Your point about time horizons is well made. I take the same view. My personal trading horizon varies between 6m and 3 years. Quite often MI trades are intended with a time horizon shorter than that. 3-6 months. That said, there is a heavy technical component to MI ideas, particularly with regard to risk management. If a trade breaks a resistance level and then fails we would hope that its clear that its not working from the chart, the analysis and the published stop. But, generally we are not aiming for 1 week trades. Ultra short time trading horizons are not what we are trying to offer. We do offer risk management guidelines, but we do not assume clients have all the trades we recommend. We are not constructing a balances portfolio but a portfolio of alpha ideas. If there is diversification it is incidental. Which is another important reason why clients really should consider risk management deeply. That said, risk management issues are considered on a trade by trade basis, which is why we publish stops.

Thanks for the reply Harry. Standard deviation is in and of itself useful information about the performance of an instrument at any given point in time especially when it starts to deviate from the mean into outlier territory to indicate bigger moves or potentially the coming to the end of a major move if it has been outlying in performance for a while etc. It is also useful to know because the frequency of moves greater than one standard deviation especially in FX trades (getting worse in recent years with lower overall volatility) is less frequent than people realise and there are associated costs involved with hold FX positions longer term such as potentially negative cost of carry. This reinforces Geoff P's comment above that fewer bigger picture macro trades per year are better than lots and lots of trade recommendations and definitely better than very short term or worse day trading recommendations. Standard deviation and volatility analysis proves this. There are only a few times a year that short term trading is beneficial for these two reasons and to avoid getting killed on spread/transaction costs from trading too frequently. So I don't think expressing standard deviation in the stop distance will help and probably confuse more but perhaps expressing it in the reports is useful to indicate potentially more optimal trade ideas/timing. At the end of the day a fixed investment is made in MI by subscribers that has to be recouped so the score sheet has to be transparent in terms of performance and I think the pip method at least allows some apples to apples comparison and keeping of score noting that everyone has their own position sizing / % of capital risk profile and of course with dates marked for entry and exit with resulting win/loss tally because MI subscribers will join at different times of the year. Regarding risk management, there is no point having great trade recommendations if you aren't paying attention to risk management and MI is clearly for those who do have a risk management strategy of their own ( I suggest MI advertising states clearly for potential subscribers that they only provide trade recommendations and not risk management guidance). Furthermore I think the reports should not assume everyone understands the abbreviations or trader speak lingo used. I recommend going for clarity in these situations instead of brevity as MI subscribers appear to come from varying backgrounds of knowledge and may not have access to all the markets recommended either. Regarding technical analysis ideas I would first like to have more information regarding what's used as per my last comment otherwise there is a risk of creating further confusion in any contribution I make on that point. Adding layer upon layer of technical analysis can lead to even more confusion so it is about figuring out what Raoul and Julian generally use and if that can be included in reports with trade recommendations to show clearly on charts the recommended entry level, stop distance and why then even better and once I have a handle on that can see what if any of my analysis can contribute productively to that.

Thanks for the comment Joseph. All sensible points. I will discuss with my colleagues and see which can be implemented quickly. One observation is that one might want to have the stop distance expressed as a standard deviation if possible, rather than as pips. But that doesn't in any way invalidate your observation. Generally, we use technical analysis in assessing entry points (level breaks), and both technical analysis and risk-reward in assessing where to place stops. Im sure you are aware these are not objective. If you have your own levels or preferred risk reward ratios then you should feel free to apply those instead. The most important thing in any trading is comfort with the approach. But your point regarding providing the rationale is well made. So much so, I would hope my colleagues generally already observe that discipline. We should usually include a chart and draw the stop in as part of the analysis, which usually makes it clear why the stop or target is where it is. Its very kind of you to offer some ideas on this for us. Feel free, either in this forum or by email.

Thank you for the comment Boris. I have sent an email to the guys who do the formatting and will come back to you.

Thank you for your comment Yves. 1) Im a little unclear on your question regarding the forward steepener. Beta value is a difficult thing to use as a hedge or evaluation tool. Duration is objective, but any statistical hedge is going to be sensitive to the observation period used. The forward steepener we recommended would be a (bond) bullish trade generally, although far less than the equivalent spot starting steepener. 2) Your point on formatting is well made. With respect to benchmark, we are pure alpha, so our benchmark should be absolute. Libor for example. Put another way, we are not trying to outperform the S&P500, we are just trying to make money. 3) I can only apologize for the service not delivering for your last year. Hopefully I can help make a difference this year. Please feel free to ask me anything.

Thanks for the frank comment Diamantino. I can only apologize and work to make this a better service for you and other clients. At least with regard to the complexity or contradictions, going forward I should be able to offer clarifications and explanations. Hopefully we will be able to help you get the service you deserve in future. Please feel free to ask me anything.

I wonder how many people here believe they are getting their money's worth.

Thanks for the comment Robert. We are working towards improving the product and comments like yours are incredibly useful in helping us achieve that goal. I will check, but from memory you are right! Apologies. The trade was "Buy Value ETF, Sell Growth ETF at a ratio of 1.48 - target 1.2, stop 1.59". Let me double check and correct for the next publication date.

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Harry, and I have been assigned to provide a point of contact to MI clients. Is there any specific question I can help with? I understand that your experience of the product has been disappointing to date. Perhaps I can do something to at least partially mitigate that?

Well, I have a complaint too. This reply button doesn't allow me to comment on an existing reply as far as I can tell. So do bear with me as this is meant to be a reply to your reply. Its true that Raoul and Julian do disagree right now. This is not so much a bug but a feature. The idea is that you can see how they put together their reasoning, and decide which you think is a better argument. I would characterize JBs views somewhat differently. I would say he is mildly bearish bonds and neutral bitcoin. I agree with your characterization of Raoul's views. I think JB views bonds as expensive, and somewhat boosted already by Fed policy. But JB also agrees that the data has been weak and is vulnerable to further weakness. That said, the PMIs and diffusion indices already reflect weakness, and forward looking models suggest we are getting closer to a bounce. Hence the mixed picture on fixed income. And yes, precious metals benefit from both Fed aggression, and evidence that rates will stay low for longer. The problem we have is the potential for disagreement is an integral part of the this product. Two different analysts, doing individual analysis and debating those views transparently. Thats what we are hoping to provide clients. In many cases they cant both be right. But the hope is the debate clarifies the issues and helps you, the client, reach a conclusion you are comfortable with. One might, for example, argue that perhaps Raoul is right on a longer time-frame but JB is approaching it more tactically.

This is a great start Harry. Finally we have somebody responding to our comments! As of late, recommendations issued by MI has been extremely contradictory. Raoul is very bullish bitcoin and bonds / Eurodollar futures while Julian is bearish bitcoin and bonds / Eurodollar futures on MI / their respective twitter accounts. The only thing they seem to agree on is precious metals. A massive improvement you guys can do for the MI product is to tackle the contradictory recommendations above... I guess all MI clients want are clear actionable trade ideas. Not a research service that “hedges” itself by recommending trades on both sides of the coin

So allow me to introduce myself. My name is Harry, and I have been assigned to provide a point of contact to MI clients. I have read the comments in this page and I hope to do what I can to improve the user experience and provide added value for clients. If you have any question feel free to ask, and I will do what I can to get the answer to you in as timely a manner as possible.

So on the 99c strike calls, I think the actual implementation is a judgement call for the investor, but the "negative gravity" associated with tepid economy and asset prices which are still require Fed assistance from time to time remains the case. So there is always gonna be a good reason to keep an eye on these OTM eurodollar strikes if they get quite cheap until that background environment changes. So JB (and I think RP) are still keen on owning the downside in rates. JB I think is more price sensitive.

Great questions Geoff. Consider this a placeholder. Let me come back after I have asked discussed with some colleagues.