Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

jswanson

Double Seven Strategy

Recommended Posts

It's time to look at another simple trading system which can be found in the book, ”Short Term Trading Strategies That Work” by Larry Connors and Cesar Alvarez. In this article we are going to look at the Double 7 strategy. This is a simple strategy that can be applied to the major market indices such as DIA, DOW and QQQ. It can also be applied to the futures markets.

 

The rules of this system are very simple.

 

  • The instrument must be above its 200 day moving average.
  • If the instrument closes at a 7-day low - buy.
  • If a long position is open and the instrument closes at a 7-day high - sell.

The trading system follows two basic concepts we have talked a lot about on this website. Namely when trading the major market indices, like the S&P, an effective strategy is to buy pullbacks in a major up trend. This system does just that. The major up-trend is defined by price being above the 200-day moving average. A pull-back is defined as a close below the lowest-low over the past seven days. Once a trade is entered, we simply look for a new seven day high to exit. Super simple. Below is an example of some trades on the S&P Cash Index. Click the image for a larger view.

 

 

Double_Seven_Chart_Example-300x247.png

 

 

Looking at the trading rules, you will also notice it's a long-only system. Later in this article I will also reverse the rules and test it on the short-side. But for now, let's look at the performance for the long-only system. At this point I'm going to test it on the S&P cash index ($SPX.X for TradeStation).

 

Unless otherwise stated, all the tests performed in this article will be based on the following assumptions:

 

  • Starting account size of $100,000.
  • The number of shares traded will be based on volatility estimation and risking no more than $2,000 per trade.
  • Volatility is estimated with a five times 20-day ATR calculation. This is done to normalize the amount of risk per trade.
  • The P&L is not accumulated to the starting equity.
  • There are no deductions for commissions and slippage.
  • There are no stops.

 

Here is the position sizing formula used:

 

Shares=$2,000 per trade / ( 5 * ATR(20) * Big_Point_Value )

 

 

Long_Only_EQ_Curve.png

 

This looks very promising. Keep in mind, the system has no stops.

 

Is The 7-Day Optimized?

Let's look at changing the 7-day look-back period for two reasons. First, I would like to see if the default seven value is optimized. Secondly, I would like to know if other nearby values are used, would the system remain viable. In short, I would like to test the robustness of the look-back period. For example, if we change the 7-day low value to six, I don't want to see the system's equity curve drastically change. Likewise, if we increase the 7-day low value to eight, I don't want to see a drastic change in results. The neighboring values around seven should still produce positive results. In fact, it would be great to see the system remain profitable over a wide range of values.

 

I will use TradeStation's optimization feature to optimize the look-back period over the values 2-20 in increments of one. Keep in mind this single input value controls two look-back periods. The first is the entry look-back and the second is the exit look-back. As the trading system is defined, both these variables use the same value. The results of the test are in the graph below. You can click the image to see a larger view. The x-axis contains the look-back period while the y-axis contains the trading systems total P&L.

 

Long_Only_Lookback-300x243.png

 

This looks great. Any value you choose produces positive results. Each change in the look-back period also does not drastically change from neighboring values. The default value of seven is near the peek, which is six, but it's not the most optimal number. It's also important to keep in mind we will be using the default value of seven for other instruments as well and it's highly unlikely the bar graph for those instruments would look exactly like what we have here. In any event, I think this brings a lot of confidence to the look-back period.

 

 

Is The Regime Look-Back Optimized?

Just as we did for the look-back period for our entry trigger, let's perform the same type of test on the regime look-back period. Again, I will use TradeStation's optimization feature to optimize the look-back period over the values 20-200 in increments of ten. The results are in the graph below. You can click the image to see a larger view. The x-axis contains the look-back period while the y-axis contains the trading systems total return.

 

Long_Only_Regime_Lookback-300x241.png

 

This looks great as well. All values produce positive returns. In general, the longer the look-back period the more profit the system generates. While I did not study the numbers just beyond 200, I feel confident that a 200-period look-back is not optimized.

 

Taken both these tests we can feel confident that this system does not appear to be optimized and it's robust given a wide variety of input values.

 

 

Going Short

The original system is a long-only system. Let's try to use the current rules to short the market. We can do this by simply reversing the rules. In other words, we will modify the regime filter to only open trades when price is below the 200-day moving average. Trades will then open when price makes a new 7-day high and close when they make a new 7-day low.

 

  • The instrument must be below its 200 day moving average.
  • If the instrument closes at a 7-day high - sell short.
  • If a position is open and the instrument closes at a 7-day low - buy to cover.

 

I created a separate trading system to study only the short-side. The results of the system can be seen in the equity graph below.

 

Short_Only_EQ_Curve.png

 

This is not so great. Most of the time the equity curve is below the zero line. It's choppy and ugly. Clearly the market participants' psychology during a bear market is different than simply a mirror image of those found in a bull market. One would think shorting new highs in a bear is a good idea, and maybe it is, but this system is not successful at capturing profit. Taking a wild guess simply from past experience, I have found that exiting quickly during bear markets tends to work better than in bull markets. Thus, maybe a modification of the exit rules to only hold a trade until the first profitable day or only hold for a maximum of three days may produce significantly better results. However, such modifications are best left for another day.

 

To further test our shorting idea, let's now look at testing a range of look-back periods just like we did during our bull market. If our shorting concept is truly flawed, I would expect to see not much improvement in modification of our look-back period. In fact, since my wild guess is we need to exit quickly to remain profitable, I would expect to see greater losses as we continue to increase our look-back period. Likewise, I would expect to see greater profit as we shorten our look-back period. I will optimize the look-back period over the values 2-20 in increments of one. The results are in the graph below. You can click the image to see a larger view.

 

Short_Only_Lookback-300x241.png

 

Just as I expected. In general the shorter the look-back period, the more profitable. However, since this is our first look at the Double Seven Strategy, I don't want to over complicate it by introducing a shorting component. We'll keep it simple for now and apply our long-only strategy to several major market ETFs.

 

Double Seven Strategy

Confident the long-only trading rules are robust and appear to hold potential, let's now test this system on several major ETFs. Let's test, SPY, QQQ, DIA, and IWM. For this test we are going to use all the same trading assumptions and position sizing as we did above except for the following modifications.

 

  • $50,000 starting account
  • Risk 2% of account equity per trade
  • P&L is not reinvested

 

Double-Seven-ETF-Returns.png

 

Conclusion

The Double Seven Strategy does produce positive results across the four major market ETFs we tested. Is this system tradable with real money as is? Probably not. Remember, there are no stops. However, this does appear to be a great start to a viable system. I would imagine if some of the larger losing trades could be eliminated by some type of stop method, this system could be viable with real money.

 

Downloads

 

You can download the source code here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

additionally, what is the buy and hold return for the same period?

or what is the get set long only, and use a stop of 7 days below the entry, but not an exit above the entry....ie; you let things run once in an established position that trends.

 

Comparing these might give an insight into costs as well as risk return costs of purely day trading.

(Otherwise I am sure everyone appreciates the ideas jswanson - thanks)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
have to consider costs though..

 

I would if it was a trading system, but it's not a trading system. Note, it does not even have stops! What this article demonstrates is a potential market edge.

 

However for the sake of commissions and slippage, below are the SPY results of adding...

 

  1. 2% Stop Loss
  2. Deducting $20 + $.01 per share per round trip.

 

Net Profit: $33,232

Profit Factor: 1.96

Avg. Trade Net Profit: $216.37

Total Return: 33.32%

Annual Rate of Return: 1.50%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
additionally, what is the buy and hold return for the same period?

or what is the get set long only, and use a stop of 7 days below the entry, but not an exit above the entry....ie; you let things run once in an established position that trends.

 

Comparing these might give an insight into costs as well as risk return costs of purely day trading.

(Otherwise I am sure everyone appreciates the ideas jswanson - thanks)

 

Going back to the start of SPY (1993) a buy-and-hold strategy based upon the same risk position sizing would produce...

 

Net Profit: $165,933

Profit Factor: N/A

Avg. Trade Net Profit: $165,933

Total Return: 165%

Annual Rate of Return: 5.09%

 

Clearly much better results if you entered in 1993 and rode those bear markets where you will see 40% drawdowns. Also, dividends are not included.

 

Since the year 2000 things would look like this for the buy-and-hold:

 

Net Profit: $3,220

Profit Factor: N/A

Avg. Trade Net Profit: $3,220

Total Return: 3.2%

Annual Rate of Return: .24%

 

Since the year 2000 things look like this for the Double Seven

 

Net Profit: $13,732

Profit Factor: 1.49

Avg. Trade Net Profit: $140.12

Total Return: 13.7%

Annual Rate of Return: .96%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2013 at 4:59 PM, jswanson said:

It's time to look at another simple trading system which can be found in the book, ”Short Term Trading Strategies That Work” by Larry Connors and Cesar Alvarez. In this article we are going to look at the Double 7 strategy. This is a simple strategy that can be applied to the major market indices such as DIA, DOW and QQQ. It can also be applied to the futures markets.

 

The rules of this system are very simple.

 

 

  • The instrument must be above its 200 day moving average.
  • If the instrument closes at a 7-day low - buy.
  • If a long position is open and the instrument closes at a 7-day high - sell.

 

The trading system follows two basic concepts we have talked a lot about on this website. Namely when trading the major market indices, like the S&P, an effective strategy is to buy pullbacks in a major up trend. This system does just that. The major up-trend is defined by price being above the 200-day moving average. A pull-back is defined as a close below the lowest-low over the past seven days. Once a trade is entered, we simply look for a new seven day high to exit. Super simple. Below is an example of some trades on the S&P Cash Index. Click the image for a larger view.

 

 

Double_Seven_Chart_Example-300x247.png

 

 

Looking at the trading rules, you will also notice it's a long-only system. Later in this article I will also reverse the rules and test it on the short-side. But for now, let's look at the performance for the long-only system. At this point I'm going to test it on the S&P cash index ($SPX.X for TradeStation).

 

Unless otherwise stated, all the tests performed in this article will be based on the following assumptions:

 

 

  • Starting account size of $100,000.
  • The number of shares traded will be based on volatility estimation and risking no more than $2,000 per trade.
  • Volatility is estimated with a five times 20-day ATR calculation. This is done to normalize the amount of risk per trade.
  • The P&L is not accumulated to the starting equity.
  • There are no deductions for commissions and slippage.
  • There are no stops.

 

 

Here is the position sizing formula used:

 

Shares=$2,000 per trade / ( 5 * ATR(20) * Big_Point_Value )

 

 

Long_Only_EQ_Curve.png

 

This looks very promising. Keep in mind, the system has no stops.

 

Is The 7-Day Optimized?

Let's look at changing the 7-day look-back period for two reasons. First, I would like to see if the default seven value is optimized. Secondly, I would like to know if other nearby values are used, would the system remain viable. In short, I would like to test the robustness of the look-back period. For example, if we change the 7-day low value to six, I don't want to see the system's equity curve drastically change. Likewise, if we increase the 7-day low value to eight, I don't want to see a drastic change in results. The neighboring values around seven should still produce positive results. In fact, it would be great to see the system remain profitable over a wide range of values.

 

I will use TradeStation's optimization feature to optimize the look-back period over the values 2-20 in increments of one. Keep in mind this single input value controls two look-back periods. The first is the entry look-back and the second is the exit look-back. As the trading system is defined, both these variables use the same value. The results of the test are in the graph below. You can click the image to see a larger view. The x-axis contains the look-back period while the y-axis contains the trading systems total P&L.

 

Long_Only_Lookback-300x243.png

 

This looks great. Any value you choose produces positive results. Each change in the look-back period also does not drastically change from neighboring values. The default value of seven is near the peek, which is six, but it's not the most optimal number. It's also important to keep in mind we will be using the default value of seven for other instruments as well and it's highly unlikely the bar graph for those instruments would look exactly like what we have here. In any event, I think this brings a lot of confidence to the look-back period.

 

 

Is The Regime Look-Back Optimized?

Just as we did for the look-back period for our entry trigger, let's perform the same type of test on the regime look-back period. Again, I will use TradeStation's optimization feature to optimize the look-back period over the values 20-200 in increments of ten. The results are in the graph below. You can click the image to see a larger view. The x-axis contains the look-back period while the y-axis contains the trading systems total return.

 

Long_Only_Regime_Lookback-300x241.png

 

This looks great as well. All values produce positive returns. In general, the longer the look-back period the more profit the system generates. While I did not study the numbers just beyond 200, I feel confident that a 200-period look-back is not optimized.

 

Taken both these tests we can feel confident that this system does not appear to be optimized and it's robust given a wide variety of input values.

 

 

Going Short

The original system is a long-only system. Let's try to use the current rules to short the market. We can do this by simply reversing the rules. In other words, we will modify the regime filter to only open trades when price is below the 200-day moving average. Trades will then open when price makes a new 7-day high and close when they make a new 7-day low.

 

 

  • The instrument must be below its 200 day moving average.
  • If the instrument closes at a 7-day high - sell short.
  • If a position is open and the instrument closes at a 7-day low - buy to cover.

 

 

I created a separate trading system to study only the short-side. The results of the system can be seen in the equity graph below.

 

Short_Only_EQ_Curve.png

 

This is not so great. Most of the time the equity curve is below the zero line. It's choppy and ugly. Clearly the market participants' psychology during a bear market is different than simply a mirror image of those found in a bull market. One would think shorting new highs in a bear is a good idea, and maybe it is, but this system is not successful at capturing profit. Taking a wild guess simply from past experience, I have found that exiting quickly during bear markets tends to work better than in bull markets. Thus, maybe a modification of the exit rules to only hold a trade until the first profitable day or only hold for a maximum of three days may produce significantly better results. However, such modifications are best left for another day.

 

To further test our shorting idea, let's now look at testing a range of look-back periods just like we did during our bull market. If our shorting concept is truly flawed, I would expect to see not much improvement in modification of our look-back period. In fact, since my wild guess is we need to exit quickly to remain profitable, I would expect to see greater losses as we continue to increase our look-back period. Likewise, I would expect to see greater profit as we shorten our look-back period. I will optimize the look-back period over the values 2-20 in increments of one. The results are in the graph below. You can click the image to see a larger view.

 

Short_Only_Lookback-300x241.png

 

Just as I expected. In general the shorter the look-back period, the more profitable. However, since this is our first look at the Double Seven Strategy, I don't want to over complicate it by introducing a shorting component. We'll keep it simple for now and apply our long-only strategy to several major market ETFs.

 

Double Seven Strategy

Confident the long-only trading rules are robust and appear to hold potential, let's now test this system on several major ETFs. Let's test, SPY, QQQ, DIA, and IWM. For this test we are going to use all the same trading assumptions and position sizing as we did above except for the following modifications.

 

 

  • $50,000 starting account
  • Risk 2% of account equity per trade
  • P&L is not reinvested

 

 

Double-Seven-ETF-Returns.png

 

Conclusion

The Double Seven Strategy does produce positive results across the four major market ETFs we tested. Is this system tradable with real money as is? Probably not. Remember, there are no stops. However, this does appear to be a great start to a viable system. I would imagine if some of the larger losing trades could be eliminated by some type of stop method, this system could be viable with real money.

 

Downloads

 

You can download the source code here.

Looks great, thanks for sharing. I wonder, is it possible to adapt this EA for MT5 platform. I use one from Hotforex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, the best feature of the Double Seven entry strategy is that buys and does not sell in equity-based markets. Large scale selling short in the primary stock markets requires a financed loan of shares from a broker, so it's less common than buying. Therefore, selling in a stock-tracking market generally isn't profitable--even where derivative instruments provide cheaper access to selling.

Edited by RJo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • "To make more capable, powerful AI models, developers need a steady flow of fresh data to train their models on. However, they’re starting to run out. Current generative AIs have scraped everything from the Internet that can be scraped. The alternative is to use “synthetic” data—training data generated by earlier forms of AI instead of original sources found on the Internet.  Using synthetic data is tempting. It’s cheaper than licensing datasets (an increasingly common requirement); there’s virtually no limit to the amount of data, text, or images AIs can create; and no one’s privacy is violated. The problem is that, over several generations, AIs trained synthetically develop what has been called “Model Autophagy Disorder,” or MAD, by the researchers at Rice University who discovered it. They like the acronym “MAD” because it’s similar to “Mad Cow Disease,” a calamitous, fatal brain disease that turned up in beef cattle in the 1980s when they were fed the ground-up remains of their butchered colleagues.  The word “autophagy” is a combination of the Greek “auto,” meaning self, and “phagy,” to eat. After training successive visual AI models on synthesized data, the scientists found a disturbing pattern: images of faces began to show grid-patterned scratch marks and eventually began more and more to look like the same face. Images of numbers gradually distorted until they became a mass of unintelligible squiggles.  “Even after a few generations of such training, the new models can become irreparably corrupted,” computer engineer Richard Baraniuk said in a university press statement.  As synthetic data, and synthetically trained AIs, proliferate online, the problem will feed on itself and become steadily worse, he warned. “One doomsday scenario is that if left uncontrolled for many generations, MAD could poison the data quality and diversity of the entire Internet,” Baraniuk said. “Short of this, it seems inevitable that as-to-now-unseen unintended consequences will arise from AI autophagy even in the near term. “Without enough fresh real data,” he added, “future generative models are doomed to MADness.” TRENDPOST: If AI developers come to believe that it is no longer possible to advance generative AI much beyond its current state, two things will happen. First, engineers will switch from developing new models to tweaking existing ones and continue customizing them to make off-the-shelf versions for specific industries. Second, developers will turn their obsession with AI power from generative systems to general AI, which can reason and make decisions without the need for human guidance.  That day might be closer than any of us, including AI engineers, are ready to deal with." Zgbs73                        
    • TS Tenaris stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 39.17 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TS
    • UAL United Airlines stock nice breakout setup at https://stockconsultant.com/?UAL
    • AAL American Airlines stock, good trend, watch for a range breakout at https://stockconsultant.com/?AAL
    • Date: 10th January 2025. Why is the British Pound Declining?   The Great British Pound is the worst performing currency of 2025 so far after witnessing sharp declines for 3 consecutive days. The decline is largely being triggered by the bond selloff, lack of business confidence due to the UK Autumn budget and political uncertainty. Will the trend continue?     The GBP Index Declines 2% In 2025! Why Is The Pound Dropping? The Great British Pound is the worst performing currency of the week and of the year so far. Below you can see a table showing the Pound’s performance in January 2025 so far. GBPUSD -2.25% EURGBP +1.69% GBPJPY -1.44% GBPCHF -1.42% GBPAUD -1.91% GBPCAD -2.00% A key reason for the GBP’s decline is the latest labor budget, which is driving a selloff in UK bonds. Bonds across the global market are declining, including in the US and Germany. However, the global decline is mainly due to monetary policy. The decline in UK bond yields is due to concerns regarding the UK budget, higher costs for business and investor confidence. As a result, investors are selling UK bonds, but also reducing their exposure to the Pound. Bond Selloff and Rising Yields: Higher bond yields can sometimes strengthen a currency by attracting increased investor demand. However, this effect is unlikely when rising yields result from a bond selloff driven by declining investor confidence. The UK 30-Year Bond Yields are at their highest level since 1998 and the 10-Year Bond Yields are up to the highest level since the banking crisis of 2008. Investors’ concerns are that the higher costs for business will be passed onto consumers, triggering higher stickier inflation. As a result, the Bank of England will struggle to reduce the cost of borrowing in 2025 and foreign investors will become more cautious of operations in the UK. The short-term impact is that the UK Chancellor may struggle to meet her fiscal rules. Her budget margin of £9.9bn to avoid overshooting borrowing has likely shrunk to about £1 billion due to market shifts, even before the OBR updates its forecasts. This uncertainty may force the Treasury to cut future spending plans, but the full picture won’t emerge until the OBR's March forecast. According to reports, the UK Chancellor cannot risk higher increases in taxes and will be forced to cut public spending. The GBPUSD Falls To A 60-Week Low! The GBP is struggling against all currencies, but the sharpest decline can be seen against the USD. The GBP’s decline is partially due to the incoming president, Donald Trump, who is expected to introduce Dollar-supporting measures, but also potentially impose tariffs on the UK.   The new White House administration is likely to impose new tariffs on imports from China, Canada, and Mexico. This is likely to potentially disrupt supply chains and prompt the Federal Reserve to adopt tighter monetary policy, thereby strengthening the national currency. Some experts believe the UK will face tariffs or be pressured to adopt more pro-American economic policies. This is also something the EU will likely experience. In addition to this, reports suggest that the UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, and Trump supporters are not on good terms, nor agree on much including on Geo-politics. Therefore, the decline is also related to concerns the UK may be put into a difficult position by the new US administration. According to analysts, Dollar strength is likely to continue throughout the year due to the new administration’s measures, but also due to a hawkish Federal Reserve. In the latest FOMC meeting minutes, the committee stated it expects interest rates to decline at a slower pace. The Federal Reserve is likely to only cut 0.50% in 2025 and may not cut until May or June. Liz Truss 2022 Or James Callaghan 1976? Is this the first Pound crisis? The GBP has experienced many "sterling crises” in the past. For example, Black Wednesday from 1992 and after Brexit in 2016. However, there have been similar crises in the past which are very similar to the current situation. For example, the Liz Truss Budget from 2022 which saw the GBP decline more than 23%. During the Sterling Crisis of 1976 the GBPUSD fell from 2.0231 to 1.5669. Both sterling crises were due to the budget, inflation and rising bond yields. Today’s issues for the GBP and UK are very similar, however, the performance of the GBP will depend on if the new SI contributions triggers lower economic activity, inflation and if the Federal Reserve indeed avoids cutting interest rates in the near future. If inflation rises it will dampen consumer demand and the Bank of England will be forced to pause any rate adjustments. As a result, the economy may contract or stall further pressuring the GBP. However, this cannot yet be certain. KPMG experts anticipate accelerated economic growth this year, supported by monetary policy and increased government spending. They project GDP to rise to 1.7%, more than doubling last year’s 0.8%. This growth, according to their estimates, will be driven by a recovery in consumer spending, expected to increase by 1.8% compared to 1.0% last year. In addition to this, if the Federal Reserve unexpectedly opts for more frequent rate cuts, the GBP and EUR are likely to benefit. When monitoring the price movement and patterns which can be seen in the exchange rate, the decline looks similar to the price movement seen in 2022, during the Truss reign. The price has now fallen below the support level from April 2024. The next support levels can be seen at 1.20391 and 1.17992. Technical analysis for the GBP can also be viewed in HFM’s latest Live Trading Session.   Key Takeaways: The Great British Pound is the worst performing currency of the year so far, having declined by more than 2.00%. A key reason for the GBP’s decline is the latest labor budget, which is driving a selloff in UK bonds. UK 30-year bond yields are at their highest since 1998, while 10-year yields have reached levels last seen during the 2008 banking crisis. Investors reduce exposure to the GBP as the US edges closer to a new president and pro-Dollar supportive measures. The UK labour government will not reconsider higher taxes but may be forced to reduce public spending. Always trade with strict risk management. Your capital is the single most important aspect of your trading business. Please note that times displayed based on local time zone and are from time of writing this report. Click HERE to access the full HFM Economic calendar. Want to learn to trade and analyse the markets? Join our webinars and get analysis and trading ideas combined with better understanding of how markets work. Click HERE to register for FREE! Click HERE to READ more Market news. Andria Pichidi HFMarkets Disclaimer: This material is provided as a general marketing communication for information purposes only and does not constitute an independent investment research. Nothing in this communication contains, or should be considered as containing, an investment advice or an investment recommendation or a solicitation for the purpose of buying or selling of any financial instrument. All information provided is gathered from reputable sources and any information containing an indication of past performance is not a guarantee or reliable indicator of future performance. Users acknowledge that any investment in Leveraged Products is characterized by a certain degree of uncertainty and that any investment of this nature involves a high level of risk for which the users are solely responsible and liable. We assume no liability for any loss arising from any investment made based on the information provided in this communication. This communication must not be reproduced or further distributed without our prior written permission.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.