Philosophically, it's harder to manage risk for mean-reversion trades vs trend, because the trade looks more attractive the more it goes against you. If you're short a spread at 1std, you definitely want to be short the spread at 2std, 3std all the way until you get liquidated.
-
-
-
Replying to @Sg423Sg
A question more suited to
@therobotjames@macrocephalopod@saanglee@saah1lk imo (man there needs to be a better way of doing @ fintwit).2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @robertmartin88 @Sg423Sg and
Max position size is a good static rule. Dynamically, cut position size when a reversion trade goes against you. Can always add back when the spread tightens (reduces profit but prevents blowup) or if it *really* blows out you have preserved capital for a more attractive trade.
1 reply 2 retweets 25 likes -
Replying to @macrocephalopod @robertmartin88 and
Be *very* careful about adding to a losing reversion trade. The fact that you lost money is evidence that your thesis is wrong. Unless there is a cap on how wide a spread can go, this is a good way to blow up.
1 reply 3 retweets 37 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
You could be wrong that the spread was going to decrease from 50 to 0, but right that it is going to decrease from 200 to 50, for example. But you’re right, for certain kinds of spread trades the right questions to be asking are “how are other players positioned” and
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
“who has the capital to close this spread, and at what level does it become attractive to them?” — narrow spreads are fundamental trades, blowout spreads are technicals/capital/positioning trades.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.