Long only doesn’t really apply when I’m long a double short inverse etf, you know?
Thanks, Eu. People don’t like it when “I” have to justify the performance.
Thanks for nothing. It’s statistics man 
Most systems are rubbish, simple as that.
Correct. But C2 provides some stats for that.
Long only stock systems have had to endure the worst maket conditions in living history.
True. However, there were triple digit returns for long-only systems after the kind of crashes. For survivors of course. Of course current market course might disregard previous history, but you won’t need the bloody dollars after that, imho. Even if you shorted the market. If US collapsed we would probably don’t need the dollars and C2 as well
Eu
As a relative new-comer to C2, this is my first post. I have spent a lot of time reading past comments and reviewing systems and profiles over the last couple of weeks. As such, I have developed a set of conclusions and opinions that may be fresh to many of you (maybe not).
I am not a system developer nor do I intend to be. But I am an life-long IT professional and a trader/investor looking for a few good systems to build a trading portfolio around. I’m the guy you are all trying to sell something to.
I find all this chatter hilarious and these stats about developer ratings completely meaningless.
All that matters at the end of the day is this… does a system generate profits consistently over time (that means years) and if so - how much?
If your system doesn’t generate profits - be quiet… be very quiet. If your system does generate profits - if it generates extraordinary profits consistently over lengthy periods of time - then you are entitled to a voice - if not - please also remain quiet. You have nothing to sell.
I have enjoyed the chest-beating that goes on within C2, but it’s for entertainment value only.
I also am amused by the self-appointed experts that dominate chatter on this site, but haven’t consistently outperformed anything for a lengthy period of time - if they had - what in the world are they doing on C2? They should be rich and doing something else with their time.
Here’s a portion of my buying criteria (there are other requirements): No system should be allowed to even offer subscriptions to anyone until they are least 1 year old - then they must generate above average profits over that time frame and the system developer must trade the system themselves and prove it every day by posting their trading account summary in public view. They cannot arbitrarily change any of the rules of the system for that period of time to improve their performance or save their system from crashing - ever. They must operate 100% mechanical systems (I REALLY don’t want my investment capital controlled by your discretion). That would eliminate 95% of the wanna-be’s and self-proclaimed experts from further cluttering up the public airways here and get down to the real business of building and selling trading systems that are investment-grade.
There are other issues that I would be happy to discuss with those who are really interested in building and selling investment-grade products as opposed to those who are trying to wring a quick buck out of unsuspecting Customers for short periods of time with systems that crash after weeks/months or at best only post mediocre profits over time.
Oh - and continually predicting that your system is going to “catch up” with someone’s else in the future is an insult to Customers - that amounts to whining. It you’re not performing, be quiet. If your system hasn’t produced above-average results in a while, then it will be judged on that performance - not future performance whereby you “promise” it will perform better.
It would be nice to see a higher level of professionalism here. We can all agree to implement higher standards - can we not?
Well…
As professional in other area you have to understand that mostly you’re paid for probable quality of your work. It doesn’t guarantee that you’re paid for good work. The same applies to trading. If you have high standards for hiring professionals you must work with CTAs/RIAs. Of course you should have enough TC for offering that CTAs/RIAs would be interested even listen you. It’s the market, man. Everybody has a choice. Of course you have to pay more in fees for their professional work. One exception, result isn’t guarantee anyway. It’s the market, man.
Ahhh… CTAs/RIAs is too expensive for you? Well… you can make few cents from the market yourself. Actually, take all money that you can take from the market. I don’t mind. It’s the market, man.
Ouch… You cannot grab few cents from the market by yourself? Right. It happens. It’s the market, man.
So what is next?
------
More serious. I don’t like self-proclaimed gurus myself, but from other side I stop wondering about people like you. I think it’s very honest position. I don’t sell you anything (my system is closed from subscription) you can whine as much as you can. Period. It’s the market, man. There are a lot of other systems at C2 that will satisfy your greed.
Eu
"they must generate above average profits over that time frame and the system developer must trade the system themselves and prove it every day by posting their trading account summary in public view. They cannot arbitrarily change any of the rules of the system for that period of time to improve their performance or save their system from crashing - ever. They must operate 100% mechanical systems"
I think you may have overlooked the fact that there are many vendors on here who run systems for other purposes than to attract subscribers, this is a very useful site for someone to build a publicly viewable track record and effectively audited by an independent third party. They can experiment with different asset classes, system time periods or styles at the risk of having failed systems to their name. Not finding anything that matches your list of demands might say more about your criteria than the ability or standard of the vendors/systems available. I imagine you may have already discovered as most on here do the answer is to create one yourself. Good luck and welcome to C2.
Exactly. Then why do you always compare your performance to the S&P like a long-only manager? If people want relative performance they can invest in a mutual fund. Subscribers on here want absolute performance.
Eu,
I’m trying to be constructive in my comments. I’m not sure if your response contributed anything of value to the points I was making.
Certainly, paying for high-priced advisors with “credentials” is no guarantee of investing success - experienced investors learn this. Getting a diploma is easy - performing year in and year out is infinitely much harder. Also - I actually don’t work from GREED itself either. I certainly want to maximize investment performance, but to me, pure GREED itself sort of connotates being unethical and lacking integrity. I don’t want to live my life that way. It’s too ruthless an approach to Life.
With regard to my high standards for the type of system/advisor I choose to deal with - let me be clear - I have no interest in placing some of my hard-earned money with anyone who does not offer PROVEN, SUCCESSFUL products. There is no such thing as “probably quality.” There either is quality and performance or there isn’t. Just so you know, I never expect guarantees, either. I don’t pay people for trying. I pay them for producing.
From your response, I think what I’m hearing loud and clear from you is, “Let the buyer beware”. Here’s a suggestion - while technically it’s true - no Customer who is considering buying one of your products is going to respond positively to that. It’s just not a good attitude to broadcast from a business perspective. It speaks volumes about how you approach your Customers and your opinion of them. You might want to re-think that. Just a suggestion.
On your behalf - Tango at least has a long track record that we can measure. I congratulate you for that. Other than a prolonged drawdown period, we can say that after years, it is profitable. That is a good thing. And, I can see from the quality of your comments in the past - you appear to have experience and knowledge in these areas.
But - I’m curious - if your system is closed to new subscribers - then you have maxed out the revenue potential for it. Why are you still on the site then? There’s no more business to be had here. What is your purpose in still actively attending this site?
Last - you might want to drop the “It’s the market, man” style of trying to be cool. It doesn’t go over the way I believe you intended it. It doesn’t serve you well.
Finally, - I threw out an idea at the end of my post that perhaps everyone on this site would benefit from a more professional manner in which we go about this business. I didn’t see anything in your response that addressed this idea at all.
I would appreciate hearing what you’d do to improve this whole experience that was relevant to Customers first, and system developers second. You’re a Vendor, I’m a Customer.
After all - I think generating profits is what this site is all about… for you… and for me…
Thanks for your response.
Oh, boy, if you thought I was whining, you’re mistaken. I can’t find any other hedge fund that did better in my time frame for the risk that was taken. If there were some, they’ll blow up, because there are inherent conflicts of interest with the traders in hedge funds who have enormous incentives to blow out accounts for the chance to make a ton of money.
Sure you can find performance stats, but note they don’t report a 5 yr sharpe.
BTW, I am an RIA rep.
Anyway. It seems you’re new here, and I don’t like being perceived as a “guru”, because the difference between “guru” and professional is that one knows what he is doing. Gurus I’ve exposed in most cases didn’t know what they were doing. A more famous example of mine is with Jack Hershey, who was crazy up until the point we actually found his system and made mods to it. But, you can visit ET for that.
I talk because I know what I’m talking about, and I find that so many on here need lessons in stuff that took me years to understand through trading system development, and in my academic endeavors.
I don’t know why that puts people off. Anyone can say what they want. We’re not “self-appointed.” There’s no difference between vendors like myself or anybody else when they post. I’m just trying to educate, and I fall mostly in that category of building track records.
I don’t know why so many get put off by friendly competition. Markets are gladitorial by nature, so, of course, if you want to play, be prepared to be knocked around, but that’s mostly directed to vendors.
Anyway, welcome, good luck. Always temper expectations when you do subscribe. Just remember that what happens in the past usually doesn’t happen in the future. Sometimes it does, but generally not.
On your 1 year propsition, I’ve stated 9 months just to watch, but anybody can go blow their wad on newer systems. Younger systems get more subscribers through free trials, but that doesn’t mean anyone follows them.
What’s funny about “extraordinary” is what you’re basing it on, which I hope is not absolute returns. Last I checked, some past posts stated traders earning 7% was about all they could expect. Of course we try to beat that by 2500 basis points annually…
Yeah, well, if you quadruple my leverage and you’d have your absolute return. One subscriber was leveraged 6:1 when he was subscribed to me.
Probably should be double, so 8:1.
Eu,
I’m trying to be constructive in my comments. I’m not sure if your response contributed anything of value to the points I was making.
Certainly, paying for high-priced advisors with “credentials” is no guarantee of investing success - experienced investors learn this. Getting a diploma is easy - performing year in and year out is infinitely much harder. Also - I actually don’t work from GREED itself either. I certainly want to maximize investment performance, but to me, pure GREED itself sort of connotates being unethical and lacking integrity. I don’t want to live my life that way. It’s too ruthless an approach to Life.
With regard to my high standards for the type of system/advisor I choose to deal with - let me be clear - I have no interest in placing some of my hard-earned money with anyone who does not offer PROVEN, SUCCESSFUL products. There is no such thing as “probably quality.” There either is quality and performance or there isn’t. Just so you know, I never expect guarantees, either. I don’t pay people for trying. I pay them for producing.
From your response, I think what I’m hearing loud and clear from you is, “Let the buyer beware”. Here’s a suggestion - while technically it’s true - no Customer who is considering buying one of your products is going to respond positively to that. It’s just not a good attitude to broadcast from a business perspective. It speaks volumes about how you approach your Customers and your opinion of them. You might want to re-think that. Just a suggestion.
On your behalf - Tango at least has a long track record that we can measure. I congratulate you for that. Other than a prolonged drawdown period, we can say that after years, it is profitable. That is a good thing. And, I can see from the quality of your comments in the past - you appear to have experience and knowledge in these areas.
But - I’m curious - if your system is closed to new subscribers - then you have maxed out the revenue potential for it. Why are you still on the site then? There’s no more business to be had here. What is your purpose in still actively attending this site?
Last - you might want to drop the “It’s the market, man” style of trying to be cool. It doesn’t go over the way I believe you intended it. It doesn’t serve you well.
Finally, - I threw out an idea at the end of my post that perhaps everyone on this site would benefit from a more professional manner in which we go about this business. I didn’t see anything in your response that addressed this idea at all.
I would appreciate hearing what you’d do to improve this whole experience that was relevant to Customers first, and system developers second. You’re a Vendor, I’m a Customer.
After all - I think generating profits is what this site is all about… for you… and for me…
Thanks for your response.
I got the brochure from fidelity about long short funds they had, and it was benchmarked to the S&P500. Exact same thing as my system, but guaranteed to be an abysmal performer compared to my own research.
I’m not up for it, but I guess I should just be a dormant, fly on the wall vendor with no outside communication like Main QQQQ and Timing QQQQ’s vendors.
If you took a look at backtests, and compared to what the system had done in real time, I think you’d have a lot more confidence.
I trade PTQQS, but I refuse to switch brokers to prove it, having been with my current one for over 6 years now. Fidelity gets a lot of the credit having allowed me to use WL for so long now, which would be a great platform to begin in as you try to build your own systems, if that’s the path one would like to go down.
Hello, Beau.
Thanks for chiming in. Appreciate it.
I’m not trying to challenge your system’s performance against others. If I was - this conversation would have a whole different approach. You have a system that turn profits over time. My congratulations.
BTW - did your past systems have trouble consistently making money or did you just choose to withdraw them from the market? Being new here - it’s hard for me to distinguish between the two. Understanding the history of a developer and his/her past products is one piece of data that is part of the puzzle.
Also - I didn’t address anyone by name in my post - so I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was referring to you…???
Thanks for the comments about the risks on investing - from my first attempts at dabbling in stocks in 1978 - I learned that in spades a long time ago.
Regarding relative vs. absolute returns - as a Customer - my position is that MOST Customers will measure a system, an advisor, a crystal ball or whatever - by its absolute returns. Right or not - that’s the way it is. If I start with $100,000 on 1/1/09 and dedicate it to a trading system faithfully for 1 year and at the end of the year, my account reads $130,000 - then my “opinion” of that product is based on that gain (or loss). Period. Most customers have trouble understanding and living with risk-adjusted measurements. Whether it’s right or not doesn’t matter. Naturally, we hopefully bought a system that has years of track record also (so we don’t draw ALL of our conclusion from just one year). But that’s another issue…
So… if I was developing systems as a business, I’d adopt that reality and build a business that succeeded with that as a cornerstone. Just a suggestion. Relative vs. absolute is an academic discussion - delivering absolute returns is reality.
Last - I’m still looking for some solid dialogue on what this site can do differently to improve the image that comes across to new Customers like me.
Come on - you guys want to make money here. Let’s get on with it! Surely we could come up with some better approaches/standards, etc.
Thanks.
Hi Broadsword? (forgive me - it’s hard to communicate with someone who doesn’t use their real name - I feel like I’m in a video game or something - its hard to take a site seriously when people want you to buy their products and invest your hard-earned capital and they don’t even use their own names…)
Thanks for your response.
I think EVERY system developer on this site who charges a subscription fee intends on becoming a businessman around their system products. Also - if I am a system developer - why am I interested in developing a third party opinion of my system unless I desire to make it a commercial product? It’s performance results should tell me everything I need to know, shouldn’t it? Why do I care about a publicly viewable track record unless I either want praise for it or I want to eventually turn it into a commercial product?
Sure the site has functionality that makes developing a system easy. That’s part of Matt’s Business Plan. That part is working - for him. There’s nothing wrong with that at all. And if you want to play with different systems for your own use - knock yourself out. Great site.
But - for those who want to sell their system to others - my criteria is solid… and my money is serious. Of course I can see that almost all of the systems on this site will not meet my criteria - except for a few. The rest are all in Beta or Live testing, after all. That’s really what this site offers.
Anything with less than 1 year track record is still in “test” mode to me (as an old software developer). That’s why it is silly to think that people would invest in them via subscriptions (even more so without deep backtests that can be certified as being unbiased, not curve-fitted and not using out-of-sample data).
In terms of having to build a system that meets my criteria - I’m not interested in building one - I’m interested in finding a few. I think they are out there. The question is who has them for sale?
Thanks for your warm welcome, too.
No, I think you just got lost in all the chatter that was actually mine. I was pretty much talking to myself till Eu showed up.
Anyway, I seriously doubt you can handle an absolute return based system. I don’t think you’d be too happy seeing it close at 20k to get back to that 130. And, yes, there’s systems on here that have done it. If you want absolute, I can recommend Phatkicker to you when he starts his next system, but I wouldn’t stand by that at all. LOL.
Differently, wrt what? I don’t think it needs to be done differently. You get solid disclosure about performance stats here. What more do you want? When I deal with subscribers, I’m very encouraging. I’ll usually e-mail at least a couple times a week if something is going on.
The next thing is to try to get into a vendor’s head. Most vendors are on sites elsewhere saying things, and if they’re up front, they can tell you where it is.
As to those other systems, they weren’t ready. I attempted to duplicate the QID and QLD system with them but the ETF’s were a little bit different in the sense that they were not “directional.” Most securities in the Q’s move in the same direction on a given day. In MVV, MZZ, DDM, DDS, SSO, SDS there’s always a company moving contrary to the market, which is why I don’t trade those securities or markets.
I know tech like the back of my hand. While news doesn’t affect my decisions, surprisingly a lot of calls made prior to an AAPL or RIMM announcement are right, and any other tech company will generally move or be correlated with the market. They go up far enough from their fair value to affect the Q’s, and I take a short position sometimes because of the run up. They disappoint, and it goes down. Not that their earnings or news releases cause me to act, but that they just make sense to me when I put the trade on and see that the market is out of it’s “fair value” range.
The length of time is given more weight around here, and is part of that C2 score.
Anyway, I recommend WL vendors. Myself, Mike with Spy 1 trade per day, and Dr. Koch, with topaz and ruby. EU I think still has WL, but I don’t know if he uses it.
At least you learned it’s cheaper to hire the best traders, than “to be” the best trader.
Would my system look more attractive to you at $110/month, which is where I had it? I’m going for market share with that price. Eventually someone will give me a shot and make the system more worth my time outside of c2. Having it on C2 is good pr for me.
Skip nice to see some fresh much needed insight. Most of what you are saying is right on and common sence.
Take a look at SMA. It has a track record over 12 months and as you can see I am proud of my name.
Good Luck
Rick Haines
[LINKSYSTEM_29668147]
A few comments, aimed at no one in particular unless otherwise indicated.
EU: nice to see bottom fishing still has potential in this market – I hope you’re researching new (bottom-fishing) avenues given the unprecedented market activity of the past year. If so, start a new system with the results – I’d subscribe.
This site is doing nothing wrong, and almost everything right. For futures (a “zero sum game”) they say 90% of people lose money. Apply that to all asset classes, over time. Futures are just more honest. There’s nothing that will continually go up in value, over a hundred years or so, relative to everything else. Not stocks, not real estate, not gold, etc.
People have unrealistic expectations with investing, and ESPECIALLY with trading. The end.
Thanks for the background, Beau. Appreciate it.
With regard to your subscription fee, let me put it to you this way…
If YOU offer a product for $5/month, then a Customer will probably conclude that YOU feel it is ONLY worth $5/month. That’s the risk of slashing your price to build market share.
Conversely, if you raise your monthly fee to $110 - that sends different messages.
There is no Right or Wrong - just different approaches that elicit different responses from prospects (potential Customers). You have to decide what path you want to go down. There are differences in approach and the outcome they produce (sound familiar?)
One thing I find lacking on this site is a complete absence of discussion on HOW to Market a Software Product and Develop a Business Around It. I think many of you system developers erroneously conclude that if you build a trading system here, and it “works,” then there is this whole universe of Customers eager to snap up your product.
In the real world, there is a LOT more to building a successful software product/business than that.
It’s all about building and offering a compelling Value Proposition to Customers, complete with differentiators, credibility, outstanding customer service and reputation (in no particular order).
Frankly - if I was trying to build a software product like a trading system, C2 is a good place to try it out - but to make any real money off it - you’ve got to leave the site and seriously undertake classic Business Development activities around it. The C2 site is a “cloudy” channel in that it is almost impossible to “differentiate” your system adequately to actually attract a sizable number of subscribers (that coupled with the fact that almost all the systems are way too young to be invest-grade).
In terms of your systems, correct me if I’m wrong - your system is a discretionary system (not 100% mechanical).
I want to buy a product, not an advisor (no offense intended). Discretionary systems, to me, are advisors who utilize software tools to then DECIDE what to do with that data. That means that my performance and my capital is in the hands of a PERSON, whom I do not know well, cannot know what is happening in their life today or tomorrow - even if they are on the job today or not. If they go on vacation, what happens to their trading? If they get hit by a car, what happens to their trading?
Every successful software vendor has to develop operational reliability and excellent customer service (or they either never succeed or flame out quickly). Their systems must have integrity and reliability.
Think about it - subscribing to a system on C2 is effectively buying software. Would you buy software if it did not perform the way it was supposed to every single time (not repeatable?) A trading system should produce the same results every time (no matter whether those results are good or bad). That’s system integrity.
Now the question becomes… are there 100% mechanical systems out there that perform? I believe so. A lot? Probably not. I DO know, however, if there are, I can eliminate one HUGE variable that may adversely affect my investment capital if I limit my search to mechanical systems and not depend on a PERSON to be present and make the right decision every time.
Remember - I’m going for long-term - not just systems that have a life expectancy of 3-6 months. So - I focus on classic business buying criteria.
So - based on my criteria - if you “control” your system in any way that is not 100% mechanical, I would probably decline right now. This has nothing to do with your performance. It is what it is.
I hope this gives you an answer and some insight into my thinking.
It would also be great to hear from some other Customers out there who are lurking - all of the dialogue seems to consist of system developers!!
Come on, non-developers - let’s hear from you!!
Thanks much.
