Tested and Reviewed by Ian
Fight Back Trader is an update to a system that was previously launched but then failed as market conditions changed. Mark Rose has changed some of the parameters and then collected impressive results for 18 months. It requires the user to logon to the recommended broker between 7:05-7:50am, place the trade as instructed from the members area of the website, which includes the take profit target and stop loss. The other requirement is to make sure that any positions that are open are closed before 9pm each night. (Once your 30 day trial finishes and if you continue, then the signal service that calculates each day’s signal, target and stop loss, costs £5.95 / month. But you are also provided with the information as to how it is calculated and therefore you can easily do it yourself, should you so choose).
The claims when the trial started are that from Feb 2018 to Jun 2019 your account would have grown just under 476% using this methodology with just two losing months.
August completed the 3 month review of Fight Back Trader. It started so well and the prospects were great, given the history, and the potential returns. However, August was another down month. Against the £10/pt staking, August was down for me -£1,366.40. The official record was -£1,404. This month at least the number for my returns are vitually the same as the official record.
As stated in July, Mark made a change to the system and removed Monday as a trading day. This has altered the results and made big difference to the comparison of how I performed versus the official record on the website, affecting both the June and July performance data.
June Mine +£1,462 Mark £+2327
July Mine -£911 Mark -£128
August Mine -£1,366 Mark -£1,404
At least this month our results do match. The difference in the June numbers is that Mark has removed Monday’s trade results which boosted his returns. As mentioned last month, there were also trades taken on Monday’s for the first part of July, before the change was introduced. This accounts for part of the difference in July, with the other large difference due to a trade that was stopped out on my account, versus a different entry price for Mark, which just held the stop loss.
One could look at Mark’s results and say that things were not too bad given what have been extremely difficult market conditions during the last 6-8 weeks. On my results it is a loss over the three months and a failure.
To explain, this is really a trend following system. What it is not suited too is volatile markets that are responding to overnight events. What we have seen is, during the overnight period, as referenced by UK GMT, between 1:30am to 6:00am there have been large swings in prices during the Asian market trading times. Prices have opened often a long way from the previous close, but then there has been no follow through in the desired direction. Basically trend-less choppy markets with wild swings.
Now there is nothing to say this will not continue ad infinitum. But history would show this is not normally the case in markets and a more “normal” trading environment will likely emerge, especially as July and August are holiday months and market depth is usually thinner, thus exaggerating some of the moves.
So where do I stand on this? I still like the premise, but I would view it as a system that can experience significant drawdowns and therefore taking it on face value and the proposed use of minimum funding is not for me. If however, you have the funds and can scale the account size to ensure you have enough spare cash to accept two or three months of negative performance, like I’ve seen, and you can hold with it, then it may well come good. As those disclaimers always state, past performance is no guide to future performance and it just so happened with this trial that market conditions shifted.
I will likely continue to the end of the year and see if the final months can see a turn around and pull performance back. Two or three good months would make a huge difference and I do believe that is entirely possible.
I would rate this as Neutral, despite my own results.