Capital Gains Can Vary Radically Depending on the Currency They Are Measured In!

Our SMSF provider only completed our 2024-25 financial year accounts at the end of April. I check these carefully before signing off and paying the ATO. They have made mistakes in capital gains calculations in the past.

I thought that was the case this time too for our investments in the Fidelity Bitcoin ETF and Defi Technologies. So, I challenged their calculation. Their response was that the numbers were correct if I converted the purchases and sales to Australian Dollars using spot exchange rates on the exact days of the transactions. 

I don't use this method in my own tax accounting, as it is complicated. I just take the gain in USD or CAD and multiply by the exchange rate on 30th June of the tax year in question. I thought this was pretty close. It turns out it's not!

The gain on the bitcoin transaction was USD 19k. I downloaded the exchange rates from Pacific Exchange Rate Service, which I use for all my forex calculations, on each transaction day–there were many purchases–and multiplied the USD amounts by those exchange rates. Then I deducted the sum of all the purchases in AUD from the sale amount in AUD. The capital gain turned out to be AUD 53k! 

This is as if the Australian Dollar to US Dollar exchange rate was 35 cents, when it was never below 60 cents. The reason this happened was that I sold when the exchange rate was only 60 US cents but bought at higher exchange rates. Given the USD gain was not that big relative to the size of the transactions, the difference in exchange rates was levered up into a large AUD gain. I never thought something this extreme was possible. 

The Defi Technologies gains were not as radically different in the two currencies because I made more money on those relative to the size of the transactions. The tax bill for the bitcoin trade of AUD 8k is more than half of the SMSF's annual tax bill of AUD 14.4k.

Pabrai Funds

Monish Pabrai is a well-known value investor who is often interviewed. He recently launched an actively managed ETF: WAGN listed on NASDAQ. After watching the interview and hearing about the ETF, I was curious about his performance. I found online his investor letter from 2020. PIF2, which started in 2000, returned 15.4% per year up to 2019 compared to the S&P 500's 7.1%. This sounds good, but the fund had extreme volatility, and so its information ratio was 0.54 compared to 0.48 for the S&P 500. You might still want to invest on this basis but PIF3, which started in 2002 returned 10.3% vs 8.2% for the S&P 500 with even higher volatility and PIF4 underperformed the S&P 500 also with extreme volatility. PIF4 has continued this pattern since 2020. The mutual fund and ETF have done well since inception in 2023 but I think it is likely that this pattern of high volatility continues. So, for now, I decided not to invest.

How Closed-End Funds Should Trade in Theory

An interesting post from Financial Samurai or how closed-end funds trade. A closed-end fund is one that trades on a stock exchange but has a fixed number of shares on a day to day basis.* They may occasionally do additional share issues, or reinvest dividends, or even buy back shares, but they don't buy and sell shares continuously to keep the market price at the net asset value or NAV. ETFs, by contrast, do continually create or redeem new shares to keep the market price close to NAV. I posted a comment about where the equilibrium price of a closed-end fund should be that I thought was worth its own post here.

In theory, if the fund manager grows the NAV of the fund with distributions reinvested faster than the average stock market rate of return (for assets with similar beta), then a closed end fund should trade higher than NAV and vice versa. 

This should be the equilibrium price, so that investors don’t get a free lunch of a higher than average return or conversely a worse than average return. If the average fund manager performs the same as the market before fees then on average after fees managers will under-perform the market and so the typical closed end fund will trade at a discount to NAV.

Of course, actual prices often deviate from this equilibrium for a long time! Pershing Square Holdings, which trades on the LSE, is a classic case. It has either outperformed or matched S&P 500 performance over the last few years while investing mainly in large cap US stocks, but trades at a massive discount to NAV. As an investor, one of my reasons for investing was this large discount. We’ve experienced good returns but not much closing of the discount. In fact the discount today is the same as it was in 2021 when we finished buying our current position. The market price is 25% below NAV! Our internal rate of return has been 20%, which is clearly better than the stock market average. The S&P 500 has returned 15% p.a. over the last ten years or 14% over the last five. So, it is crazy that the discount hasn't at least narrowed.

* Sometimes people refer to unlisted private equity funds that raise a given amount of money and then invest it as closed end funds too.

Is a Recession and Stockmarket Crash Coming?

There is lots of talk about equities being in a bubble and that a stock-market crash is coming given that unemployment in the US is edging up (though still low) and the Fed is cutting interest rates. From the bullish camp, Anthony Pompliano posted this chart, yesterday:

The number of central banks cutting interest rates usually peaks at stock market bottoms. We look like we are nearing a peak in this variable, but the stock market has been climbing for a couple of years! Based on history, a stock market crash doesn't seem likely, but this is also weird behavior. On the other hand, in 1997-98 the indicator was in positive territory, though falling and the market went sideways, but there is no clearly analogous period. So, I charted the US federal funds rate against the S&P 500 and MSCI World Index total returns indices:

Now, we can find analogies. In 1998, the Fed cut in the wake of the LTCM collapse, but the market went up. Then in late 2019 the Fed started cutting after the yield curve inverted, but the market kept on rising through January 2020, after which the pandemic hit. So, it seems like we are in a similar though longer period. Regarding yield curve inversion, this is where we are:

This shows the difference between the 10 year and 2 year yield. We are in a normal positive yield curve. If the previous yield curve inversion predicted a recession, we should already be in it. On the other hand, maturities shorter than 1 year are higher than the two year yield:

Note that in 1998, the yield curve briefly inverted and then went positive again. It was back into the negative in February 2000. Going negative again now would be a bad sign.

I previously posted that 2025 felt like 1997. Maybe it's 1998. In either case, the base case scenario is that the market will likely rise for a while longer.

Investors' Returns vs. Fund Returns

Report from Morningstar on investors' returns vs. fund returns. Due to badly timed trading, investors made 1.2% less per year than the funds they invested in. My return in USD terms for the relevant period was 6.83%, which is roughly what the average investor made. My AUD return was 9.81% over the same period!

 

1997

I feel that 1997 might be a good analogy to 2025. After an aborted recession in 1994 (2022) the stock market went up strongly in both 1995 (2023) and 1996 (2024). But when I left the US in 1996 for Australia the mood was that the economy was struggling and maybe another recession was coming. There was also a feeling that the stockmarket was overvalued. Alan Greenspan first mentioned "irrational exuberance" in December 1996. But the stockmarket, or at least tech stocks, went up for three more years to crazy heights in 1999 (2027) before the tech wreck. Then the boom was mainly internet related stocks, now AI and maybe quantum computing. Oscar Carboni, who is very slightly older than me, often says: "This boom is just getting started." 

So, does that mean we should go all-in on tech stocks? There are no guarantees, and so I always diversify. My largest exposures to tech are through my venture capital exposures. If I am right, venture capital should do well for a while and maybe we can get some exits. And then I have WCM Global (WCMQ.AX), Generation Global, and Hearts and Minds (HM1.AX). Pershing Square Holdings (PSH.L) has investments in Google and Uber. Unisuper has some exposure through the Sustainable Balanced Option I am mainly invested in. But overall it would only add up to around 15% of net worth (and less of gross assets). On the other hand I have 18% of net worth in crypto-related assets that tend to move with tech stocks. Given that, perhaps my exposure is big enough?

Getting a Bit Crazy

Crazy to see an investment up by more in a day than any of my investments have been up in a month before in terms of dollars.... So far it is up about four times this month what any individual investment has done before. Of course, no guarantee that this will hold, so thought I'd post while it lasts. If you are puzzled, then you haven't read my recent posts. Let's see where we're at a the end of the month.

No, it's not bitcoin, which has been doing nothing. Still I saw this really nice chart of bitcoin's price path to date:

The x-axis is log days since the inception of Bitcoin, while the y-axis is the log price. With this transformation, bitcoin has followed a linear path. Yes, the growth rate has slowed over time, but now we see that it hasn't been an arbitrary rate of slowing. This is called the Bitcoin Power Law Theory. Of course, this is based on econophysics and might not continue to hold in the future.

P.S.

After being up 25% in European trade we closed up "only" 6% in North American trade.

Bitcoin vs. the MSCI Index

 

The chart shows Bitcoin (blue) and the MSCI World Index (red) on two different scales. Major cycles in Bitcoin appear quite closely related to those in the stock market. Formal analysis shows that in recent years, Bitcoin has a beta of about 2 to the market but also a very high alpha and also of course a lot of extra volatility. The relationship of the price of Bitcoin to a 4 year cycle around halvings could just be coincidence. However, the high alpha shows that there is a strong upward trend that is uncorrelated to the stock market. Economic theory would show that the price of Bitcoin is mainly demand driven. The rewards that Bitcoin miners get drive the number of miners rather than mining costs driving the price of Bitcoin. For the price to continue to rise we need to have increasing demand. The recent introduction of ETFs is an example of that.

The Baseline Matters When Computing Long-run Investment Performance

I am expecting my rate of return over the last 20 years to look bad this year because 2004 was such a good year. In 2004 I gained 42.4% compared to a 13.7% gain for the MSCI World Index (in AUD terms). It was my best year ever in terms of investment performance. The ASX 200 gained 30.3%. You can already see this in this chart:

In 2023 my performance over the last 20 years almost matched the MSCI World Index's performance over the previous 20 years. But this year I am lagging a lot. Why did I do so well in 2004? It was mainly due to leveraging Australian shares. This table shows the AUD gains in 2004 for each investment:

The CFS Geared Share Fund is a levered Australian share fund. It provided the majority of gains. Nowadays I feel that I can't handle that much volatility. The fund is still available. Of these investments I am currently, 20 years later, invested in CFS Developing Companies, Platinum Capital, CREF Social Choice, and TIAA Real Estate.

I started 2004 with a net worth of AUD 170k and ended with AUD 298k.

When Does Our Investment Strategy Add Value?

EnoughWealth wonders if our investment strategy only adds value under certain market conditions. As a first step let's look at when the out-performance relative to the 60/40 portfolio happened:

The graph simply takes away the monthly return on the Vanguard 60/40 portfolio from Moom's actual results. We see there are periods of out- and under-performance throughout the period. Not surprisingly, it was weaker in 2023 in particular. I didn't do well in implementing the target portfolio strategy last year. Here is a graph comparing the performance of this theoretical portfolio and the Vanguard portfolio:

This looks more consistent. This portfolio is theoretical because it consists of a mix of actual investible funds and non-investible indices.

Bottom line, is I think it is a good idea to add things like managed futures, gold, real estate etc to your portfolio. It makes a real difference.

A 60/40 Australia-Oriented Passive Benchmark

If we create a portfolio invested 50% in VDBA and 50% in VDGR we can simulate a 60/40 passive benchmark:

This requires monthly rebalancing of the portfolio. We ignore the costs of this rebalancing. Over this period, the benchmark portfolio had a compound annual return of 5.60% with a monthly standard deviation of 2.55% compared to Moom's compound return of 7.77% with a monthly standard deviation of 2.32%. Moom's beta to this portfolio was 0.8 with an annual alpha of 2.9%.

Note that our portfolio goes through three different "regimes" during this period. Up to October 2018 we had a portfolio that was about 60% long public equity. Then we received a large amount of cash, which we converted to bonds and then gradually invested in other assets. This phase lasted up to the end of 2020. Since then we have been close to the target portfolio.

VDGR

Following up on my comparison of our portfolio to VDBA, here is a comparison to VDGR. VDGR is a 70/30 mix, while VDBA is 50/50 and our portfolio is 60/40.

First, here is how $1000 would have evolved if invested either with me or in VDGR since the end of November 2017:

Put another way, the average annual return over this period was 6.97% for VDGR and 8.65% for Moom. 

VDGR is less conservative, but still underperformed. The monthly standard deviation of returns for VDGR is 2.84%, while it is 2.28% for Moom. So, we had higher returns with lower risk.

I again did a CAPM style analysis using the RBA cash rate as the risk free rate and treating VDGR as the index. Moom has a 0.72 beta to VDGR and an annual alpha of 2.58%.

Again, I conclude that the additional diversification in our portfolio really does add value.
 

Does My Investment Strategy Add Value?

EnoughWealth commented on my recent post on our target allocation:

"Have you tried benchmarking your actual and target asset allocation performance against something a lot simpler - like a basic Bond:Shares allocation with similar risk level, with appropriate split of AU vs Global within each and a basic index fund proxy for each? I just suspect you may not be adding a lot of performance by the degree of complexity and number of individual holdings. I did a quick comparison of your NW monthly figures to mine (after converting my figures using the relevant monthly avg AUD:USD exchange rate), and aside from the jump in my nW in Feb '23 when I updated my estimated valuations for non-home real estate values, the monthly and three year trend is visually almost identical -- if anything yours seem to have more volatility than mine. Since most of the individual investments in your portfolio have internal diversification, I'm not sure your role as an active fund manager of your own investment portfolio is actually adding much 'alpha' ;) Then again, your spare time is 'free' so at least you aren't charging yourself a fee as fund manager (on top of whatever fees are embedded in some of those funds you've chosen)."

My response was that I had a beta of less than one to the ASX 200 and had positive alpha... But I have now done an analysis that I think is close to what EnoughWealth is suggesting here. I picked the Vanguard managed ETF VDBA.AX, which is diversified across Australian and global stocks and bonds. So, this is a potential alternative to our current investments. It is 50/50 stocks and bonds, whereas I am targeting 60% equities. But we could lever it up a little bit if we wanted.

Vanguard nicely provide all the data needed. Most of the work is in calculating dividend reinvestment. I assumed dividends were reinvested on the ex-date increasing the number of shares. Then I multiplied the daily price by number of shares to get the total value. I carried out my analysis using month end values since inception of VDBA.

The results might surprise Bogleheads :)

First, here is how $1000 would have evolved if invested either with me or in VDBA since the end of November 2017:

Put another way, the average annual return over this period was 5.06% for VDBA and 8.65% for Moom. 

Is this because VDBA is a bit more conservative? As you can see from the graph, volatility is about the same for the two investments. Formally, the monthly standard deviation of returns for VDBA is 2.32%, while it is 2.28% for Moom. So, it's not because of that.

So, I also did a CAPM style analysis using the RBA cash rate as the risk free rate and treating VDBA as the index. Moom has a 0.88 beta to VDBA and an annual alpha of 3.33%. 1% of extra return on a $5 million portfolio is $50,000...

In conclusion, the additional diversification in our portfolio really does add value.
 

How Much Investment Income Do We Need to Compensate for Inflation?

 

This chart compares the fitted investment income curve from my previous post about the "boiling point" with the monthly loss of value of our portfolio (including our house) due to inflation. I just took the monthly percentage change in Australia's consumer price index and multiplied by the value of our portfolio that month. The gap between the blue and orange curves is a naive estimate of how much can be spent each month in retirement mode.

Currently, projected investment income is only just enough to cover the loss from inflation. Smoothing inflation over twelve months tells a similar story:

Here I divide the CPI by its value twelve months earlier, take the twelfth root and subtract one before multiplying by the value of the portfolio. This shows that inflation is coming down a little but is still high. We really need to boost our rate of return relative to inflation in order to retire and maintain the real value of the portfolio. It is hard to think about retiring until in inflation is more under control.

Investment income accounts for superannuation taxes, but assumes that the only tax on investments outside superannuation is exactly equal to the franking credits paid.* In retirement, the superannuation tax would go away, but there would be capital gains and other taxes on investments outside superannuation. So, probably it is in the ballpark.

* This is because the series is computed as the change in net worth minus saving and inheritances. Saving is computed after tax including superannuation contribution taxes and income tax.

When Was the Boiling Point?

Interesting post from Enough Wealth on the "boiling point" when more of your gain in net worth comes from investment returns rather than saving. Rather than just look at the change in net worth, I created the following graph of monthly total saving from non-investment income:

This includes superannuation contributions and mortgage principal payments but not inheritances. I fitted a linear trend to this. Then I created a graph of investment income (including superannuation returns and changes in the value of our house):

 

I fitted a quadratic trend to this data. When the two curves cross we are at the boiling point. Because of the volatility of investment income it's a bit hard to see where that is. So, I also did this close up:

 

The boiling point was in January 2012 according to this analysis. Currently the trend is at about $35k per month, which is about four to five times the savings trend. That doesn't really say anything about the ability to retire. Some of the investment return is needed to maintain the real after inflation value of the portfolio and it needs to be compared to spending not saving!

Superannuation Returns in the Long-Run

Following up from my post on how our SMSF is performing compared to our managed superannuation funds, here is how our superannuation in general has done over time:

Note that the y-axis is a log scale! Our superannuation has outperformed the MSCI index in AUD terms in the long-run. The big win was in the couple of years after 2002 when I rolled over my Unisuper fund to Colonial First State and invested in geared funds. Then I got too conservative leading up to the GFC - the flat top you can see on the red line. Superannuation returns crashed in the GFC because I got aggressive again too early. After that, we have followed the market more closely until after 2018 when we have gone into a bit more of a capital preservation mode again. This reduced the volatility in 2022 but returns in 2023 are a bit disappointing so far.

On the other hand, our non-superannuation assets had catastrophic performance up to 2009. After that, I got my act together, which eventually gave me the confidence to set up an SMSF. But you can see the value of handing control to an external manager early on.

Superannuation returns are pre-tax but after fees. My method of imputing tax paid for public superannuation funds probably exaggerates their performance a bit. These time based returns are quite different from dollar based returns. All the early volatility wasn't that important because total assets were small. Performing well now is much more important.

Enough Wealth followed up on my original post by comparing his SMSF over a longer period to a basket of industry funds.

Performance of Average Investors

 Latest version of the famous J.P. Morgan graph:

They estimate the returns for "average investors" from mutual fund flows. My return for this period was 6.12% (USD return). It's good that I am way ahead of the average investor but not good that I am behind a 60/40 portfolio (with no fees).

For a while now, I have been tracking these 20 year returns. Here is a graph with rolling 20 year USD returns for my portfolio and some key indices:

Each datapoint is the return for the 20 years up to that month. I started investing in 1996 and so the first observation is for September 2016. While I used to be worse than the median hedge fund, in the last couple of years my 20 year track record is a little bit better than the hedge fund index. I like to think it is more important to perform well the more money you have to invest :) In other words, dollar-weighted returns are more important than time-weighted returns.

November 2021 Report

The MSCI World Index fell by 2.38%, the S&P 500 by 0.69%, and the ASX 200 by 0.37%. All these are total returns including dividends. The Australian Dollar fell from USD 0.7518 to USD 0.7122 boosting Australian Dollar returns and making USD returns very negative. We gained 1.52% in Australian Dollar terms or lost 3.83% in US Dollar terms. The target portfolio gained 2.15% in Australian Dollar terms and the HFRI hedge fund index is expected to fall 0.99% in US Dollar terms. So, we under-performed the target portfolio benchmark, the two international indices, and the HFRI but outperformed the Australian index.

The record-breaking run of winning months in Australian Dollar (and currency neutral) terms continued. We haven't had a losing month since March 2020. This is a 20 months run so far. We have had several US Dollar losses in that time. This month was the 6th and worst decline. This graph shows returns since 2018 in Australian Dollar terms:

As designed we are getting less volatility on average than the MSCI index in Australian Dollar terms. This month it was up though the index was down in US Dollar terms. If you are wondering why the scale is so wide on this graph, this is the reason:

US Dollar returns are much more volatile. For Australians, holding foreign assets reduces volatility in Australian Dollar terms as the Australian Dollar tends to move with stock prices, raising the Australian Dollar value of foreign assets when stock markets decline. For Americans, holding foreign assets increases volatility... You really would need to short the US Dollar to get similar results in US Dollar terms.

Here is a report on the performance of investments by asset class (currency neutral returns):

Gold had the best performance and contributed the most to the account followed by large cap Australian stocks.

Things that worked well this month:

• Gold was the star performer. Gold started the month very strongly but then collapsed after Jay Powell was appointed for another term as Federal Reserve chair. But it then ended the month a lot ahead. We gained AUD 31k. In fact the US Dollar price of gold fell slightly but the fall in the Australian Dollar provided all the gains as we hold our gold as PMGOLD.AX. Runners up were Fortescue (FMG.AX) at AUD 12k and Regal Funds (RF1.AX) AUD 10k. The Fortescue position is relatively small. It gained 15%.
  

What really didn't work:

• Cadence Capital (CDM.AX) lost AUD 10k and Cadence Opportunities (CDO.AX) lost AUD 5k after opening above the IPO price. Despite CDO's great historic performance, the firm raised much less money than they hoped at the IPO.

The investment performance statistics for the last five years are: 

The first two rows are our unadjusted performance numbers in US and Australian Dollar terms. The following four lines compare performance against each of the three indices over the last 60 months. We show the desired asymmetric capture and positive alpha against the ASX200 index. We are a little bit worse than the median hedge fund levered 1.6 times. 

We moved a little bit away from our desired long-run asset allocation. Private equity is the most underweight asset class and real assets the most overweight. Our actual allocation currently looks like this:

Roughly two thirds of our portfolio is in what are often considered to be alternative assets: real estate, art, hedge funds, private equity, gold, and futures. We receive employer contributions to superannuation every two weeks. In addition we made the following investment moves this month:

• I closed the small positions we had in Pengana Capital (PCG.AX) following the distribution in specie from PE1.AX and sold 10k shares of PE1 I recently bought when the stock price was below NAV.
• I bought back 4k shares of RICA.L that I sold to participate in the RF1.AX rights issue.
• I bought 36k Regal Funds (RF1.AX) shares when they announced a jump in NAV to the share price on the hope of the premium to NAV coming back. I don't plan to hold this for the long term. I've already sold 17k of them.
  
• Cadence Opportunities IPO-ed (CDO.AX). I moved the shares into Moominmama's Interactive Brokers account and planned to sell stuff there to pay down some of my CommSec margin loan. I try to keep a balance of contributions in her IB account to match money we deposited there from the mortgage redraw.
• Planning for that move, I sold 12k MOT.AX shares, an Australian private credit fund.
• But then WCM Global Long-Short (WLS.AX) announced that they have redone their accounts and now the post-tax NAV is the same as the pre-tax NAV, which is also higher. I thought it was a good opportunity to increase our holding in that fund to around a 2% position and bought 44k shares, which used up the cash in the account...
• But I did sell all our holdings of Scorpio Tankers (SBBA) and most of our Ready Capital (RCB) baby bonds in her account and bought AUD 65k helping increase our holdings of Australian Dollars and reducing US Dollars.
• I also sold our position (4k shares) in Argo Investments (ARG.AX), which was suggested by the investment review.
  
• In order to hedge some remaining foreign currency exposure and get back closer to a 50/50 Australian Dollar/Foreign Currency exposure balance, I bought one Australian Dollar futures contract.
  

Top Baggers

Meb Faber refers to the total gain on an investment over time in terms of "baggers". If you invested $1,000 and made $9,000 then that is a 10-bagger.

I was wondering what my best investment measured this way was. I previously calculated this using internal rate of return. But it is easier to get a high IRR on an investment held for a short time than one held for the long term. Which of my investments gained the most over time?

If you invest $1,000 and now have $1,000 of profit it is easy to see that this is a 2-bagger. This is the way venture capital firms typical report the value relative to what they put in. But what if you added more to the investment over time? What if you sold out for a while and then bought back? Or traded in other ways?

I realized we could get an approximation in these cases using the following pseudo-formula in Excel:

Bags = (1+IRR)^(COUNT(X:Y)/12)

IRR is the internal rate of return I already have. The count formula counts how many cells have an entry in them. I created a column with the following formula in it:

=IF(Z=0,"",1)

where Z are cells with the number of shares held each month. It returns a blank if the number is zero. We then apply the previous formula to this column (i.e. the range X:Y). 

I've now applied this to all my currently held investments. The median investment is 1.42 (gold). The worst is 0.80 (PSTH) and the best is CFS Developing Companies at 9.69. I think my best ever investment is Colonial/Commonwealth Bank which scores 13.01. I bought Colonial shares at the demutualization. I haven't computed this for all past investments yet. Gold is also my current median investment by IRR (12.4%).

So here are the top ten current investments using "bags", IRR, and total AUD gain :

There is some overlap between the columns. Regal Funds and Pershing Square show up in all three. The IRR column though highlights several recent investments that have done well like WCM Global Long-Short (WLS.AX) and WAM Strategic Value (WAR.AX). The top two in the last column are our two superannuation funds that also appear in the bags column and have a lot invested in them.

Why a Constant Risk Trading Strategy Works

A constant risk trading strategy in the day-trading context is where your maximum loss possible is a constant. There are other definitions in trend-following etc contexts where you choose a position size so that the typical or expected daily movement up or down is a constant over time and markets.

Using the first definition, once you choose a stop loss, you compute the loss per contract or share if the stop was triggered and divide the fixed maximum loss figure by that to find out how many contracts or shares to buy. For example, if you are willing to risk $2000 on a trade and a contract will lose $1000 in the worst case, you buy (or sell) two contracts. 

The reason this works is the maximum downside loss is capped but by trading more contracts when possible the upside is increased. This helps create asymmetry. 

This graph shows possible loss on the x-axis and trading results (in backtest) on the y-axis, when trading one SPI contract over the last 13 months:

And this is what happens to the returns when the maximum loss is set at the average $2,300 (yes the stop loss can occasionally be exceeded when the opening price of the day is above the entry stop):

 

This has a lower information ratio (similar to Sharpe ratio but without deducting the risk free rate) than the one contract strategy though. It misses out on really big gains when volatility is high. But if you combine the two and set a minimum maximum loss at $2,300 you get better results than either strategy alone. Below $2,300 potential loss you trade a variable number of contracts and above it one contract only:

This has a higher information ratio than either simple strategy but it does take on a lot more risk at times than the constant risk strategy, which for a small account trading full size futures contracts could mean just not trading when volatility is high.