your own (which is what this replicated business allows you to do in a "fully-integrated" manner without "first" having to put in the 10-20 years full-time "fully-integrated" effort like I have).
Good methods like I describe can't be sold or they're eventually ruined. Replicating my trade secrets in a business is how they're rationally used and developed. I'd much rather have a lesser % of the results of 50 serious trusted people than 100% of the results of myself (one person). The designers have already put in tremendous effort over many years to reduce the methods to basically mechanical instructions. I have already put in the effort required to identify the trade secrets and do the same for my own methods. Nothing is simpler that works reasonably.
You cannot get what I'm describing in a book, course, newsletter, training, franchise, sale of any kind (especially $200 variety), or any # thereof. Nor via any other web site I've seen. If you think you've found an imitator, send me his details now. No one did what I'm doing in trading (until I started it). (Actually, I worked with my former partner on this. Eventually, I bought these unique arrangements (contracts, literature, writing) from him. Previously, they were purchased from a separate party initially responsible for much of the concept, literature and writing but who lacked the methods to make these positions the reality they are today. I have my own methods (and FM's) my former partner didn't, and so forth. Anyone else caught using these arrangements is imitating us, and if they signed any of the FM contracts to see what the arrangement was, they're an unauthorized violator as well. They then owe previously agreed-on large sums of money).
This does not resemble the Turtles, and if you apply, you'll see why. The key here is functioning in an "integrated", objective (and original) manner - in a way that "properly responds" to reality as discussed in the pages on philosophy.
You'll be dealing directly with me. This is a one-man operation. Aside from use of various assistants, this ensures a "properly integrated" response. You're not given the run-around here. You're dealing with someone who knows (exactly) what he's talking about. This distinguishes me from roughly every other operation where you're typically stuck getting "less than knowledgeable" non-integrated responses from someone who "just makes them up" or is not qualified to answer (but has to anyway). This also differentiates me from traditional large or medium sized faceless organizations where you're stuck trying to make sense out of over-promoting salespeople, ("busy") "telephone answerers", know-nothing "order takers", professional "writers", book / method sellers, and other over-specialized, under-experienced "ends-in-themselves" or their propaganda artists (no reference to any specific company).
6. & 7.
From 1995 on, my focus turned to finding a money management system that could plug into any trading system and transform it. I was frustrated with systems merely trying to predict market direction. I wanted to design a system of money management based on "Risk of Ruin" and Las Vegas gambling systems designed to beat even chance games. This was to eliminate the reliance on predicting where the market was going and exclusively concentrate on dynamic "bet" (trade) sizing and money management.
I now have that and more including mechanical indicators and complete methodologies of my own and others' design which have shown impressive long-term performance independent of money management.
One of these described elsewhere has been proven over 11,000 trades and all possible markets. This mechanical automated system was independently tested by a highly respected professional in the field (other than myself). The result: an average 67% net profit per trade over all 11,000 winning and losing trades prior to money management (before stops, pyramiding, compounding or annualization). The maximum drawdown is classified as "insignificant (tiny)".
This is an unheard of feat in my fields for an extremely simple system with very few parameters whose entire rules were derived prior to testing and remained unchanged thereafter. This achievement netted over 3100 trades a year. It is only one of many methods I've researched / developed throughout my time in options, futures, stocks, and other trading fields. It is classified as a very beginning method. Results of more intermediate & advanced methods have been proportionally better. Even so, tests of this 67% method with conservative money management have turned a $2500 account into between $2.5 and $10.2 million - depending on variables used - in under 3.5 years (trading simulation that considers effect on market using averages including market sizes). Entirely computerized and automated. How this and other feats are achieved is a trade secret, not for sale from any source. It is being replicated to those who send qualifying (trustworthy) applications. Applicants must pass seriousness and honesty tests. Experience and essentially capital and location however have been taken out of the equation.
I challenge anyone to come up with an 11,000 trade test of similar trading frequency and profitability. No one else in marketed literature has, and it can be said with virtual certainty no one else will. (If they do achieve similar, they keep it to themselves!) I replicate it as trade secrets for you to manage and build on. These figures above are only your "starting points": if I think I can trust you with them. There are methods whose profitability has dwarfed even these. For reasons of believability they are only discussed with those who have already signed the FM contract and have earned a basis on which to understand them or their potential.
When you're awarded this trade secret, you can forget about a mere 100% a year. 100% a year may be good to the institutions, but it's not why I'm in trading - it's not why anyone who operates on the principles of total integration and honesty is in trading or any form of competitive rewarding business.
(*No one who knows how to make sums like these is going to talk about sums actually earned - except in isolated instances such as #3 above; that's off limits and indeed matters very little. Read Schwager's Weinstein interview for an example of why. What you do with the "research/development" is up to you.) Whether you know what good old fashioned disciplined work is in the context of integrated objective honesty I can't yet say. The best methods in the world will do someone little good if they neither know or nor want to learn what objective honesty means in practice. Those who do know how to successfully apply "integrated" objective honesty will appreciate these statements and results such as these - especially after they apply for the detailed explanation of how these results were achieved. That explanation has reportedly left several FM's unable to sleep for up to days.
It's hard to fully fathom the magnitude of $2.5K into $2.5 million - let alone $10.2 million - in these time periods. To those of us steeped in traditional trading, these figures boggle the mind as to how they can be achieved in the financial markets. I have never seen similar happen in traditional [non-integrated] investing and trading. There, 100% per annum ROI is phenomenal. But here we're talking trade by trade documentation and independent computer programming that prove a 100,000% to 400,000% ROI in 3.5 years - consistently, reliably and predictably over 11,000 trades . Based on previous feedback, I suspect most informed professionals [honest variety] on reading this trade by trade explanation for the first time are left wondering whether they should break down in tears.
As they recover from reading the detailed explanation of this method (sent to qualifying applicants), the honest among them have expressed their gratitude to know these returns are possible in a business where hard work counts more than connections, family members, corporate politics, and ability to write propaganda.
© Copyright 2003 Alexander Moss, All Rights Reserved