A training process for BFRI911 used 20,000 random scenarios, called trade paths, to test investment strategies. These scenarios were based on 134 past returns from a training dataset, with all capital reinvested. The results showed a median return of -25.03%, a loss of 85.595%, and a drawdown of more than 20% in 86.415% of the scenarios. The 5th percentile return was -43.61%. The training data had a win rate of 17.9104%, a loss rate of 5.3252%, and a percentage of trades that were wins of 11.3814%. Using a formula called the half Kelly criterion, which is a method for determining the optimal amount of capital to allocate to an investment, the result was 0, meaning no capital should be allocated. This training process ignored the potential effects of economic dependence and regime changes, as well as gaps in FDA data, and did not attempt to forecast price paths or estimate the probability of FDA approval. The results did not provide a basis for estimating the odds of winning FDA approval. The full fund had a loss of 5.7745%, and the quarter fund had a total loss of 1.4436%. However, the affordability of an investment alone cannot make up for a negative expected return. A 3% account risk and a 25% position cap were not necessary in this case. The current allocation is 0. The data used for this training can be found at https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars, and the trades can be queried at runway:query_trades?fund=catalyst.
A news scan found the headline that BFRI911 momentum remains positive over 20 sessions but below short moving average. As of September 10, the SIP close was 1.46, which is below the SMA20 of 1.47875, but above the 50 and 200 moving averages of 1.2745 and 0.9915795, respectively. The RSI is 53.44. Over 20 sessions, the stock has increased by 16.8%, with an average daily range of 0.110055, which is 7.54% of the price. The average true range is 0.10703, and the annual realized volatility is 55.82%. The 20-day average volume is $1.080 million. The trend state is mixed, with no technical breakdown or positive event edge. An illustrative 1 ADR risk to 3 ADR reward gives prices of 1.349945 and 1.790165 around 1.46, but these are not live levels because there is no support or valuation-based 3R target or independent FDA payoff. The daily worst gap since 2022 is -21.74%, which is observed as a tail event, not the maximum possible loss. The CLI 1460 day IEX unadjusted diagnostic return is -30.1333%, with a drawdown of 70.606% and an N of 124, and a win of 27.419%. The raw split discontinuity means the data is not comparable to the adjusted SIP, and no CLI edge was adopted. The source of this data is https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars.
A news scan found the following analysis of BFRI911: Premises include two main points. First, the analysis uses a rule where if the closing price is higher than the closing price 20 sessions before, the next open is used as an entry point, and the position is exited at the next open if the signal is flat. The analysis also uses a 5% stop loss and a 15% target, with the stop loss taking priority if both are hit, and an adverse open can trigger a gap stop, with a final forced close. Second, the analysis adjusts for SIP, or Securities Information Processor, which is a system that provides real-time market data, for all 1176 bars from January 2022 to September 10, 2026, with training from 2022 to 2024, and held out from 2025 to September 10, 2026. The analysis uses a long-only strategy with a 5 basis point fee and stated slippage on each side, which refers to the difference between the expected price and the actual price of a trade. Two synthetic bookkeeping rows per day allow for entry day stops, but these are not based on intraday data. The analysis concludes that momentum alone is not sufficient for a run-up, based on a technical diagnostic that is not a matched FDA event backtest, meaning it does not test for a specific event or condition. The analysis also notes that selection, current company regime, corporate actions, and slippage assumptions may limit the transfer of these results. The source of the data is https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars?symbols=BFRI&timeframe=1Day&feed=sip&adjustment=all.
A news scan found the following analysis of BFRI911: Premises include two main points. First, a frozen momentum strategy was tested, where a position is entered when the lagged close is greater than the 20-session prior close, and exited when the next open is flat, with a 5% stop loss and 15% target, and the stop loss is prioritized if both are hit. Second, the strategy was backtested on data from January 2022 to September 10, 2026, with the training period from 2022 to 2024 and the holdout period from 2025 to September 10, 2026. The backtest used a 5 basis point fee and stated slippage on each side, with no tuning, and utilized vectorbt with a long-only strategy. Two synthetic bookkeeping rows per day were used to permit entry day stops, but these are not intraday data. The conclusion is to reject momentum alone for the run-up, as this is a technical diagnostic and not a matched FDA event backtest, with no established positive edge conditioned on the calendar. The selection, current company regime, corporate actions, and slippage assumptions limit the transferability of the results. The source of the data is https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars?symbols=BFRI&timeframe=1Day&feed=sip&adjustment=all.
A trading strategy called BFRI911 with a fixed momentum of 20 was trained and tested. The rules were: if the closing price was higher than 20 sessions before, the next open would be an entry signal, and the position would be closed at the next open if the signal was flat. The stop loss was 5% and the target was 15%. If both were hit, the stop loss would be executed first. If the opening price was adverse due to a gap, the stop loss would be triggered. The position would be closed at the final close. The strategy was tested on data from January 2022 to September 10, 2026, with the training period being 2022-2024 and the held-out period being 2025-September 10, 2026. No tuning was done, and a 5 basis point fee was applied on each side, with stated slippage. Two synthetic bookkeeping rows were added per day to allow for entry day stops, but these are not intraday data. The results were manually compounded and validated against vectorbt, a trading backtester, with a fractional capital proxy, but without 15-minute or 2R management validation. The initial implementation did not include entry day exits, but this was corrected before journaling the results, and the initial numbers were discarded. The conclusion is to reject momentum alone for a run-up. This is a technical diagnostic, not a matched FDA event backtest, and no calendar-conditioned positive edge was established. The selection, current company regime, corporate actions, and slippage assumptions limit the transferability of the results. The data source is https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars?symbols=BFRI&timeframe=1Day&feed=sip&adjustment=all.
A trading strategy called BFRI911 was tested with a momentum approach. The rules were: if the closing price was higher than 20 sessions before, the next day's opening price would be used to enter a trade, and the trade would be exited at the next opening price if the signal was flat. The strategy also included a 5% stop loss and a 15% target, with the stop loss taking priority if both were hit. If the opening price was unfavorable due to a gap, the stop loss would be triggered. The trade would be closed at the end of the day if it had not been closed already. The strategy was tested on data from January 2022 to September 10, 2026, with the data from 2022 to 2024 used for training and the data from 2025 to September 10, 2026, held out for testing. No adjustments were made to the strategy, and it was tested with a 5 basis point fee and slippage on both sides of the trade. Two synthetic rows were added to the data each day to allow for entry day stops, but these were not based on intraday data. The results were compared to the results from a manual calculation of compounded net return and trade counts, using a proxy for fractional capital and without validation of 15-minute intervals or 2R management. The initial implementation did not include entry day exits, but this was corrected before the results were recorded, and the initial numbers were discarded. The conclusion is that momentum alone is not a good strategy for this run-up. This is a technical diagnostic test, not a matched FDA event backtest, and no positive edge was established based on the calendar. The results may not be transferable due to limitations in the selection of the company regime, corporate actions, and slippage assumptions. The data source is https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars?symbols=BFRI&timeframe=1Day&feed=sip&adjustment=all.
A news scan found the headline about a built-in CLI breakout diagnostic that is not executable replication. The diagnostic ran a test using the command node /app/agent/dist/backtest.js with the following parameters: symbols BTC/USD, ETH/USD, and SOL/USD, strategy breakout, lookback 20, days 984, stop percentage 8, and target percentage 24. The results were: for BTC, 985 bars, return 46.46075, drawdown 14.69243, win 34.32836, and number of trades 67; for ETH, 985 bars, return 24.55541, drawdown 24.94326, win 29.09091, and number of trades 55; for SOL, 747 bars, return 48.32999, drawdown 18.61323, win 52.63158, and number of trades 38. The source code audit showed that the engine.js file enters a trade at the signal bar close and exits when the closes cease exceeding 20 prior closes, using the bar low and high as exact stop and target, with no explicit fee or slippage, and including the current partial day. The bars.js file is single page only. This means that the gross full sample CLI output cannot validate the 20 day high and 10 day low next open net 3R rule and is not out of sample. The positive headline returns were rejected as deployment evidence. A vectorbt study was recorded separately, with chronological costed daily and hourly matched input. The source of the data is https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/crypto-bars and the files /app/agent/dist/backtest/{engine,strategies,bars}.js. The validity of the measures implemented in the CLI was confirmed, but the soundness for cash deployment failed due to execution, cost, and window premises.
The automated trading fund manager performed an edge test on several stocks, including PLAY, VRA, SFIX, and TCOM, with specific option prices and dates, such as PLAY S8.17 Oct16C10.40/P7.50, which required a 27.294982% increase or a 20.440636% decrease. The test also included VRA S3.05 Oct16P2.5.10, which required a 21.311475% decrease, and SFIX S2.85 Oct16P2.5.15, which required a 17.543860% decrease. The results showed that all of these tests failed to meet the required criteria, with no documented actual option expected payout greater than or equal to 3 times the investment. The manager started with an account balance of 850.99 and a fund balance of 178.71, with no open lots, queued orders, or closed trades. The goal was to find an affordable primary dated event long option with a multiple payoff, with a binding constraint of a validated directional payoff, not a monthly profit need of 349.01. The manager conducted new studies on 40 event observations across 4 names, including PLAY, VRA, SFIX, and TCOM, and preserved some previous studies. The results showed that some stock proxy holdouts, such as TCOM with a 6.6705% increase and VRA with a 5.3590% increase, did not overrule the failed option gate. The manager set risk caps at normal 3% = 25.5297, conviction 5% = 42.5495, and absolute 6% = 51.0594, with a full premium at most three positions and strictly under 18% aggregate. The manager decided not to place any orders or substitute stocks or cryptocurrencies, and set default pre-event exits for some stocks. The manager also monitored some collectors and verified their actual END. The manager decided to retain the cash balance of 178.71, which was a reasoned rejection, not a claim that nothing else in the whole market can work. The manager noted that some data was missing, including 645 bars and 384 special symbols, and that no new fund was warranted.
The automated trading fund manager has decided to retain $235.86 in cash and prioritize prospective validation for Ethereum (ETH). The account currently has $235.86 in cash and $850.99 in total, with no open, pending, or closing lots. The goal is to achieve a repeatable positive executable payoff, but a binding constraint is the lack of an active validated entry. The manager has analyzed various premises, including the fact that all 36 USD pairs lack a 20-close breakout, and BTC, ETH, and SOL have completed an hour below their 20-day high of $822.33, $2565.90, and $110.53, respectively. The manager has also studied net 3R/trail and same-target stress, and concluded that there is no order or exit move, resulting in $235.86 in cash. The empirical cash-only log-growth Kelly is 0/1/0, and the binary-average matrix Kelly scores are risk units, not wealth fractions. The strongest counterargument is that holding cash misses out on potential upside, but the manager believes that preserving capital keeps future validated trades possible. The consequences of this decision are that there will be no paid friction, and capital will be available at the next verified signal, with an explicit opportunity cost. The manager has researched 72 costed cells, 60,000 scenario paths, and 166 US crypto-related instruments, and will continue to monitor the situation.
The NIGHT911 collector replacement has preserved coverage within the five-job cap. There are three premises for this update: (1) new primary dates for NEOV, TBN, and CNXC require repeat checks without automatic order, (2) Catalyst has five active jobs and a sixth scheduling attempt was rejected, and (3) a combined 3500-character script was completed locally at 02:22:23 UTC with END5, preserving SRRK, SCHL, and PRAX RSS and SRRK latest 8-K while adding NEOV public published posts, TBN calendar and RSS, and CNXC SEC. The conclusion is that cancelled67 was only cancelled after the combined local test passed, and then scheduled205 was scheduled at 120 minutes for 48 runs and 90 seconds. Acceptance is not the same as execution receipt. The new cadence is faster but has a shorter lifetime than the old 480-minute 74-runs cadence, and handoff must renew after four days if still needed. A positive date and cash update requires full original and independent costed validation, while an adverse, early, or missing update requires re-verification and cash update. No order has been authorized. There are some limitations to this update: the latest three SEC forms can omit older relevant 8-Ks, the absence of RSS is not evidence of pending status, and source errors print explicitly. The primary URLs for this update are https://neovolta.com/press-releases, https://www.tamboran.com/corporate-calendar/, https://ir.tamboran.com/news-events/press-releases/rss, https://data.sec.gov/submissions/CIK0001803599.json, and https://investors.scholarrock.com/rss/news-releases.xml.
The final decision for R91102 is to preserve $278.67 in cash. This decision was made after conducting wider screen and fixed payoff tests. The fund has $850.99 in the account, with $278.67 in cash and a position capacity of $212.75. Two past trades, referred to as N2, cannot calibrate losses of $2465. A directory-wide US screen of 2389 covered 12584 out of 13176 snapshots, with 1565 qualifying fresh names, but 2394 foreign equities showed no signal, and KAP was invalid. Additionally, 9 crypto pairs had no physical rent edge identified. The current listings screen is not a backtested factor alpha. Fundamentals of four companies, VIST, SWKS, LEU, and ALM, were examined, with VIST paying export cash but having working capital and oil assumptions, SWKS having 67% of its revenue from Apple, LEU having cost growth greater than price, and ALM having unknown recovery cash. Sources for this information include earnings releases and SEC filings from these companies. Frozen backtests from 2417 to 2422 were also conducted, with results including a 29.4389% loss for VIST, a 5.2136% loss for SWKS, and a 17.4599% loss for QRVO. Simulations from 2426 to 2428 were also run, but could not justify rounding quarter probe 19.15 LPG and 8.79 CCJ up to 54.41 and 97.42 whole shares. The conclusion is to make no orders or exit changes, and to choose cash because validated payoff, current entry, and execution were not jointly met. This decision is based on logical conditional validity, but the primary periods and small selected samples limit the soundness of any positive forecast. A strong counterargument is the positive VIST holdout of 22.78 and current breakout, but it is insufficient to rewrite failed training after seeing it. The next monitor will be on 04 UTC, with job 204 creating a new shortlist and preserving tankers, and 200 existing physical panels. No separate bookcase is justified, and all credible work fits the supply. There is a funding shortfall of $349.01, but it is not input.
The automated trading fund manager performed an edge test on several stocks, including PLAY, VRA, SFIX, and TCOM, with specific option contracts and prices, such as PLAY S8.17 Oct16C10.40/P7.50, which require a 27.294982% increase or 20.440636% decrease. The test also included VRA S3.05 Oct16P2.5.10, which requires a 21.311475% decrease, and SFIX S2.85 Oct16P2.5.15, which requires a 17.543860% decrease. The results showed that all of these tests failed to meet the 40% threshold, with no documented actual-option expected payout greater than or equal to 3 times the investment. The manager used data from issuer schedules, event observations, and websites such as https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars and https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/option-bars. The manager also checked the Nasdaq listing census, which included 13,176 non-test unique listings, and excluded 384 non-standard strings. The manager produced 147 US-listed leads from four secondary weekly calendars from September 14 to October 5, but the calendar coverage was incomplete. The manager probed 31 distinct option catalogs, but not all 13,176 listings were fully event-tested. The manager also tested other stocks, such as BB, ABAT, and MANU, with specific option contracts and prices. The manager considered foreign stocks, including 9961.HK, 7203.T, and SAP.DE, but the sample was not a global census. The manager chose cash because the validated payoff was absent, not because the broad markets lack volatility. The manager did not place an order and did not justify a new fund.
A trading strategy called C91102 SOL has been tested. This strategy uses a 20-day high breakout and a 10-day low exit, with a 2ATR14 risk and a 20-day timeout. The target is to make a net return of 3 times the risk, considering 25 basis points of credited-asset fees and 10 basis points of slip. The strategy also includes a 2ATR absolute trailing stop. The premise of the strategy was trained on data from 2024 to 2025 and tested on data from January 1, 2026, to September 11, 2026. The results showed a return of -9.58405% and a maximum drawdown of 33.33683%. Another test with a 20 basis points execution stress showed a return of -10.84106%. The strategy did not have any current daily or hourly trigger. The conclusion is to reject the deployment of the strategy due to negative principal holdouts. The validity of the results depends on the arithmetic of the rules and costs. The soundness of the results is limited by the small sample size and missing or zero-volume bars. The source of the data is https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/crypto-bars.
The automated trading fund manager has issued a report on the C91102 ETH strategy. This strategy involves a 20-day high breakout and a 10-day low exit, with a 2ATR14 risk and a 20-day timeout. The target is set to solve net3R at 25bp credited-asset fees and 10bp slip, with a +2R full-position breakeven and 2ATR absolute trailing. The report is based on two premises: Premise1, which used 2024-25 training data with 15min checks and resulted in a 76.33020% success rate, and Premise2, which used the same target with a 20bp execution stress and resulted in a 20.71455% success rate. Premise3 used holdout data and resulted in a mean of 3.56329% and an average win/loss of 6.88094%/3.07202%. The report also includes controls, such as a 15min no-trail return of 18.74207% and 10/30day neighbors with returns of 14.16928% and -20.01429%. The conclusion is to retain the research watch, despite daily failure and neighboring 30day failure, due to the absence of an entry bar deployment. The report notes that the validity is conditional on rule/cost arithmetic and that the soundness is limited by reused small samples, missing/zero-volume bars, and unverified live quotes/off-run dynamic trail. The report is based on data from https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/crypto-bars.
A trading strategy called C91102 for Bitcoin, which uses a 20-day high breakout and a 10-day low exit, with a 2ATR14 risk management system and a 20-day timeout, has been evaluated. The strategy aims to achieve a net return of 3R, with a target that includes 25 basis points for credited-asset fees and 10 basis points for slippage. The strategy also includes a 2R full-position breakeven and a 2ATR absolute trailing stop, with a fixed target retained. The evaluation was based on three premises: Premise 1, which used 15-minute checks from 2024 to 2025 and showed a return of 9.17702%; Premise 2, which used a 20 basis point execution stress test and showed a return of -3.82831%; and Premise 3, which used a holdout period and showed a mean return of -0.12225%. The results also showed that the strategy did not have any current daily or hourly triggers. The controls used for comparison showed a return of -2.81737% for a 15-minute no-trail strategy, and 4.81000% and -15.25060% for 10-day and 30-day neighbor strategies, respectively. Based on these results, the conclusion is to reject the current deployment of the strategy due to negative principal holdouts. The validity of the results is conditional on the rule and cost arithmetic used, and the soundness of the results is limited by the small sample size and missing or zero-volume bars. The results are based on data from https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/crypto-bars.
An edge test was conducted on four stocks: PLAY, VRA, SFIX, and TCOM. The test results for each stock are as follows: PLAY's October 16 call option with a strike price of $10 and a premium of $0.40, and its put option with a strike price of $7 and a premium of $0.50, require a price change of +27.294982% and -20.440636% respectively, with a median absolute change of 10.624339%. VRA's October 16 put option with a strike price of $2.5 and a premium of $0.10 requires a price change of -21.311475%, with a median absolute change of 10.350471%. SFIX's October 16 put option with a strike price of $2.5 and a premium of $0.15 requires a price change of -17.543860%, with a median absolute change of 16.578014%. TCOM's October 16 call option with a strike price of $45 and a premium of $0.32, and its put option with a strike price of $35 and a premium of $0.48, require a price change of +17.105943% and -10.801034% respectively, with a median absolute change of 4.590973%. All of these options failed to meet the 40% threshold, and there were no documented actual option expected payouts greater than or equal to 3 times the investment. The sources used for this analysis include issuer schedules, event observations, and data from https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars and /data/option-bars, as well as catalog closes dated September 9 checked with September 10 delayed bars. The possible scenarios for each stock are: 1. PLAY's weak visits leading to lower store cash, reduced new store and vendor orders, and landlords and creditors capturing more cash, with a counter case of food growth or turnaround stabilizing visits. 2. VRA's improved sell-through leading to less inventory cash locked, reinvestment in brand and distribution, and supplier and shareholder recovery, with a counter case of promotion-dependent growth reversing margin. 3. SFIX's client growth leading to better fixed cost absorption, larger free cash flow and buyback capacity, and equity re-rating, with a counter case of higher ad spend and returns consuming incremental revenue. 4. TCOM's regulatory constraints leading to lower merchant take or compliance cost, hotel bargaining power, and margin mix and cross-border capital allocation change, with no asserted new law effect due to the unread July decision. The sources and baselines used for this analysis include news releases from the companies' investor relations websites. These scenarios are conditional first, second, and third-order effects, not measured probabilities, and the facts stop at reported financials, with priced improvement and market reaction unknown. All four strikes fail directional coverage, with no cross-company correlation assumed independent and no order.
An edge test was conducted on several stocks, including PLAY, VRA, SFIX, and TCOM, with specific option prices and requirements. For example, PLAY's Oct16C10 option requires a 27.294982% increase, while VRA's Oct16P2.5 option requires a 21.311475% decrease. All of these options failed to meet their requirements, with no documented actual-option expected payout greater than or equal to 3 times the investment. The test used data from issuer schedules, event observations, and websites such as https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars and https://ir.daveandbusters.com/news-releases/news-release-details/dave-busters-reports-first-quarter-2026-financial-results. The test also considered financial data from the companies, including revenue, net income, and adjusted EBITDA. For instance, PLAY's revenue was 559.2m, a 1.5% decrease, while VRA's revenue was 55.7m, a 7.8% increase. The test concluded that no verified current EV/share count or fully adjusted earnings multiples were built, making valuation unknown. The beneficiaries of these stocks include landlords who finance PLAY, customers and vendors who benefit from turnaround spending, and shareholders who need cash after reinvestment. These facts do not satisfy the option payoff gate, and counterexamples rewrite one-sided bear prior. No order was placed.
A news scan found the headline 'R91102 live track record cannot calibrate a scarcity strategy'. The R91102 fund has a record of trades, including two entries on September 2 and an operator liquidation on September 4. The return on these trades was 3.805163 percent and 0.752257 percent, with a mean of 2.27871 percent. The profit and loss was 4.977287 USD, with two wins and no losses, resulting in a 100 percent win rate. However, this record cannot be used to estimate the average loss, or the frequency of stop or target hits, due to a lack of data on losses and the fact that the original six to eight week theses cannot be confirmed. The Kelly criterion, a measure of bet size, also cannot be reliably estimated. The entry stop is null and there is no fresh entry quote, which prevents consistent estimation of risk and slippage. It is noted that a 100 percent win rate is not claimed to be an edge. All final open, pending, and closing queries are empty. There is no holding horizon or review of exit changes. Independent costed backtests, rather than this sample, guide the size and selection of the subject and period, due to limitations.
The valuation sensitivity of R91102 Vista depends on oil and cash assumptions. On September 10, the stock closed at 78.95. The company's Q2 earnings release reported 108.909959 million weighted average shares, EBITDA of 805.2 million, net debt of 3056.8 million, and ex-deal free cash flow of 491 million, which includes a 274.2 million working capital release. Using the weighted shares as a proxy, the equity is 8598.44 million and the enterprise value is 11655.24 million, with an annualized Q2 EBITDA of 3220.8 million, resulting in a multiple of 3.619x. This is not verified against the current diluted market capitalization or forward multiple. The annualized ex-deal free cash flow, minus the working capital release, is 867.2 million, which gives a proxy yield of 10.086%. If the oil price decreases by 15 USD/bbl, the company would lose 741.46 million in gross annual revenue, and assuming 60% of this loss flows to cash after costs and taxes, the cash loss would be 444.88 million, resulting in a yield of 4.912%. The conclusion is that the valuation can look attractive, but oil, capacity, and cash assumptions dominate, and do not support a target price of 95.68. The company has a hard limit on its pipeline and trucking capacity, and customer concentration can interrupt payment. The facts end at the issuer and price level, and all annualization, share proxy, constant volumes, and 60% flow-through are explicit assumptions. A current capitalization and normalized forecast are required before a fundamental price target can be set.
A required command was given to a node to run a backtest using the file backtest.js with the symbols VIST, SWKS, CCJ, and LEU, and a breakout strategy. The test looked back 20 periods and ran for 1500 days, with a stop loss of 10 percent and a target gain of 30 percent. The data came from the website https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars. The command line interface used the IEX data source without any adjustments, and it used 1030 bars of data. The signal exits were different from a custom fixed 20 session test. This test was not held out, not adopted, and not interchangeable with SIP chronological tests from 2017 to 2022. The costs were recorded for a 15 minute exit, but did not include venue mapping. The numbers recorded were for diagnostic purposes only, and no order was given.
A required command was given to a node at the address /app/agent/dist/backtest.js to run a test on the stocks VIST, SWKS, CCJ, and LEU using a breakout strategy. This test looked back 20 periods and ran for 1500 days, with a stop loss of 10 percent and a target gain of 30 percent. The data for this test came from the website https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars. The test used the IEX data source without any explicit adjustments, and it used 1030 bars of data. The signal exits from this test were different from a custom fixed 20 session test. This test was not held out, not adopted, and not interchangeable with SIP chronological tests from 2017 to 2022. The costs were recorded for a 15 minute exit, but this was not a test of venue mapping. The numbers from this test were recorded for diagnostic purposes only, and no orders were placed.
A required command was given to a node to run a backtest using the file backtest.js with the symbols VIST, SWKS, CCJ, and LEU, and a breakout strategy. The command included parameters such as a 20-day lookback period, 1500 days of data, a 10% stop loss, and a 30% target profit. The data source was https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars. The command line interface, or CLI, used the IEX data source without any explicit adjustments, resulting in 1030 bars of data. The signal exits differed from a custom fixed 20-session 3R strategy. This test was not held out, not adopted, and not interchangeable with SIP chronological tests from 2017 to 2022. The costs were recorded with a 15-minute exit, but did not include venue mapping. The numbers recorded were for diagnostic purposes only and did not result in any orders.
A required command was given to a node to run a backtest on the stocks VIST, SWKS, CCJ, and LEU using a breakout strategy. This strategy, which is a type of trading approach, looks at the prices of these stocks over the past 20 periods and 1500 days. The command also included rules to stop trading if the stock price falls by 10 percent and to take profits if it rises by 30 percent. The data for this test came from the website https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars. The test used a service called IEX without making any adjustments, and it looked at 1030 periods of stock prices. The results showed that the signals to buy or sell the stocks were different from a custom strategy that uses a fixed 20-session rule. This test was not set aside, not adopted, and cannot be used with other tests that look at data in chronological order from 2017 to 2022. The costs were calculated based on a 15-minute exit, but this does not match the actual trading costs. The numbers from this test are only for diagnostic purposes and do not represent actual trades.
An edge test was performed on several stocks, including PLAY, VRA, SFIX, and TCOM, with specific option prices and dates, such as PLAY S8.17 Oct16C10.40/P7.50, which require a 27.294982% increase or a 20.440636% decrease. The test results showed that all of these options failed to meet the required criteria, with no documented actual option expected payout greater than or equal to 3 times the premium. The sources used for this test include issuer schedules and data from https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars and /data/option-bars. The data was checked with delayed bars from September 10. Calculations were made using Wilder 14 RSI, which is a measure of stock price volatility, and ATR, which stands for Average True Range, a measure of stock price movement, as well as 20/50 SMA, which refers to Simple Moving Average, a measure of stock price trend. The results of these calculations for each stock are as follows: for PLAY, the RSI14 was 35.73768198709139, the ATR14 was 0.5767722089866175, and the RV20_ann_pct, which is the 20-day annualized log return volatility, was 69.80237704694696. Similar calculations were made for TCOM, VRA, and SFIX. All of the stocks were found to be below their 20/50 SMA, with TCOM and SFIX also being below their prior 20-day low. The RSI14 for TCOM and SFIX was found to be oversold, at 22.724174520833685 and 29.483216244943506, respectively. However, this does not necessarily mean that the prices will reverse, as oversold conditions can continue. The range and RSI are not sufficient to determine the distribution of event moves, and cannot replace the need for same-kind events or executable option backtests. In fact, counterexamples of oversold bounces can harm put options. In order to achieve a 3R net full premium risk, the targets would need to be at least 4 times the premium, but the empirical medians do not support this. No stop or target was invented for the rejected orders.
An edge test was conducted on several stocks, including PLAY, VRA, SFIX, and TCOM, with specific option contracts. The test required a certain percentage return for each stock, with results showing that all failed to meet the 40% threshold. The test used historic event close returns mapped to current stock prices, with put intrinsic value calculated as the maximum of the strike price minus the next stock price, or zero, divided by the premium. The test also used a residual time value that was not modeled, so the results are a stress floor and not the expected traded option price. The test was run with 10,000 independent and identically distributed paths, a 3% equity premium compounded, and no option fees or serial dependence. The results showed that none of the stocks had a documented actual option expected payout of 3 times or more. The test also used a grid log utility with a full Kelly criterion of 0 for all floor distributions, and a half Kelly criterion of 0. The results showed that SFIX had one scenario with a gross return of 5.1653 times, but the mean return was 0.95357 times, which was insufficient. The current allocation is 0, and the account has an absolute premium cap of 51.0594, a normal cap of 25.5297, and a conviction cap of 42.5495. The results also showed that three premiums of 51.0594 would exactly use 18% of the cap, so a strictly less amount should be used if the absolute caps ever bind.