I just wanted to know if anyone out there know’s why there is such a huge contrast between the top performing systems on Collective2 and the top systems at Attain. Am I looking at apples and oranges here or what. For example best performing systmes on Collective2 have and annual ROI of over 200% and the best systems on Attain are mabey just a little better that a good mutual fund with much higher volitility. I just don’t get it?
It’s quite simple - The systems at Attain are “taxed” with commissions as much as 5x or more the going rate on the market. Also the results at Attain include all system fees. And finally, Attain is NOT the best at execution - they often miss trades which can adversely affect system performance. And the final bit - in order to list your system at Attain, you have to give them your system code. Most developers are not willing to do that, or at least, not with their best work, so the systems at Attain are generally mediocre propositions.
C2 on the other hand does not require disclosure of the system, it does not even require there to BE a system (software). There are also no “taxes” since C2 doesn’t manage executions, simply tracks signals. Now C2 has issues too. You will see a lot of systems in here with 200+% annualised return, but you will also find many of them have 200+% maximum drawdown - in other words, the system is untradable. This is an issue that Matthew is working on, but it will be a while. Until then, I strongly suggest you look at more than just the scant statistics offered on a system’s profile page. Look at the chart, look at the position history and calculate what the actual risk exposure was on a per trade basis - Can you live with that?
For example; on my EURUSD system I clearly state that my system risks 7% of available capital on every trade. It would be nice if all system vendors disclosed some general information like this - it would help subscribers distinguish the appropriate systems (for them!) from the inappropriate.
In addition to the transaction costs which are very low at C2 and slippages which are non-existent, the C2 hypothetical fill engine uses the “best-case scenario”, wherein there is no limit on the volume compared to the daily volume for stocks/options (forex, futures not needed) resulting in unrealistic fills and results and excessive limit orders for some systems that directly affects tradeability.
I and others have suggested to Mathew to rectify these so as to take these inefficiencies into account for the future (limit volume to 5% of daily volume and diplay market price for limit fills etc.,) and to modify the C2 rating for traders to reflect these bad trading practices.
Also, there are leverage flaws (very low 33:1 margin) for forex market in this hypothetical fill engine wherein the Forex market needs this low leverage (100:1) because the forex prices move very little relative to stocks, futures and options. Stocks are low leverage (2:1) instruments but they move a lot (often move 10% or 20% in a single day and 5%, 2% movers are everywhere.) Because of the nature of the forex market, 100:1 margin is low. 200:1 margin is high. The more the movement of the underlying instrument, the less the leverage required.
Also, as Ashley Howes says “Day-trading systems specialize in one market, do very well for a while and then suddenly fall to pieces. Many day-trading systems are taking extremely large positions which, in the event of any large intra-day moves or breakdown in exchange trading functions or server outages which happen from time to time, expose the account to wipe-out, even negative equity. This is also something worth considering when evaluating the Realism Index of any system.
Please also note that as with many systems that go for longer terms moves (although not all trades do this), the open equity plot favoured here at C2 sometimes provides a misleading, or we should say incomplete, picture. The most important negative points are those that involve actual (realized) account losses, which are not the same as an open equity (unrealized) drawdown. There are going to be open equity drawdowns. But in order to get the big moves, you have to be willing to give those profits a chance to run. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. What is not shown here on the C2 graph is the closed equity line. Usually, though not always, it shows a far smoother ride than looking at the open equity plot alone, which does tend to oscillate far more, and also with far larger moves than any day-trading system would permit.” Also, options on forex and futures are not yet available at C2, which makes it difficult to hedge your positions for longer-term investing, with the result it appears that the day-trading systems at C2 encounter lower drawdowns; but in reality, the intra day drawdowns they encounter is not shown here at C2; instead they show end-of-day drawdowns which essentially is a closed equity plot for day-trading systems. “All that glisters is not Gold” - William Shakespeare
This is precisely why long-term (buy-and-hold) portfolio has a definite advantage in that the transaction costs are small relative to the average move, but some traders might find it difficult to sit tight through prolonged corrections, though put options are designed specifically to counter this.
Optimal dynamic (short-term) asset-allocation policy is generally unattainable due to transaction costs and other market frictions(slippages), but can be approximated with just a few options in a buy-and-hold protfolio given that only a few trades are required to establish the portfolio and there are few costs to bear thereafter.
An even more compelling motivation for the buy-and-hold portfolio is the presence of capital gains taxes that are generated in a dynamic asset-allocation portfolio but which are deferred until a future point in time in a buy-and-hold portfolio.
All trade-babble and psychobabble (and philobabble too!) aside.
Intratrade drawdown is a very important metric. Look at the Midas systems - they are long/medium term and they both have a max DD of at least 80% (we have no idea what happened intraday on the worst days). Regardless of whether or not that was closed DD or not - it is an unacceptable level of DD for any reasonable investor. Now, look at Bris and (aside from the dead period) notice the curve’s relative smoothness. One would expect that the C2 ratings of the developers of those systems would be vastly different. Not so. THAT is a problem.
One would expect that the C2 ratings of the developers of those systems would be vastly different.
I disagree.
I agree with Ross Canfield who says “Frankly, the major problem with ratings, is the focus on system performance as a key factor. To me, this is GARBAGE”
C2 rating should measure the honesty, reliability (rationality) and productiveness of the trader, not the system performance.
By the way “Justice” is Rationality in the Evaluation of Men.
How could system performance not be a key factor, as long as it measures best return least drawdown.
Perhaps only if other criteria make our own systems look better in our own minds.
Ross Canfield must be crazy;
The ratings are for the use of subscribers NOT other system designers. You cannot measure honesty or reliability or even productiveness of someone you’ve never met. The only metric AVAILABLE to C2 is the system performances. And let’s be honest here - If I have 100k to place in system trading - I don’t give a hoot about a designer’s ethics or moral stature. I care about the value of their product as measured by real-time track record. If the system performs well, I want in, otherwise, I don’t! It’s that simple. System Performance is the ONLY factor that matters in assessing a traders broader skill sets and discretion. (A trader who tracks horrific systems at C2 is probably not possessed of much discretion.)
Both you and Frank missed an important point of Ross Canfield, or just ignored it?
Intellectually, every discovery contributes to human life by enhancing man’s grasp of reality. Productive work, “is the process by which man’s consciousness controls his existence, a constant process of aquiring knowledge and shaping matter to fit one’s purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one’s values…” As this statement makes clear, productiveness, like every other virtue, involves two integrated components: consciousness and existence; or thought and action; or knowledge and its material implementation. Neither of these componenets is dispensable to any productive man or activity.
Knowledge,as Francis Bacon stated, is power. It is an instrument enabling man to support his life. It is a product of consciousness to be applied to reality: to be followed, embodied, used. This is why productiveness is defined as the creation of material values. The discovery of knowledge is the first step. But the purpose of knowledge is to make possible an existential value, such as a new type of machine, a new method of transportation, or a new method of living.
Contrary to the classic philosophic tradition, knowledge is not something to be gained or enjoyed for its own sake. It is not a fulfillment to be pursued with “disinterest” or because it is “pure,” i.e., divorced from matter and action. It is a commodity that satisfies a definite practical interest, the interest in survival.
In a division-of-labor society, a man may properly specialize in cognition. But as long as the knowledge he acquired remains unembodied, it is not yet a productive achievement (nor does it work yet to support man’s life). If the scientist or scholar is to qualify as productive, he must proceed in due course to the next step. He must give his discoveries some form of existence in physical reality and not merely in his consciousness - usually, by writing treatises or deliviering lectures.
A treatise, however brilliant, is not an end in itself. The mind-body integration required by productiveness is not complete until the knowledge is turned into some form of material wealth. In this step, too, specialization is typically involved. The most important performers of this crucial feat are the inventors, the engineers, the industrialists: the traders.
Now tell me, how many systems “hypothetical” performance at C2 can be honestly turned into “real” performance reflecting the true productiveness of the trader?
There is no dichotomy between “pure” science and “gadgets.” Science is related to technology as theory is to practice; as metaphysics and epistemology are to ethics and politics; as philosophy is to life; or as mind is to body. In all these cases, the first apart from the second is purposeless; the second apart from the first is impossible.
From a subscriber’s point of view (mine anyway), system performance is a vital statistic, along with others like real-world tradability, money management, and consistency (high W/L ratio). I’m not here trying to learn to be a trader (I’ve learned through many years of trial and error that I am not a good trader) but to find a system that can provide good performance (ie. make money) and be compatible with my risk tolerance and desired activity level.
Without system performance we might as well flip a coin to determine what system to go with. We could probably trade that way, fliping a coin, and get similar results and forget about systems.
You may be talking on a different level here Pal, but subscribers care only about the size of their trading account.
Maybe I just don’t get it, perhaps if you put things a little simpler it could actually be understood. I once read “true genius is simplicity” I do not remember who wrote it but I have a feeling you might.
Jesus’ question “What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?” is admirably exact. The man who “loses his soul” is, in virtue of such a condition, outside the concept of “profit.” Of course, Jesus’ question is not valid if read to imply a dichotomy between the world and the soul. It is instructive only if taken in one meaning: that the integrity of man’s consciousness, its principled harmony with existence, is the precondition of man’s benefitting from any of the splendor the world holds out to him.
This point applies to all human behavior, not only to the issue of honesty. Just as, in epistemology, irrational mental processes detach a conclusion from the realm of cognition; so, in ethics, irrational action detaches a goal from the realm of evaluation. Whenever an object, spiritual or material, is sought or obtained by behavior in conflict with moral principle - whether the behavior involves fraud, improper compromise, the initiation of force, or any other evil - the means employed, by their very nature, clash with reality and thereby deprive the object in that context of any evaluative standing. Once the guidance of principle is dropped, there is no rational method of evaluating an object.
Morally, the con man and the lying child-protector are opposites. The difference is the same as that between murder and self-defense.
In regards to integrity, to be good is to be good “all of the time.” To be precise, to be good is to obey moral principles faithfully, without a moment’s exception, within the relevant context - which one must, therefore, know and keep in mind. Virtue does not consist in obeying concrete-bound rules (“Do not lie, do not kill, do not accept helo from others, make money, honor your parents, etc.”). No such rules can be defended or consistently practiced; so prople throw up their hands and flout all rules.
The proper approach is to recognize that virtues are borad abstractions, which one must apply to concrete situations by a process of thought. In the process, one must observe all the rules of correct epistemology, including definition by essentials and context-keeping.
This is the only way there is to know what is moral - or to be honest.
Quoting Ross Canfield is one thing Pal, but Christ? With what arrogance and pride you so proudly declaim to all of us ignorant folk that the rhetorical question Christ poses is "instructive only if taken in one meaning: that the integrity of man’s consciousness, its principled harmony with existence, is the precondition of man’s benefitting from any of the splendor the world holds out to him. "
This sort of fatuity is absolutely ridiculous. It’s one thing to warp and twist the methodology of Van Thaarp, but to manipulate the words of the man without equal, to fit your own corrupt and depraved philosophy is the very height of dishonesty.
Pal writes:
"Whenever an object, spiritual or material, is sought or obtained by behavior in conflict with moral principle - whether the behavior involves fraud, improper compromise, the initiation of force, or any other evil - the means employed, by their very nature, clash with reality and thereby deprive the object in that context of any evaluative standing. Once the guidance of principle is dropped, there is no rational method of evaluating an object. "
What the heck are you talking about here? Principle, adherence to moral law? YOU??? Who just yesterday admitted to being an outright fraud and con who simply wanted to “test his shoddy systems…for a price,” because as you say, “No man is smaller than his money.” Not only is your thinking utterly depraved but irrational. Unless of course by “guidence of principle” you meant only your own “self-intrest” and "egoistic fufillment at the expense of others (in this case the subscribers).
And because you find that you lack the moral and spiritual resources to face the world with dignity to assert that “Virtue does not consist in obeying concrete-bound rules (“Do not lie, do not kill, do not accept helo from others, make money, honor your parents, etc.”). No such rules can be defended or consistently practiced.” Why not? Why must one lie? I myself have been a straight shooter all my life. Why must I ever kill? In a couple of very dangerous incidents I manage to escape unscathed without even the thought of killing my assailants. When will I not honor my parents? Never in my life have I ever brought dishoner nor dishonered my parents, lest it were by some accident or cause of which I do not know. Do not try to make universal judgements from your own failures at upholding a moral existence.
Pal writes:
"This is the only way there is to know what is moral - or to be honest."
What, to follow your greedy belly and milk your subscribers for as much as you can, as long as you can without providing them any compensation (but mere worthless babble). God save us!
Ladies and Gentlemen;
In my years I have run across many Pal’s - They can quote scripture, theosophy, philosophy or any other tid bit that comes to hand. The primary goal is obfuscation. Most of Pal’s ramblings say absolutely nothing.
For those of us who actually understand that performance is ALL there is to go on in this business - and that there are many parameters to the definition of good performance, some of which are not yet covered here at C2; Let’s all agree that, while it’s fun to watch a monkey on a typewriter, searching for meaning in the product is a pointless endeavor.
Anyone who looks at a system profile on this site is given enough information to perform adequate triage. For what is missing, we’ll have to wait while Matthew figures out how to integrate it. At any rate, the current ratings system is better than nothing, but only just.
I suggest that an excellent way to determine whether a person’s comments are worthy of note, is to simply look at their systems’ performance statistics and equity curves. Those worth listening to will probably stand out fairly clearly.
Frank - don’t ask Pal for another quote - PLEASE!!!
I’ll give you a quote - It’s from me - I googled it, and no one has said it yet - so here it is!
Genius is simply the act of being the first to state the obvious.
I do not agree.
Since men do not automataically come to the same conclusions, no code of ethics can escape the present issue. In essence, there are only two viewpoints on this issue, because there are only two basic methods by which one can deal with a dispute. The methods are reason and force; seeking to presuade others to share one’s ideas voluntarily - or coercing others into doing what one wishes regardless of their ideas. I countenance only the method of presuasion.
Not all presuaders are honest men; many are manipulators, even destroyers, who bypass logic and seek to get what they want from others by playing on their feelings. But these creatures, if they abstain from force, leave their victims free not to fall for the racket - free to think logically in solitude, to decide the question for themselves, and to act accordingly.
A rational mind does not work under compulsion; it does not subordinate its grasp of reality to anyone’s orders, directives, or controls; it does not sacrifice its knowledge, its view of the truth, to anyone’s opinions, threats, wishes, plans, or “welfare.” Such a mind may be hampered by others, it may be silenced, proscribed, imprisoned, or destroyed; it cannot be forced.
Let’s see . . . - My thesis will be:
Analysis of a Pal post:
This must then be my synthesis:
“I do not agree.”
That’s the clearest and most grammatically solid sentence I think I’ve ever seen from Pal.
“Since men do not automataically come to the same conclusions, no code of ethics can escape the present issue.”
Symbolic logic of the above would look something like this:
If my primary postulate is true, then my second postulate is true. My postulates are unrelated.
This form of linguistic obfuscation (bamboozling people with vocabulary) is absolutely silly. Now to the points -
“Men do not automatically come to the same conclusions.”
Bravo! Insightful! Actually, since men (and women) are not automats, they don’t automatically do ANYTHING. So I guess this is a specific case of the more general, and well understood postulate.
“No code of ethics can escape the present issue.”
Actually, a code of ethics can (and often does) escape any number of issues. Look in the White House for several topical and glaring examples. The real problem here, is that you have made a reference to an unknown entity. WHICH present issue? Aside from those that you yourself have brought up and which most of us (to my knowledge) are ignoring due to their inherent obfuscation, we are still left with all sorts of “issues” about ratings and system performance parametrics, relevant system value judgements, etc. Lesson #1 in posting to PUBLIC forums is to be clear enough that people can respond and interact with you.
“In essence, there are only two viewpoints on this issue, because there are only two basic methods by which one can deal with a dispute.”
Okay, here we are again! WHICH issue?!! Has anyone noticed how Pal writes a lot of his sentences as logical proofs?! Not that they ARE logical, or proofs, simply that he adopts that structure? It’s like those guys who do sales pitches, and when hit with a hard question, will invent statistics on the spot to get out of the situation!
“The methods are reason and force;”
Now - There are infinitely more ways to handle a dispute than through reason or force. How about guile? Avoidance? Misdirection? But I suppose the question we still need to deal with is WHICH ISSUE?!! Until we know that, we aren’t even able to determine whether there IS a dispute!
"seeking to presuade others to share one’s ideas voluntarily - or coercing others into doing what one wishes regardless of their ideas. I countenance only the method of presuasion."
To simplify: Persuading others to your way of thinking, or forcing them to your way of thinking. I only approve of persuasion.
A laudable if common stance. In effect exactly what is practiced in forums. So why are you reiterating it here?!! We know; we don’t need remedial classes.
"Not all presuaders are honest men; many are manipulators, even destroyers, who bypass logic and seek to get what they want from others by playing on their feelings."
Oh, we’re back to the White House again. I think you will find that a truly great persuader does not bypass logic, he manipulates it to his ends. He plays the emotions of those motivated by their emotions, but he also plays the ignorance of those motivated by their ignorance. However; investors, traders and system designers of the type that generally visit here are not easily duped - and although a persuader may have a small advantage over someone else, it will only work if his product is superior - regardless of his honesty or persuasive talents.
"But these creatures, if they abstain from force, leave their victims free not to fall for the racket - free to think logically in solitude, to decide the question for themselves, and to act accordingly."
These creatures you speak of in the third person; YOU are one of us - everytime you put that monkey on your keyboard, you are attempting to PERSUADE others. Now if only you could do it clearly so that the rest of us would take the time to understand your viewpoint. Further: There are no VICTIMS of persuasion. Persuasion offers no physical coercion. Anyone who has the right to drive a car, is intelligent enough to make their own choices. If you choose to listen to a persuasive argument, and you suffer because of it - who’s to blame? YOU are.
"A rational mind does not work under compulsion;"
False: You have no way of proving that. The mind is much more resilient and capable than you give it credit for.
"it does not subordinate its grasp of reality to anyone’s orders, directives, or controls;"
Tell that to the Branch Davidians, the Moonies, Christians, Southern Baptists, Right Wing Muslims, Bush Supporters, etc.
"it does not sacrifice its knowledge, its view of the truth, to anyone’s opinions, threats, wishes, plans, or “welfare.”"
Wrong again - See list above. Add ‘People who believe everything they see on TV News’
"Such a mind may be hampered by others, it may be silenced, proscribed, imprisoned, or destroyed; it cannot be forced."
Any mind can be forced. Placing someone in a violent environment will FORCE them to change the way they think. Fear, properly manipulated can make almost anyone do/be/believe almost anything. You might call this persuasion, and indeed it can be viewed that way - although in most cases the generation of the fear requires some level of physical risk.
Of course, this is a short one for Pal, but what is truly funny is that not only has he NOT stated the issue he was trying to address - but he hasn’t actually ADDRESSED it, either!!
So my antithesis would be this!
Thesis - Synthesis - Antithesis: It’s not rocket science!
Make a CLEAR STATEMENT of what you are trying to say!
Back it up with all sorts of stuff, if you must. We can always just ignore it!
Then tie it up with a CLEAR CONCLUSION.
To order a man to accept a conclusion against his own judgment is to order him to accept as true something that, according to everything he knows, is not true (is either arbitrary or false). This amounts to ordering him to believe a contradiction; it is like demanding his agreement that red is green or that 2 plus 2 equals 5. Once can torture an individual, force him to mouth any words one says, even drive him insane, but one cannot make him believe such mouthings. Volition pertains to the act of initiating and sustaining the process of thought. If a man does choose to think, however, he has no choice in regard to the conclusions he reaches. No matter what the bribes dangled before him or the threats, a thinker has to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Even if he tries, he cannot will himself to accept as true that which he sees to be baseless or mistaken.
It is impossible for a man to engage in a cognitive undertaing or to reach a cognitive result, such as an idea, while brushing aside logic and reality. Yet this is what the criminal who seeks to force a mind demands of his victim. The victim, therefore, has only one recourse (if he cannot escape): to cease functioning as a cognitive entity. When reality is decreed, at gunpoint, to be out of bounds, a rational mind has no way to proceed.
Force in this aspect makes a man act against his judgment. The victim still sees what he sees, values what he values, knows what he knows. The forcer, however, bypasses the victim’s cognition, making it useless in practice. When the gunman threatens: “Your money or your life,” the owner still knows to whom the money belongs. But if he does not choose to risk death or physical harm, the threat is the factor that has to determine his action. His own conclusion - however clear, logical, compelling - becomes impotent.
Physical force, to the extent it is wielded or threatened, denies to its victim the power to act in accordance with his judgment. Such a treatment is tantamount, to “forcing [a man] to act against his own sight,” and it places the individual in an impossible metaphysical position. If he does not act on the conclusion of his mind, he is doomed by reality. If he does, he is doomed by the forcer.
The virtue of rationality requires one to think, and then to be guided by his conclusions in action. Force clashes with both these requirements. Force used to change a man’s mind acts to stop his mind (and thus make it inoperative as the source of his action). Force used to change a man’s action shove his mind (and thus its process of cognition) into the junkheap of the purposeless. In the one manifestation, the brute works to detach his victim’s consciousness from reality and therefore from life; in the other, from life and therefore from reality.
"Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man’s capacity to live. "Force and mind are opposites…"
Force is the antithesis not only of the primary virtue, but of every virtue. The brute attacks in his victims every aspect of the moral life, while at the same time rejecting each in regard to his own life. In unleashing a process of force, he acts to nullify his victims’ independence - while himself becoming a second-hander, whose concern is the conquest not of nature, but of men. He seeks to prevent men from remaining loyal to rational principles - and he seeks it not on the grounds of a principle, but as is true in every case of evil, without grounds; he seeks it through evasion and whim-worship. He orders his victims, when he feels like it, to accept and pass on to others any lie he commands. He throws out the concept of “desert”; his method of dealing with men is to extract the unearned for the sake of benefiting the undeserving, whether himself or others. Because “force and mind are opposites,” force and value are opposites, too. As to the virtue of moral ambitiousness (pride), “Morality ends where gun begins.”
Sigh! No change.
