Case study: Equity guard retrofitted to an index expert

The client's idea

Pedram Rostami works NAS100 on M5; the opening brief was: The index expert works well, but it has no guard on bad days.

Project and starting point

In volatile index stretches the expert opened many positions at once and intraday equity fell with no limit at all.

Solution architecture

An equity guard based on floating profit, staged position closing and an automatic resume on the next trading day.

The automatic resume was added so the client never has to restart the expert by hand. It matches how NAS100 is actually traded and can be tested against the data already available.

Why this design

The automatic resume was added so the client never has to restart the expert by hand. It matches how NAS100 is actually traded and can be tested against the data already available.

Implemented capabilities

Modules and components built: Drawdown limit + auto resume.

Delivered output:
Equity guard retrofitted to an index expert — NAS100 (M5)
Specification document and the rule-to-code mapping table
Full MQL5 source, commented
Test report: Index crisis-day testing
Parameter document and install guide (6 weeks)

Safeguards and risk control

The risk layer sits outside the strategy logic, so a later change to the signal cannot bypass it.

Backtest and forward test method

Test method: Index crisis-day testing.

Testing runs in three stages: a backtest on historical data, limited optimisation inside the contract's scope, and a forward run with the parameters frozen.

Tools and stack: MQL5, the client's code, index M1 data.

Every figure from this project is published together with its measurement conditions: the data window, the tick model, the spread, the commission and the build of the executable. Without them a number cannot be compared with anything.

Publishable results

Replaying two crisis days, the guard fired before equity reached the ceiling and the system returned to normal the following day.

Limitations and cautions

The risk layer sits outside the strategy logic, so a later change to the signal cannot bypass it.

Every test result depends on the quality of the historical data, the broker's spread and market conditions, and none of it is a promise about the future. Through a severe price gap or a broker disconnection a stop loss cannot be guaranteed, so behaviour in those conditions must be reviewed separately.

Our next-step proposal

The next step is a monthly compliance report that proves the account rules were respected.