Lord Anton Kreil

[babyjake1961]

Those who can't do, coach (c).

 

[Ambitious1]

To anybody who has taken the course, what was said about how to place stop losses when trading a spread/ratio? In theory if you started with a stop loss of 10% per stock then Stock A (your long) declined and Stock B (your short) gained as it lost value, Stock A would eventually be stopped out as it fell in value alongside Stock B.

What is said about how to maintain stop losses? The last material I saw didn't really cover risk management in terms of stops although position sizing and hedging by taking a long and short position was mentioned.

Subject to entering both a long and a short with stops on both instruments (your spread) and you are stopped out off part of your spread, Anton suggests to close the other immediately regardless. His reasoning being after all, you are trying to hedge out as much risk as possible by placing a spread trade in the first place and have a balanced portfolio. If you are net long or short you are exposing yourself to various forms of market risk ie sector, industry, currency etc.

 

[Ambitious1]

Subject to entering both a long and a short with stops on both instruments (your spread) and you are stopped out off part of your spread, Anton suggests to close the other immediately regardless. His reasoning being after all, you are trying to hedge out as much risk as possible by placing a spread trade in the first place and have a balanced portfolio. If you are net long or short you are exposing yourself to various forms of market risk ie sector, industry, currency etc.

Perhaps in some countries ie the UK, you may be able to place just the one Stop on the ratio of the spread trade itself?? Again I am unsure and I welcome someone to clarify. I only know that in my place of residence, this is not possible. I therefore maybe better off buying call and put options instead of worrying about stops on the individual underlying stocks instead. Again, it comes down to your countries trading regulations, the individual, their experience, risk tolerance etc.

 

[YoshihiroUK]

Subject to entering both a long and a short with stops on both instruments (your spread) and you are stopped out off part of your spread, Anton suggests to close the other immediately regardless. His reasoning being after all, you are trying to hedge out as much risk as possible by placing a spread trade in the first place and have a balanced portfolio. If you are net long or short you are exposing yourself to various forms of market risk ie sector, industry, currency etc.

That's interesting and perhaps contradictory to the method he teaches regarding intra-sector spreads because on the one hand, he says that you can hedge out both market risk and sector risk by taking a Long/Short position in the same sector (e.g. Long LLOY/Short HSBA). On the other hand, when that spread actually works as intended and you are stopped out of your hedge, you should take your whole trade off?

For example: Long LLOY is working because market, sector and stock conditions are working in it's favour. LLOY goes up 12%. HSBA also goes up 10% because it too is benefiting from good general conditions (the market) and benefiting from the sector (it's in the same sector as LLOY).

So by that theory, the spread is actually working the way that it's intended, yet you have to close it out (at the 10% loss for HSBA) and make 2% (fully hedged) because you shorted HSBA as a hedge, and it too went up driven by general and sector conditions.

On that basis, using his trading methods, you can't hedge out sector risk (if you constantly stop out your losing trade) only market risk. And you'd even be stopped out on your market hedge (shorting an index) eventually, when that went up alongside your stock, because the chances of your stock moving up strongly without the market moving in tandem, is slim.

So based on the above:

• Long LLOY/Short HSBA isn't a valid trade.
• Long LLOY/Short FTSE 100 isn't a valid trade
• Long LLOY/Short SBRY is a valid trade

The spreads that work the best are cross sector spreads (e.g. Long LLOY/Short SBRY) because that way you are playing one individual sector versus another and still hedging out market risk. The trades should have less correlation and so should both move into profit if your thesis is right. Of course you can't eliminate stock risk so there is a chance that they may not move as expected.

 

[Joeydisco]

For example: Long LLOY is working because market, sector and stock conditions are working in it's favour. LLOY goes up 12%. HSBA also goes up 10% because it too is benefiting from good general conditions (the market) and benefiting from the sector (it's in the same sector as LLOY).

So by that theory, the spread is actually working the way that it's intended, yet you have to close it out (at the 10% loss for HSBA) and make 2% (fully hedged) because you shorted HSBA as a hedge, and it too went up driven by general and sector conditions.

As I understand things it is the spread you are trading, not the individual directions of the positions.

In the above example you are taking the position that LLOY will outperform HSBA, i.e. that the spread between the two securities will widen.

In most spread trades you will have one winning position and one losing position.

You will have reduced gains as a result of reducing sector and market risk.

If you are good at predicting which stock will outperform another within a sector then this trading method could be good for you, but that is far from easy. Otherwise you are just doubling your trading costs and reducing the amount of potential gain on each trade.

 

[YoshihiroUK]

"In most spread trades you will have one winning position and one losing position. "

Exactly. And what the poster above said was that as soon as the losing position reaches it's stop loss, then you close you spread trade (or ratio trade) entirely (both your winner and loser). So you could never ride the winning position using those rules because you would always close out as soon as the losing trade reaches its stop loss.

The only way you would have two winning positions in a spread trade is a cross sector spread or cross market spread because the two sectors may be uncorrelated and thus your Long profits as does your Short. Intra sector spreads are correlated by their very nature (because the stocks are in the same sector).

So the issue here is relating to intra sector spreads/ratios not working if you take off both of your positions using the rules that the poster described above.

You are still trading the individual directions of the positions because you can't place a spread trade with a broker (if you don't count commodities). So you literally place two trades: Long and Short. You are relying on the direction of both trades if you don't want one of them to be stopped out.

 

[Cocoz]

"In most spread trades you will have one winning position and one losing position. "

Exactly. And what the poster above said was that as soon as the losing position reaches it's stop loss, then you close you spread trade (or ratio trade) entirely (both your winner and loser). So you could never ride the winning position using those rules because you would always close out as soon as the losing trade reaches its stop loss.

The only way you would have two winning positions in a spread trade is a cross sector spread or cross market spread because the two sectors may be uncorrelated and thus your Long profits as does your Short. Intra sector spreads are correlated by their very nature (because the stocks are in the same sector).

So the issue here is relating to intra sector spreads/ratios not working if you take off both of your positions using the rules that the poster described above.

You are still trading the individual directions of the positions because you can't place a spread trade with a broker (if you don't count commodities). So you literally place two trades: Long and Short. You are relying on the direction of both trades if you don't want one of them to be stopped out.

You still didn't get it.

 

[YoshihiroUK]

 

[Joeydisco]

Long and short positions are combined into a single spread position.

Therefore, the long and short positions do not reach stop losses, only the single spread position can reach a stop loss.

Although I'm not sure if Anton is teaching calculating spread trading in that manner.

With stocks this is more like statistical arbitrage, which is similar but subtly different from merely taking offsetting positions via hedging instruments, which I think is what Anton is prescribing.

 

[Ambitious1]

"In most spread trades you will have one winning position and one losing position. "

Exactly. And what the poster above said was that as soon as the losing position reaches it's stop loss, then you close you spread trade (or ratio trade) entirely (both your winner and loser). So you could never ride the winning position using those rules because you would always close out as soon as the losing trade reaches its stop loss.

The only way you would have two winning positions in a spread trade is a cross sector spread or cross market spread because the two sectors may be uncorrelated and thus your Long profits as does your Short. Intra sector spreads are correlated by their very nature (because the stocks are in the same sector).

So the issue here is relating to intra sector spreads/ratios not working if you take off both of your positions using the rules that the poster described above.

You are still trading the individual directions of the positions because you can't place a spread trade with a broker (if you don't count commodities). So you literally place two trades: Long and Short. You are relying on the direction of both trades if you don't want one of them to be stopped out.

By a spread's very nature you are hoping one of the instrument is moving north (for your long) and south (for your short), therefore don't look at it as one position is 'winning' and the other is 'losing'. You want both sides of the trade to be 'winning'. This has been touched upon previously ie. when your long and short (spread) is moving in the desired direction the 'spread ratio' is widening (an ideal situation) = your spread trade is 'working'.
If you were placing a stop on both your long and your short (your spread broken down), the stop for your Long will be below the price and above the price for your Short. Not trying to tell you how to suck eggs but bare with me. Therefore if you get stopped out of one of your positions your spread 'idea' clearly is not (ie one side of your trade is working and the other is not) therefore close out the spread. By closing part of your spread at a time, you will be exposing yourself to additional risk. As a portfolio manager this isn't ideal (more on that later).
You CAN hedge out sector risk i.e. pick the best and worst performing instruments in that sector. Sure you won't get the best return compared to just going long an instrument, however the name of the game in Portfolio Management is 'risk management' and to hedge out as much risk as possible. Remembering that a portfolio is held over a longer time period therefore you as the manager of your portfolio, you will have to manage and 'structure' your portfolio to ride out the natural ebb and flow of sectors, currencies and market risks etc.
I guess to hedge out as much risk as possible, one must look at their 'entire' portfolio and how it is structured as a 'whole'.
I guess as a trader one must decide on their desired outcome and what timeframe, method and risk management suits them. Perhaps, portfolio management isn't for everybody?? If one was to trade on short timeframes you wouldn't necessary have to be 'hedged' as you wouldn't be exposed to the same risks as you were compared to say if you had a portfolio of trades open over a longer timeframe.

 

[YoshihiroUK]

Long and short positions are combined into a single spread position.

Therefore, the long and short positions do not reach stop losses, only the single spread position can reach a stop loss.

Although I'm not sure if Anton is teaching calculating spread trading in that manner.

With stocks this is more like statistical arbitrage, which is similar but subtly different from merely taking offsetting positions via hedging instruments, which I think is what Anton is prescribing.

Yes that's it. Ratio = Long position as the numerator and the Short as the denominator.

The issue I was raising was more that, despite the ratio being managed manually via Excel or a bespoke piece of software, the reality is that brokers don't facilitate spread trading in this way and so you will have a Long and Short position in your portfolio separately and you will have to manage those positions individually.

For an intra-sector hedge or Stock v Indices hedge you would typically always have one winning position and one losing position (despite the ratio moving in your favour), as if a FTSE100 stock moves up without the support of the general market then it likely won't do so for too long.

The issue is more around the management of individual positions since brokers don't facilitate spread trading as one combined position, unless trading commodities.

Ambitious1 - yes that makes sense too and I don't think that it was teaching anybody to 'suck eggs' as it was fair and balanced. It is quite unlikely though that two stocks in the same sector will diverge significantly over a long period of time, unless you are shorting a real dog. That was more the point that I was making really.

Good discussion.

 

[Jack o'Clubs]

http://news.efinancialcareers.com/u...ates-cushions-as-proxy-for-playboy-lifestyle/

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Even the professional press are taking the p1ss.

 

[bhoward]

I thought I'd chime in. I actually joined this forum because I was curious what others had to say about the program now that I have finished it.

First, my background is similar to Anton but in a different capacity. I went to go and work in NYC on the sell side and spent time with a mutual fund company and then transitioned into I-banking.

I have a decent understanding of the economy, markets, products, their functions etc. While I have taken many courses and have practiced professionally after my years on the sell side, my experience is more on the retail banking side.

Anyway. I have traded for about 10 years or so with mixed results. Overall I have been profitable however I have experienced huge swings and difficult emotional and financial times as a result. Again, I've always had good income from work as well as enough experience to fix my mistakes without blowing out my account.

I met Anton through a friend who knew him in NYC and I was very impressed with his personality. A lot of the local clubs or trading gurus here in Canada run a similar story of unrealistic get wealthy quick or day trading promotion. Not realistic at all.

I took Anton's course and I would say that compared with any of the other trading education/seminars etc out there, this one is the best. I've never taken other courses however know of people who have and they shared their experiences with me. I will give you the straight goods.

Anton is actually a nice guy but he's type-A and likes to be in the lime-light. I think that's obvious from his TV gig and his trading in space plan. It's nothing bad but it's just who he is. Part of why he teaches is because he likes it. He likes teaching, holding these seminars and it's a way to have a level of fame.

Why does this matter? I think a lot of people say if he was a good trader then why bother or if he has to teach it means he can't do it. I think if he had a billion dollars he'd do something like this anyway. He just likes being the center of attention. He also believes in what he is doing and he likes being the one guy who is willing to tell people how it is. He's the only person who's honest about trading that I've ever met in that environment.

His course is very much NOT like a lot of other courses. Anton is pretty clear from the get-go that day trading isn't really a good idea in most cases and that the highly directional trades that most people make are dangerous. He focuses on capital preservation and managing risk.

I've sat in on free seminars and you have some clown at the front showing how their student turned $2000 into $750,000 in a year. That's just not realistic and it's scary that people buy into that. Anton is quick to tell you that trading is not glamorous, it is not easy, and it's not going to happen quickly. He is also up front that this is not some kind of trade from home and replace your income strategy.

In fact, he's pretty much spot on with how he does things.

The sad thing is that some of his stuff is somewhat sales-like because people want to be sold the sizzle. That said, his material is all about Macro, top down, detailed research, and very little TA and mid term trading windows with risk management.

Not just risk management such as stops and ratios but building your trades so that you are protected (long shorts etc) options etc.

His view of cash management and knowing what you're doing is very valuable. At any moment his questions are what's your risk in this trade, exposure, etc and it is constantly in view. The view is all about protecting your money while taking advantage of opportunities while protecting your cash.

You won't double your money every year with Anton, but you won't blow your account out either.

Again, I came into this very differently than most. I have a CFA, I know a lot about the background required to make trades and industry exposure. I've traded successfully and paying the money was less than a weeks worth of pay after taxes.

Do I recommend it? Yes and no.

It's the real deal but it's also a lot of work. I'd say if you're not already very well familiarized with the industry and trading it will be a lot to take in and actually apply. I think if you're a truck driver and you want to start trading, taking Anton's course will be way over your head. Yes, you'll get through it but your ability to apply it will likely not work. Again, not because of the course, but because thinking like a trader isn't an overnight process.

I purchased the lifetime membership and it was worth it for me. Did it make me a better trader? Yes for sure. It gave me a different way to look at how I trade and I laugh at how I used to trade compared to now. There are some obvious things that helped me to reduce risk. I'm more comfortable taking on riskier high payoff positions now because I'm able to hedge my bets more effectively.

Like everything, there will be people that say Anton is a scam or he's a douche or whatever and to some people maybe he is kind of a douche. That said what do you expect? Most of the people thinking about taking a trading course are looking to trade to make lots of money and want to live some kind of lifestyle with freedom or fast cars or woman etc.

The financial world, let's face it, is about greed and I think anyone calling someone out in trading is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

Again, this is just my opinion but he is legit for sure and he's not going to promise the same trash a lot of these other places talk about.

 

[chumleyuk]

Hi Anton. Doh!

 

[Lands_end]

make lots of money and want to live some kind of lifestyle with freedom or fast cars or woman etc.

If there's a secret to learning how to trade then that is it.

 

[evpatoria]

Hi All,

A. Anton Kreil ITPM Course

I have bought AK course for USD1500 2months ago, due to limited financial resources, after paying high Uni fees as well as not getting a job. End of the day, I think for the Uni fees that I have paid USD1,500 (equi to £1,000) would not hurt much, if I can learn something.

After the Video, I felt apart from the correct approach he teach (Top Down, Bottom Up, Risk Management, Watch List)... this approach is all fine and well.


The next thing, I am a bit concerned:
1. Signing up with ITPM with Saxo (this concern me, ie Conflict of Interest that AK pitch). Essentially, every trade that I do, I will contribute a commission to AK, as ITPM essentially becomes "Introductory Broker"???
2. Apart from the right approach, the trades that gears us into the Trading Account is CFD trading, using leverage. This also mean that the wider our Pairs Trading, the more AK will get out from the Institute Traders

From the above, how are we considering the AK course v "conflict of interest"???

B. Lex Van Dam Trading Academy

If you now compare (A) and (B), you will now see that if we learn the right stuff from Lex, Lex is not benefiting from any Trading Commission... because Lex is only selling his course, and that's the end of the story, nothing more...

At this moment, I need to hear from you guys of your thoughts to give some opinion of the situations and scenario.

Appreciate your feedback...

Question ..Do you make money today from the knowledge you got from Anton kreil !! ,, would you use 1500 $ today one Anton kreil trading course `?


Ps IB broker is much better then Saxo ..

 

[average]

One of their reps told me a couple of weeks ago that they don't use Saxo anymore...

 

[aag100]

i went to one of his seminars a couple of years ago.hes a nice enough chap and may well have worked for some large companies but i dont think his approach is geared to day trading and his concepts perhaps you could apply if you had a million and split it between 20 or more stocks which would be his (the)hedge fund way of doing things as he thinks a spread better would blow it all on one trade.then theres one of his poor chaps that does morning/afternoon/closing reviews,this was up x % this was down y%........which seems alot of pointless number crunching,i doubt it leaves him any time to actually trade.on a recent video of his 'trading the truth' ive seen him say a hedge fund player will start with 100m and turn it into 7billion in 7 years and walk away with 500m.does he realise thats a return of 100% year on year,is it even possible,and if it was why would you want to walk away,would you not stick around to be the richest person in the cosmos.
but like all seminars with something to sell they are filled with some facts,basic truths,things you can buy into and then you have to pay to buy into further.
being relatively new to trading,one thing new i was introduced to and took away with me was the vix,which i now keep an eye on.ive been to two other seminars,from one i took away the idea of divergence and from the other SAR.
being a newbie i thought theres got to be something im missing and looked outwards for and these seminars/webinars perhaps held the key.all in all,they were nice days out in london but i dont think id be paying for them,especially not thousands.
just my thoughts.

 

[average]

On the course videos he has a smug little Beavis and Butthead-esque chuckle to himself whenever he makes some kind of bold declaration or asks a question of the audience.

Unfortunately this happens quite often in each video and is almost as annoying as his blazer and jeans combo he "performs" this in....

 

[Cocoz]

So.....

This guy in one of his latest videos says that IB traders spend 90% of their time as market makers, nothing to do with trading.
The rest of the time, according to him, is spent unwinding positions you don't want in your book that you had to take on behalf of clients because of the agreement with the bank. Once again nothing to do with trading.
But guess what??
He, once a IB "trader", is teaching you how to trade!!!

Tbh I am glad I took the course as it broadened my general knowledge but I don't use his approach to trading.