Position size strategy gives too large positions

dagjonas

Newbie
2 0
I’m using a position size model that gives number of shares to buy depending on my risk and ATR(14)-multiple. #shares = amount risking / ATR-factor

I risk 1% of my capital and use 1.5 x ATR. The problem is that with low volatile stocks, this model will give me to big positions compared to my capital. Positions over 15% of capital.

Does anyone have a similar model, that uses risk percentage and ATR, but also incorporates totalt capital so that positions will be at maximum 10%?
 

options-george

Well-known member
483 92
I’m using a position size model that gives number of shares to buy depending on my risk and ATR(14)-multiple. #shares = amount risking / ATR-factor

I risk 1% of my capital and use 1.5 x ATR. The problem is that with low volatile stocks, this model will give me to big positions compared to my capital. Positions over 15% of capital.

Does anyone have a similar model, that uses risk percentage and ATR, but also incorporates totalt capital so that positions will be at maximum 10%?
A lot of professional traders use volatility-based stops, so I would say you are heading in the right direction with your approach.

You might be doing something incorrectly if your position sizing model is telling you to risk 10%-15% of capital on a trade.

The factors going into your position sizing model should be the % of capital you are willing to risk (e.g. 1%) and the stop size (i.e. entry level less planned stop loss level). In determining where to set the planned stop loss level, you should consider the ATR - i.e. it sounds you want your stop to be at least 1.5 ATR's - also very reasonable.

At this point, the only thing then changing is the volume/quantity of your trade in number of shares.

If the ATR is low, then the stop loss becomes tighter, and the number of shares for your trade becomes greater - however the max planned loss should still not exceed 1% of your trading capital.

That's quite a long answer - am hoping that I read your question correctly, and hope the answer helps to some degree.
 

dagjonas

Newbie
2 0
Thanks for your reply options-gorge!

I really do get positions to big with my model (2 times ATR now), again:

size in units = ((porfolio size * 0,01)/(ATR*2))

Let's say my account is 50 000, a stock at 150 per unit, with ATR 2, tells me to buy 125 shares at 150, which is 18 750. 37,50% of my portfolio size. What am I doing wrong?
 

options-george

Well-known member
483 92
Thanks for your reply options-gorge!

I really do get positions to big with my model (2 times ATR now), again:

size in units = ((porfolio size * 0,01)/(ATR*2))

Let's say my account is 50 000, a stock at 150 per unit, with ATR 2, tells me to buy 125 shares at 150, which is 18 750. 37,50% of my portfolio size. What am I doing wrong?
This doesn't quite sound right. Let's go back a couple of steps.

Account = $50k
$ risk per position = 0,01 of 50k = $500
Stop size (in $/share) = ?
ATR = ?

You did not indicate the ATR level.
Let's say the ATR(14) on daily timeframe for your stock is $5. You want your stop loss to be twice the ATR, thus $10. Thus, your entry is at $150, your stop at $140. You are risking $10 per share.

$500 is what you are willing to risk for the entire position. Thus, you purchase 50 shares, as this gives you a planned position risk of $500 (50 x $10). Yes, your purchase price is $150 x 50 = $7,500 - however you are (in theory) not risking the entire $7,500 - so that figure is not taken into account.
 
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

But it's thanks to our sponsors that access to Trade2Win remains free for all. By viewing our ads you help us pay our bills, so please support the site and disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock