About FG Finance

Almost all trading content sells the dream. This site does the opposite: we take the rules people repeat — buy the dip when RSI is oversold, buy the golden cross, trade the opening breakout — and put them through a testing engine that charges the costs a real account actually pays. Then we publish the verdict, whatever it is.

Where this comes from

We did not start out wanting to write about trading. We started out trading, and building the software to do it: data pipelines, execution, risk controls, and backtests. The expensive lesson was that the backtests were flattering us. Strategies that looked profitable on screen turned out to be paying for spreads we had not modelled, commission minimums we had rounded away, and fills we had assumed were free.

So we rebuilt the testing engine to be pessimistic on purpose: real per-name spreads, real commission structures including per-order minimums, slippage calibrated from our own executions rather than guessed, overnight financing, and a limit on how many positions an account can actually hold at once. Most strategies do not survive contact with it. That is the point, and it is also the content.

The rules we hold ourselves to

• The test is written before it is run. Universe, entry, exit and dates are fixed in advance, and every configuration we tested gets reported — not the best one.
• Every number is ours. We do not repeat other people's statistics. If we cannot measure it, we do not claim it.
• Compare against the boring alternative. In a rising market almost anything makes money, so a strategy is measured against simply owning the thing — and, where it matters, against random entries with the same market exposure.
• We test strategies, never people. No names, no channels, no screenshots of anyone's account.
• We publish our own mistakes. Both of our first two autopsies contain a section describing a flaw we found in our own method before publishing. That will keep happening, and we will keep printing it.

Who writes it

FG Finance is written pseudonymously. That is a deliberate choice: the argument should stand on its method and its numbers, not on a personal brand, and we would rather you checked the test than trusted the author. Every piece states exactly what was measured and how, so you can disagree with the conclusion on the evidence.

Corrections, method challenges and requests for which strategy to test next are all welcome — reply to any newsletter issue and it reaches us.

The honest disclaimer

Nothing here is investment advice, and we are not financial advisers. Everything is educational. See our disclosure page for how the site is funded and why that cannot change a verdict.