The 'My Performance' Chart - Calculation?

Hi All,

Just wondering about how the line on the 'My Performance' chart is calculated.

From what I can tell, it *appears* to be calculated as your 'net worth' divided by your total deposits (possibly less any withdrawals, but I haven't taken anything out so I don't know for sure), with anything more than 100% (being the 'profit') being shown as a positive percentage and vice versa.

So, would I be correct in assuming that, if I am showing as being at +10% on that chart today (midnight last?) and then today I deposit funds that double my total funds injected, then 'My Performance' would drop to half what it was before (all other things being equal and if I didn't make a profit or loss that day)?

If so, then that doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

It doesn't really matter of course - I can calculate my own performance quite easily as an IRR for example - I was just wondering.

Thanks,

Alan.

"So, would I be correct in assuming that, if I am showing as being at +10% on that chart today (midnight last?) and then today I deposit funds that double my total funds injected, then 'My Performance' would drop to half what it was before (all other things being equal and if I didn't make a profit or loss that day)? "

yep, from what I can see, that is exactly what it does

The bit I am wondering about is why do the top traders list need a $20 minimum deposit to make the grade when that isn't the minimum deposit. I started with $10 with a plan to build it up as high as I can go. In theory I'm in the top 50 now, but can't see it.

Unless it is based on something to do with the formula, in that it thinks that you need at least $20 as a starting point, or in makes the return a lot easier to achieve or something? i.e. getting to $20 isn't that hard with a couple of decent choices early on, so therefore they would be over represented.

Actually having said that, those boys at the top must be stoked. On a minimum deposit that is a fairly decent return, if they invested even more it's massive. Unless withdrawals somehow impact on the performance formula too.

The bit I don't get is why people respond to 3 year old questions that have been bumped by spambots.

Because I don't bother going through everything posted in the forum as far back as three years ago

maxb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bit I don't get is why people respond to 3
> year old questions that have been bumped by
> spambots.


Maybe he felt bad that nobody bothered answering him back then?

fossunited Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bit I am wondering about is why do the top
> traders list need a $20 minimum deposit to make
> the grade when that isn't the minimum deposit. I
> started with $10 with a plan to build it up as
> high as I can go. In theory I'm in the top 50 now,
> but can't see it.
>
> Unless it is based on something to do with the
> formula, in that it thinks that you need at least
> $20 as a starting point, or in makes the return a
> lot easier to achieve or something? i.e. getting
> to $20 isn't that hard with a couple of decent
> choices early on, so therefore they would be over
> represented.
>
> Actually having said that, those boys at the top
> must be stoked. On a minimum deposit that is a
> fairly decent return, if they invested even more
> it's massive. Unless withdrawals somehow impact
> on the performance formula too.


Why not just put another tenner on? Withdrawals don't affect the ROI.

Just wanted to say thanks for replying to my OP :-)

Alan.

Uh, you're welcome? Haha.