The opinions expressed in these forums do not represent those of C2, and any discussion of profit/loss
is not indicative of future performance or success.
There is a substantial risk of loss in trading. You should therefore carefully consider
whether such trading is suitable for you in light of your financial condition. You should read,
understand, and consider the Risk Disclosure Statement that is provided by your broker
before you consider trading. Most people who trade lose money.
I see your point but still disagree. A system should be measured for the performance and risk the system itself generates, not for the influence of external fees - which can easily be offset by enlarging the model account anyways. Not every system has to be autotraded nor does every subscriber use 100% scaling nor does every subscriber only trade 1 system. All of that influences individual results in terms of fees attributible to any one system. I think displaying only the raw system metrics is the cleanest way, especially in regards of drawdowns. Investors could easily calculate the impact of fees on their portfolio themselfes, it´s no rocket science after all.
But unfortunately this discussion is pointless as long as the regulators demand the way we currently go.
Though the point persists that it´s plain stupidity or unawareness to launch a small model account (<50k) in this environment even if it would work. As a system developer you´re always better off with a big model account. The bigger the better.
Well, if itâs such an issue perhaps let developers decide if they wish their strategy to be auto-traded or not. If not, auto trading fees will not be deducted from performance. Thatâs realistic.
Hmm⌠somehow I get the feeling most developers wonât give up the option of auto-trading so quickly
If that is whatâs happening in small accounts (that is still winning, but less), then imagine what is happening in accounts that follow the system say at 25%, which is allowed by C2. In any case, auto trading fees may be the right thing to do, the problem is that it changes the rules in the middle of the game, and negatively affects the ranking and statistics only on some of the systems. If C2 can apply this change of the rules one time, why not give to the developers the option to scale up and adapt as well? That would be fair I believe. Especially considering the developers are free to also âre-arrangeâ the past of their system by changing the fee.
Yes I noticed and it was a fairly large adjustment, this must have been historical, how far did you go back?. Always happy for the figures to be completely right but will there be any further adjustments in future? Just would like to avoid a shock when I open the strategies.
Couldnât agree with you more. This is exactly my point and complaint. Smaller, conservative (and often more responsible, considerate and respectful of subscribersâ money) systems are being âpunishedâ with this autrotrade fee, which a system developer has no control over.
So, your advice is basically for folks to throw away all their past hard work and start afresh with a new larger system and then be forced to tell their subscribers, âsorry, I have no choice but I have to abandon you now to start something new and larger?â On top of that, you think potential new subscribers will automatically be attracted to your new system without any past performance on this new system to support and convince to subscribe. That might be convenient for you because you seem not to be affected but other peopleâs time and money are affected.
I think its deceptive to not add auto trading fees to system models performance , transparency is key , if your system doesnât work with small accounts then you shouldnât open one in the first place . I even think data fees should be added to system models as well .
I donât mind the auto trading fees being added (transparency and full disclosure is a good thing). My gripe is âchanging the rules in the middle of the game,â as was stated earlier by Loko. Donât you think some folks might have opened larger accounts if they knew the effects the autotrading fee (which is now being applied retroactively) would have on their systemâs âperformanceâ now?
Another point here is that futures commissions - typical - have been cut from $14 to $8 , which is a good thing and may offset some of the auto trading fees . I think its clear now for everyone why subs are reluctant to subscribe and pay for systems .
What exactly do you mean by your above quote? Those of us defending these âsmallerâ systems seem to be the ones who are trying to be responsible with subscribersâ money to attract more paying subscribers for a win-win situation.
If a system developer with a larger account doesnât care about his/her max DD (risk to the detriment of both the system and subscribersâ money) and all they care about is big risk with hopes of a big profit (i.e. buying, holding, hoping and praying for a turnaround from their big DD/risk undertaken) then that is what should be driving potential subscribers away. Some of us are not here to experiment with subscribersâ money by creating multiple systems with high risk and hoping one or a few luckily strikes gold.
Your posts dont make sense here i am sorry . Do you want to open a small system model or a large one ? If you want to open a small system model then now you feel how its unfeasible for subscribers to subscribe to due to all fees . Here is a suggestion lower your fees to 20 bucks to make it more feasible . How many subs you have btw ?
Donât want to tell for all at once, but small capital systems trading futures with 7-10 leverage are definitely not [quote=âKT3, post:34, topic:9735â]
trying to be responsible with subscribersâ [/quote] and for sure [quote=âKT3, post:34, topic:9735â]
all they care about is big risk with hopes of a big profit
[/quote]
In order to get same profits in $ value small capital should take higher risks. In order to cover fees these systems should take even higher risks.
I agree with you but who is doing this? My system has a 20K initial capital and I trade only 1 contract (ES) at time, so please stop making assumptions.
Prop Trader, I am not here to argue with you but it is your post that makes no sense.
You have created about 50 or so systems and hoping to get lucky and strike gold with one of them by taking crazy risk with other peopleâs money, thatâs your prerogative.
My current (and only) system is intentionally Private right now and capped at only 1 subscriber (you should ask him how careful and deliberate I am with his money) because I am not here to try to milk subscribers out of their hard earned money or do something crazy (trade) that I would not do with my own money. I have created and stopped trading on 2 past systems with subscribers (with very low DD, by the way) because I wasnât too happy with my own high performance standards or felt worthy of further risking other folkâs money). Maybe you have a different approach towards your own or other peopleâs money, but that is you (you do your thing and I will do mine).
You are changing the subject now , as long as i dont have any subscribers i can trade as i wish . You are upset because just now you realized that your poor system model isnt feasible after discounting all fees . Not only that , you are also upset because this info is now available to the public and you have wished it stayed hidden , thats exactly what you are complaining about .
You are simply delusional? What do I wish hidden? Donât like to brag, but since you want to make this into some pissing contest, I have had 3 systems with about 60 trades total with 80%-plus Win%, APD > 1, Profit Factor > 3:1 and max DD of 3-5% on only single entry trades at a time (no Martingale nonsense). What is there to hide?
