Matthew,
It occurs to me that it would be valuable to know several pieces of general information about the population here at C2 - information that could be shared without revealing true proprietary data (if you perceive it as such).
It should be quite easy to add a couple of data items to each of our profiles in your database.
Let each of us privately declare if we are: Customers (or Subscriber if you wish) or Vendors.
Within Customer/Subscriber, next question would be, "Are your intentions to buy systems for your own account or do you plan on becoming/are a hedge fund manager (this will quiet people like Gilbert claiming that 95% of the people on this site are aspiring hedge fund managers).
For Vendors, next question is, “Do you currently/are you planning on selling subscriptions to Customers/Subscribers at some point in the future?” And then "Are you here merely to establish a track record for your product?"
Then, in your Profile Page, when people sign up, ask them to answer these questions. For those of us who are currently Members to this site - make a Special Request to ask us to update our profiles privately.
After a sufficient number of profiles had been updated, then you could regularly publish publicly:
% of Customers who are trading their own account
% of Customers who are/intend to be Hedge Fund Managers
% of Vendors who are/intend to sell Subscriptions to their systems
% of Vendors who are here to establish a track record for their product
As a Customer/Subscriber, I would really like to know which Vendors are here to merely establish a track record for their system. If I knew that, it might beneficial when I see some of their comments (and why should they care if the world knows who is trying to sell products and who isn’t?).
There are probably a few other pieces of data that could safely be collected and published that we might find valuable. Others may have great ideas, too.
That should put some of the mindless chatter on this site to bed (although it will probably be only a small dent).
Thanks,
Skip
Skip’s assertion:
(this will quiet people like Gilbert claiming that 95% of the people on this site are aspiring hedge fund managers)
Gilbert’s post:
Keep in mind C2 is an incubator for budding hedge funds and managers. Of course 95% of them will eventually “fail”.
Collective2’s (C2) intro: "How to create your own hedge fund."
Is it too much for you to use accuracy? If you don’t have a C2 system, show some courtesy to those that do.
Gilbert
I have no idea what your point is.
Neither does anyone else. No one is more delusional and self-blinded than this person. Call it negativity, he is deaf and mute about a huge number of people complaining about his constant misrepresentations for a couple of years. This started on EliteTrader. I have him on ignore, but cannot do that for chat area or seeing his stuff in other peoples’ posts.
I fail to see what use this information would provide. None of them are Yes/No answers, all of them are ‘well it depends’, the hedge fund manager one is like asking a politician if they intend becoming President, most don’t set out to and have no chance of it ever happening, but I’m sure if they were ever offered the job they’d suddenly become very inspired.
It sounds like you want hundreds of people to provide this information just to disprove or quieten one users assertions. The reasons anyone might come to this site both as a subscriber and vendor vary greatly and to pigeon hole anyone and suggest they are set in stone is a needless distraction, vendors could suddenly tailor their answers to suit the current ‘ideal profile’ for a potential sub, people are like any good system in that they are dynamic and evolve, to try and analyse their intentions or motivations based on a few pollster type questions would be a fruitless exercise imo.
I agree. This would be a waste of everyone time. Building a track record and selling a system are not at all mutually exclusive.
Also, seeing how many subscribers a system has at any point would not tell you anything either because most people will jump on the current hot winning system. It would probably be more useful for the vendors to see if the cost of the site is worthwhile, though. This could put price pressure on the charges. It is very easy to predict the systems that are older or hot will have the most subscribers. It is unlikely to follow a bell curve either. I imagine 5% to 15% of the systems have 90% of the subscribers.
It is not really possible for the novice to judge or evaluate the expert. Remember, the novice is coming to the expert because he “doesn’t know” and the expert knows. So, how can he judge him? My experience tells me that they can’t. This is why so much brooh-hah is placed on degrees, certifications, and a track record. Those things do not make the expert though: they just make it easier to be known.
Another idea proposed of providing a backtest is completely ridiculous too. This site exist because backtest are known to not always be reliable, more over, it would exclude any discretionary trader like myself. It would, also, be easily falsifiable.
However, if you ask me then I will provide a few markers that will probably reveal better systems:
1. System description. If a system has no description then I would not bother with it: no matter how great the record. I would expect there would be a high correlation between length of description and quality of system. Content is less important but some statements might be red flags. Systems that are well documented with off-site support should get a boost.
2. Realism factor and Worst Case Keep. These are the systems where these are negative really bother me because C2 is saying you are not likely to get these gains but showing them. These systems should not get promoted as high or they should be able to show their gains and provide a reasonable way for a subscriber to achieve them.
3. Is the system traded with real money? This should not be a “tell all” but should increase confidence. I do not yet trade my systems with real money but do plan too unless it hurts my read of the market. This would be especially true for hot systems or ones that trade tons of contracts.
4. Metrics, # of trades, and system length. It can’t be denied that a system that avoided the meltdown has to be given credit. However, avoiding 1 major meltdown may not be as important as other factors. I would put less emphasis on longer term trend following systems simply because the stakes are much higher and harder to evaluate – even though it is obvious such a system should compose a core holding in a strategy that is diversified across time frames, markets, and methods. I would, also, have to say that a system that goes long and short should get a little more credibility simply because going short is more difficult. Short systems do break down more often though but this may give an indication of vendor ability.
5. Vendor rating.
6. Vendor passion and ethics. I would rate this very high. Vendor passion can be observed in off-site documentation, participation in other trading related activities, and forum support. A vendor that does not provide off-site support materials, a forum, or makes unrealistic claims would be red flags.
--------------
Curtis,
Thanks to you and others for chiming in. Your response is very interesting. First, I have to remind myself that you’re a Vendor, and often Vendors look at things a little differently than Customers. That’s not a criticism.
OK - how about this…??
Please pick 5 systems at C2 based first and foremost on your selection criteria only. You have to be limited to the criteria you have posted. I would be interested to see what you pick.
Just those factors.
Then let’s continue this discussion. I think it will be worthwhile.
Thanks,
Skip
