Ease of Recovery from Drawdown

Source: Notion | Last edited: 2024-03-06 | ID: ceb41696-3cb...

---

---

In the intricate tapestry of financial trading, the mechanisms of leverage and proprietary funding stand out as two pivotal strategies that traders frequently employ to amplify their market exposure. While both avenues offer increased capital deployment, they diverge significantly in their risk profiles, operational nuances, and recovery pathways. This analysis will delve into the contrasting landscapes of these two strategies, elucidating their inherent benefits and potential pitfalls. Through a detailed scenario analysis, we’ll shed light on how these mechanisms operate under market stress, specifically focusing on the challenges of recovering from drawdowns. Buckle up as we navigate the complex corridors of financial engineering and unearth the optimal strategies for traders in varying market conditions. 🌐💡🚀

Scenario 1: Utilizing Leverage (Conventional Margin Trading)

• Initial Equity: USD 1,000
• Leverage Ratio: 2:1
• Starting Notional Value: USD 2,000
• Total Market Exposure: USD 2,000 (1,000 * 2)

Drawdown Analysis:

1. Marginal Call: A 10% asset depreciation on USD 2,000 is a USD 200 reduction. Thus, equity drops to USD 800 (1,000 - 200).
2. Adjusted Leverage: Post the 10% asset decline, with an equity of USD 800, the effective leverage adjusts to $\frac{1,800}{800} = 2.25x$ in order to still maintain the notional value of USD 1,600, as if the USD 200 reduction was impacting the starting notional value of USD 2,000 instead of just impacting the initial equity of USD 1,000.
3. Recovery Rate: If adjusting leverage ratio from 2:1 to 2.25:1 is not possible or not preferred, to revert to the initial equity of USD 1,000 from USD 800, the asset needs an appreciation of $\frac{200}{1600} = 12.5\%$ of the remaining portfolio value.

Scenario 2: Engaging in Proprietary Funding (Capital Allocation by Proprietary Trading Firms)

• Trader’s Equity: USD 1,000
• Proprietary Capital Allocation: USD 1,000
• Leverage Ratio: 1:1
• Starting Equity Balance: USD 2,000
• Total Market Exposure: USD 2,000 (1,000 + 1,000)

Drawdown Analysis:

1. Risk Absorption: A 10% asset depreciation on USD 2,000 results in a USD 200 reduction. Equity drops to USD 900 (1,000 - 100, since the loss is shared evenly). No leverage adjustments or margin calls are triggered.
2. Stable Exposure: Despite the loss, the trader’s exposure remains at 1:1, due to the shared risk.
3. Recovery Rate: After a 10% drop, to revert to the Starting Equity Balance of USD 2,000 from USD 1,800, the asset only needs an appreciation of $\frac{200}{1800} = 11.11\%$ of the remaining portfolio value.

Comparative Advantages of Scenario 2 over Scenario 1:

1. Reduced Margin Risk: Proprietary funding minimizes margin call risk. In Scenario 1, a 10% drop requires a 12.5% recovery, while in Scenario 2, it requires only 11.11%.
2. Profit Allocation Efficiency: The proprietary funding structure ensures that traders are prioritized in profit distributions, emphasizing the alignment of interests between traders and funding entities.
3. Stable Trading Horizon: Proprietary funding lets traders maintain consistent market exposure, even post drawdowns.
4. Optimized Recovery Pathway: The drawdown recovery challenge is more pronounced with leverage due to the increasing distance to breakeven. In Scenario 1, the recovery rate is 12.5%, while in Scenario 2, it’s 11.11%.
5. Capital Efficiency: Proprietary funding allows efficient capital deployment, avoiding the pitfalls of over-leveraging. In essence, proprietary funding offers a more resilient and efficient capital structure, especially during volatile market periods. It mitigates the risks linked with leverage, offering a more optimal pathway for portfolio recovery post-drawdowns, while ensuring traders are optimally positioned to benefit from profitable outcomes. 📊🔄🎯

Priority Profit Allocation by First Loss Capital

Upon profitable trading, traders are entitled to an initial profit distribution equivalent to their initial capital contribution (i.e. First Loss Capital (”FLC”)). Only when profits surpass this FLC amount do they get split based on a pre-agreed ratio with the proprietary funding entity. This ensures fair treatment to the risk they bear.

Risk Management via Auto-Liquidation and TMAD

The proprietary funding model introduces a safety net in the form of the TMAD. This serves as a predefined threshold, ensuring that losses do not spiral out of control. If this drawdown limit is breached, the Auto Liquidation mechanism activates, liquidating all positions and transferring funds from futures or margin trading accounts to a secured wallet. This mechanism is overseen by the proprietary funding entity, which ensures that traders’ losses are strictly capped at their First Loss Capital. Beyond this point, traders are insulated from any further financial downturns, as the proprietary entity bears the subsequent losses.

Scenario 3: Utilizing a Matching Bonus Scheme (Capital Allocation by Forex Brokers)

• Trader’s Equity: USD 1,000
• Matching Bonus: USD 1,000 (100% of the trader’s equity)
• Total Trading Capital: USD 2,000 (1,000 + 1,000)
• Leverage Ratio: 1:1
• Total Market Exposure: USD 2,000

Drawdown Analysis:

1. First Loss Burden: In the event of a 10% market depreciation, the total capital decreases to USD 1,800. The trader’s equity after the loss is USD 800 (1,000 - 200). The bonus does not absorb any part of this loss, similar to the First Loss Capital concept.
2. No Leverage Adjustment: Since the leverage is 1:1, no leverage adjustment is needed or triggered.
3. Recovery Rate: To recover to the initial equity of USD 1,000, an asset appreciation of $\frac{200}{1800} = 11.11$% is required.

Comparison with Proprietary Funding:

1. Similarity in Loss Absorption: Both scenarios place the burden of the initial loss solely on the trader.
2. Stability in Market Exposure: Both maintain a stable exposure at 1:1 leverage.
3. Bonus Restrictions: The matching bonus may come with specific terms that could affect its utility, unlike the more straightforward capital allocation in proprietary funding.
4. Ease of Recovery: The recovery rate is the same at 11.11% in both scenarios, given the first loss is borne by the trader.

Distinguishing Factors from Proprietary Funding:

1. Profit Sharing: Proprietary funding often has a more beneficial profit distribution model for the trader.
2. Risk Management Tools: Proprietary funding models offer structured risk management tools which may not be present in a bonus scheme.
3. Operational Flexibility: Proprietary funding might provide greater flexibility in capital management due to fewer restrictions compared to bonus schemes.

Conclusion

Scenario 3’s matching bonus scheme, mirrors the First Loss Capital concept in proprietary funding, with the initial loss entirely borne by the trader. However, proprietary funding tends to offer more advantageous terms for traders, particularly in profit distribution and risk management. The ease of recovery from drawdown is similar in both mo