[R-SIG-Finance] quantstrat - Guy Yollin blotter 2014 presentation

[amarjit chandhial]

I have asked Guy Yollin directly who says and I quote "I do not have the time or resources to provide 1-on-1 support in this area." 
Thus, I am asking the community regarding his blotter 2014 presentation found here: http://www.r-programming.org/papers
Slides 39-40
------------------
Slide 39 has Drawdown = 0 --- from chart.Posn
Slide 40 has Max.Drawdown = -441461.8
Why the difference?
Slides 30-57
------------------
My understanding is via the following definitions:
(a) for discrete or simple returns, cumulative return <- cumprod(1+rets.s)
(b) for compound or log returns, cumulative return <- exp(cumsum(rets.cc) )
'rets' are returns from b.strategy calculated via PortfReturns (Slide 47). So from ?PortfReturns these are returns on initial equity. At each point in time 'rets' = Net.Trading.PL/initEq. These require geometric chaining.
In Slide 47 charts.PerformanceSummary(rets,colorset = bluefocus) --- has default geometric=TRUE
'returns' (Slide 56) are cbind(rets,rets.bh), with
'rets.bh': buyHold 
'rets': b.strategy, as before, 
In Slide 56 charts.PerformanceSummary(returns, geometric=FALSE, wealth.index=TRUE)
Comparing Slides 48 & 57 faber curves do not agree. Slide 48 has a value of approx.10.63, Slide 57 has a value of approx.3.77 (wealth+2.77). It cannot be both-ways regarding returns from b.strategy, it's either geometric or arithmetic chaining?
So hypothetically speaking my boss says to me you have a strategy that makes Net profit = 2,770,644, on an initial equity = 1,000,000 (slides 30-42), yet you say to me it makes cumulative return of 10.63 (slides 47-50), how does that work?
Can someone shed some light on this?
Amarjit
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-finance/attachments/20140911/af72cc1d/attachment.html>