Post

Earned 10U from the price spread, why does the net profit calculation only show 1U? In one trade, the direction was right, and the price spread earned 10U. After reconciling the accounts, only 1U remains. Breaking it down with a set of hypothetical data: • Opening transaction amount 10,000U, closing transaction amount 10,010U, gross long price spread profit 10U. • Assuming both opening and closing fees are 0.04%: opening 4U, closing 4.004U, totaling 8.004U. • The position crossed one funding fee settlement; assuming the position value was 10,000U at that time with a payable rate of 0.01%, paying another 1U. • Net profit = 10 - 8.004 - 1 = 0.996U, approximately 1U. This is not the current fee quote but an example of "gross profit looks good, net profit is very thin." When reviewing short-term strategies, place actual transaction profits, opening and closing fees, and funding fee income or expenses on the same line. Funding fees are calculated based on the position value at settlement, not just the margin invested; whether payment is required and the settlement frequency depend on the specific contract. Another common place for double deduction: if gross profit has already been calculated using actual transaction prices and slippage is reflected in the transaction results, do not deduct it again. Only when backtesting from ideal transaction prices do you need to model execution deviation separately. With the same entry and exit logic, the thinner the target profit and the more frequent the turnover, the more worthwhile it is to audit costs separately. When you review, do you most often record fees, funding fees, or execution deviations separately?