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.

Driver Balanced calls it quits

#1

The system developer sent out an email overnight announcing that he’s quitting C2. February 4th will be the last day. The reason is that it doesn’t make financial sense for him to be on C2 (not enough subscribers to the systems he’s offering).

It’s a pity because the two systems he offered were a couple of the better futures trading systems on here.

I thought this information might be useful in light of the recent forum discussion on Driver Balanced.

1 Like
#2

Its everybody’s goal to make alot of money in the markets whether it is the investor or the trade leader so once a developer has found something worthwhile there is no more incentive to charge a measely $100/monthly for their services. Raising the fees would only risk losing subs.

This is why there should be more incentive made to the more consistent strategies. Its also very hard from the developer’s point of view to constantly be under scrutiny for such a small fee.

Of course it also depends on the system itself…if its automated then very little energy is required to run it and it can still be worthwihle for the extra income.

1 Like
#3

Shame, he had one of the better systems on here.

#4

Well, there is something wrong with the C2 model if good systems quit.

3 Likes
#5

@AlgoSystems I don’t know about Driver Conservative, but Driver Balanced only has 2 subs (myself and another person) after almost a year and a half of profitable trading. Does C2 charge a fixed monthly fee to developers?If so then I’m not sure that 2 subscribers is enough to make it worthwhile.

1 Like
#6

@MarekJ There was the other recent thread where someone asked for reviews of Driver Balanced and many of the posters to that thread were wondering why it had so few subscribers when it looked so good. No good answers.

1 Like
#7

There could be a couple of reasons…lack of marketing and the fact that its not ‘flashy’. In other words ‘flashy’ means its not giving returns of thousands of dollars weekly. Mostly the hottest strategies are those that have dangerously high monthly returns. Which we all know end up in bust after a few months or less.

Its one of the few strategies that are not over leveraged which doesn’t seem to appeal to the masses

1 Like
#8

I’m not 100% sure, if I’m wrong, please correct me (I’m not often questing here anymore). I think C2 did separate futures trading from stock/option trading. An investor needs to create an additional separate account to trading futures and stocks/options. And nobody wants to split funds (unfortunately most investors here are using margin). Also most investors account are small.

#9

I think you are right, nobody wants to have his funds split into two different accounts, so many will chose just one, either futures or stocks only.

I wonder what was C2’s reason for this illogical decision. Was it to coax more stock traders to use their inhouse broker?

#10

Hi, Karl -

We’ve worked things out with IB so that going forward, customers can trade all instruments from one account. Customers who recently set up trading in a futures-only account can continue to use that new futures-only account without disruption, but going forward, customers can once again set up AutoTrading of stocks, options, and futures from their general single account at IB, just as it was previously. I know this was a hassle, and so I’m happy that we were able to get this worked out with IB.

2 Likes
#12

I agree, good traders should be rewarded with a better split of the subscription fee otherwise top traders will leave and take their subscribers with them, some already have, for example, Bijagual.

1 Like
#13

Sorry Karl, I did remove my post. At the end of the day, currently, I do not have any interest in C2 to get better (I’m not a developer or subscriber), and my input so far was never appreciated by Matthew.

1 Like
#14

@MarekJ, don’t feel like you’ve been left out as most suggestions are not considered high priority. Maybe there is a shortage of manpower in C2 probably as many of us had proposed changes as well.

1 Like
#15

Does anyone have any suggestions for a replacement strategy? Something that day trades futures, is fully automated, uses fixed stops, and is in the market < 25% of the time?

#16

Hi PhilD1,

We are new at C2 and just started offering our new portfolio based on three intraday futures strategies and one short-term swing strategy. I think the portfolio matches your criteria.

If you like, please have a look at Oak Tree Portfolio (https://collective2.com/details/122359006) and our website (www.mullcapital.net) for more information on the single systems.

Please note that we are still busy updating the website with information on the third daytrading strategy (soybeans system) and the portfolio. We will provide this information shortly and also introduce the strategy once a reasonable number of trades is collected here on C2.

Best,

Dominik

#17

Oh come on ya’ll, the reason he’s leaving isn’t because he doesn’t have subs – he doesn’t have subs because he was unsuccessful as a trader. He opened 5 systems. Two of them crashed and burned and went private (which I’ve always thought is a pretty cowardly thing to do). He opened another to replace one of the failures (Driver Aggressive), and that one began to fail just like its predecessor. Driver Conservative has made zero money in almost two years. So that leaves a single system, Driver Balanced, which is just over a year old and whose success is based almost entirely on a single, lucky two-week win streak of a dozen trades all in the LONG direction.

Although each system has a different name, the descriptions all sound the same with some minor tweaks. And the latest Driver Aggressive still thinks its name is “Bulldog” in the description, further proof that the trader has a single trading method presented in varying guises. Why wouldn’t any reasonable person believe that Driver Balanced will inevitably meet the same fate as its brothers?

Anybody with any sense is going to look at the trader’s history with some caution and proceed (or not) accordingly.

1 Like
#18

So that leaves a single system, Driver Balanced, which is just over a year old and whose success is based almost entirely on a single, lucky two-week win streak of a dozen trades all in the LONG direction.

His systems are long-only, which the developer discloses. It’s not a secret. We’ve already discussed the performance of January 2018, which was unusually good for any system with a long bias. I don’t see why you make a big deal out of it. Even taking Jan 2018 out of the track record however, there is strong performance - would have been 30%+ return for 2018.

Driver Conservative is up 16.8% in 18 months or so.

You were so quick to tag Driver Balanced with a “lucky streak” for Jan 2018 to downplay the system’s performance…in the interest of fairness and balance I think you should tag long-only Driver Conservative as having an “unlucky streak” in Dec 2018, when it lost 15%. Sound fair?

The newer Driver Aggressive didn’t do much of anything in the period it was running, because it was only running for just over a month, so I’m not sure how you conclude that “it began to fail”. I can’t speak to what happened with the old Driver Aggressive.

The systems are, in fact, variations of the same underlying signal-generating logic. So what? Again, this is not a secret and the developer was happy to disclose this when I asked him what the differences were.

Well, I had real money invested with DB for about a year and it made a bunch of cash for me. What I liked was that the entry logic was transparent (predictably going long on bullish breakout days), risk control never deviated (always used fixed stops), and he let the winners ride while cutting the losses short (fixed stops again).

2 Likes
Back to C2 Platform