Total Returns 2018-2023

Total returns: November 2018 through September 2023

This is a combined statistic of my two brokerage accounts. I used to trade with Exante. Now I’m with IB.

Below are the trading statements in pdf format.

Total returns: November 2018 through September 2023 vs Benchmark SP500

Total returns: Strategy +171.9% vs Benchmark +66.9% (2.55x)

CAGR: Strategy +22.7% vs Benchmark +11.0% (2.05x)

CAGR inflation adjusted: Strategy +17.8% vs Benchmark +6.8% (2.6x)

Max. Drawdown: Strategy 24.2% vs Benchmark 35.3% (1.45x)

MAR ratio: Strategy 0.94 vs Benchmark 0.31 (3.05x)

MAR ratio inflation-adjusted: Strategy 0.74 vs Benchmark 0.19 (3.9x)

The Strategy outperforms the benchmark in terms of risk/return (MAR ratio) by 3 times or almost 4 times inflation-adjusted.

For the first 2 years I had very high transaction costs, overnight rates and borrow rates with my previous brokerage account: total impact was -7.5% per year vs -3% per year now. Had I used IB immediately, the return would have been about 4% per year higher in 2019 and 2020. Do not repeat my mistakes.

I spend no more than 30 minutes a week trading. Seriously.
I switched to another broker in early 2021. It took several months to transfer positions, so a significant portion of the profitability is not shown in the reports from IB, but in the reports from Exante for the same period. The PDF reports of both brokerage accounts are attached.

Link to pdf Exante. The account was opened by my husband, Nikita Bochkarev.
Link to pdf Interactive Brokers 2020-2022 and 2023. This account was opened by me, Arina Bochkareva.

The investment approach worked great even in the first years when I had very little experience. In addition, the costs of the first broker were much higher than those of IB, which was a major obstacle. Nevertheless, I was able to achieve a solid return of >20% per annum for that period.

Now I am absolutely sure that anyone with the right tools can make 20-25% per year in the long run, even without considering the big update of the strategy in 2023. The update will add 6-8% additional annual profitability to the standard approach without increasing the risks at all. Details here.

I give a FREE introductory consultation, where I reveal the grail of our trading. Contact me here and we’ll schedule a convenient time for you. Just one free consultation with me is enough for you to trade this approach yourself and beat the market!

This post will be updated as new results come in.

Have a great day and good luck with your trading!

6 thoughts on “My trading statistics for the past 5 years

    • The strategy does not involve selling option premiums. Almost all of the work is done with the underlying assets. If options are taken, it is solely for hedging and not for generating income. However, you can also do without them altogether and work only with the underlying asset.

      • Could have bought the QQQ and held it the same time and just as well. What are you offering that is so much better? Better risk? Better Return? Better what?

        • This approach generates significantly higher returns divided by risk compared to passive investments in indexes. And these returns have a weak correlation with the returns of indexes. When QQQ is mentioned, it’s always about the last few years, and its profitability since 1999 is 7% above inflation with a maximum drawdown of > 80% and a period of zero profitability of 14 years, from 2000 to 2014. The profitability of this approach assumes a return of 20-25% above inflation with a maximum drawdown of 25-30% when tested since about 1970. The last 3.5 years of my live trading fully coincide with the backtesting. And they cannot help but match, as I trade primarily on the fundamental properties of the instruments and I have the advantage of a small counterparty. The latter is an extremely underestimated point, because it is much easier to show profitability above the market on a 10 million account than on a 100 million account.
          QQQ chart since 2000

          https://reallyeasytrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/QQQ_chart.jpg – this is the link to the image.

    • Hello Ben.
      Thank you for your question.
      From the beginning of the year until today, the drawdown is -10.6%.
      And this is completely normal because 2 months is not even close to an indicative period.
      When trading high capital intensity strategies that I use, periods close to zero profitability can reach a year. And that’s great because periods of zero profitability for the S&P500 can reach up to 10-15 years, and 5-7 years for 10+ year US Treasuries.
      Therefore, the minimum period for evaluating the performance of a trading strategy is at least 2 years. In the attached screenshot you can see that in 2020 I had a drawdown of almost 6 months and a zero return of almost 11 months.

      So, if it’s important to you to see the profitability without confirmation bias, you need to follow me at least until 2024 to almost completely eliminate the effect of random fluctuations.
      On your side, confirmation bias is quite possible because you don’t know what exactly I’m doing.
      On my side, confirmation bias is completely out of the question because I fully understand the fundamentals of the liquidity that is being exploited. And physically, it can not be any other way.
      All I have to do is wait for the necessary conditions that have been tested for more than 50 years in history.
      I’m sorry to be so slow to answer, it’s just that all of a sudden we have a war here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>