Following Post deleted by Ross

Eu



If you read my post, you’d see it had nothing to do with emotions, or even Ross’ system. I don’t agree with his way of responding to valid (in my mind) critique .



- Fanus



Maybe it is time to have a graded commission rate. As a system/method gets more subscribers, the commission C2 charges can be gradually reduced to encourage system vendors to remain loyal to C2 and reduce the flight of vendors (along with their subscribers) to other sites, for eg., brokerage sites, of which quite a few of them have approached me lately.



But ultimately, profitability will dictate what course vendors take and which site(s) to stick to.

Ross,



it seems to be your pattern to critize everybody and every possible argument made by others is of "no substance" or "no value" for you.

This is one of the most selfish and arrogant attitude i encountered on a trading site/forum in a long time.



First i wonder, how you would have "commented" a system vendors idea, trading his system only outside of C2, but solicit subscribers in C2.

Second i wonder that not trading related issues, like trade reaction time, have lead to your decision and it is a pure monetary issue.

(Personally i think that this is a big and unfair insult for C2 and MK, and i would vote, if i could to "ban" your system from C2, since you want "marketing" without paying for it)



Lastly, now you have the splendid chance, to show all C2 members that you can trade as good as you can critize other vendors and avoid all the mistakes, you and your followers have brought up in other systems.

As i "second guessed" from your comments on some other systems, where i at least pay for, you can now demonstrate your self proclaimed and so far unproven trading expertise in the future.



I wish you lots of success for that, but please respect the fact that in case of certain issues and wrongdoings, the critique you might "earn" will be hefty.



Matthew



There is no negative reflection on C2. It is a superb site. Everyone has strong opinions of what is correct or not. When I open the system, your opinions carry strong weight, and will be considered.





it seems to be your pattern to critize everybody and every possible argument made by others is of "no substance" or "no value" for you.



Criticize yes, everybody no, apparent you have only read a subset of posts. Every possible argument of others as "no value" never said, only that of C.M. Do a search on "Chris Morse" over the last few months, and the pattern will be apparent. If you find anything he did positive or educational, PLEASE post if below. He has refused to do so. The title of this thread is an excellent indicator of C.M. posts. "Look at what Ross did! He deleted my post!" Need anyone say more? THat is the gyst of almost all his posts, if you would ake the time to review them.



how you would have "commented" a system vendors idea, trading his system only outside of C2, but solicit subscribers in C2.



Do not know what this is saying…



Second i wonder that not trading related issues, like trade reaction time, have lead to your decision and it is a pure monetary issue.



1) All advisors to C2 must provide their SS# to C2 have subscribers here, not really in a hurry to do that. There has been many cases of identity information problems (970,000 by AIG last week, 26 million veterans a month or so back, and many other cases.



2) Although C2 advertises, systems vendors did the sweating and grunt work to come up with a system, so each side has their opinion of value. Without C2, this place would not be available to system providers, without successful system providers (ATDow, etc.), there would be no C2.



3) The 30% take is definitely an issue, but there are also other issues, like "who controls the payments." Currently, successful vendors on the web do exhaustive checks on who is subscribing. There are a host of issues:

- Professionals posing as subscribers and reselling your system (the "consensus" system here freely admits he subscribes to other systems and sells the composite signal). Frankly, that is illegal. When you sign up with most service providers, you usually assent to not retransmitting their signals in any form. This is called "theft of service" by the govt…

- Credit chargebacks

- who actually owns a subscriber

- etc…

Obviously, the less we pay the best it is.

And if C2 will lower the 30%? Probably better for us if they survive.



To be honest, distributing newsletters using Reuters will cost you 60%.



Moreover, if someone thinks that 30% is unfair, they can try to construct a Collective3.



Try it: we will see and pay less…



All of your excuses have a common theme - you understood all of these things that you complain about ahead of time and yet you decided to list your system here anyway.



C2 has a business model, you can either accept it and follow the rules, take your system elsewhere (C2 competitor) or do everything on your own.



That you think its reasonable for you to pay a one-time fee to C2 and then use it to advertise subscribing outside of C2 is astounding. Try creating an Ebay listing, pay your nominal listing fee and then in the auction description provide directions for bidding/paying outside of Ebay. Is what you are doing here any different?



You have two choices, either follow the C2 model or don’t but don’t make a hundred excuses about why you don’t think C2 is fair and thus its ok for you to try to skirt the system.



Your excuses reminds me of someone who rationalizes shoplifting because they think the stores prices are outrageous. If you don’t like the C2 model then leave, its that simple.

“C2 has a business model, you can either accept it and follow the rules, take your system elsewhere (C2 competitor) or do everything on your own.” "Your excuses reminds me of someone who rationalizes shoplifting "



Good thing that in your life, you never exceeded the speed limit, questioned the government’s decisions, had opinions about how retail operations should run, thought certain things could be done better, etc. etc… This is moralizing, but I have seen enough of your posts to know that you have as strong opinions as everyone else. And as a non-system provider on C2, you are not really that kind of customer, so it is hard to accept that you feel empathy with system providers. You don’t even pay the annual fees or 30% cut as we do. And many of us are also subscribers, as well.



"Is what you are doing here any different? "

Nobody did anything, as we haven’t even openeded the service yet. Follow consensus-trading.com, tradex, and some others, and you will see their website here, and different pricing on their website. Since there is no policy about that on C2, everyone’s opinion is arbitrary. After reading the forum messages, this service is considering the best way to proceed. That is why we post. Unfortunately, some like C.M. are unaffected by anyone else. They take and do not give. The method is, throw a lot of mud at someone, but not learn from anyone else.



In fact, the C2 tour says “Remember that Collective2 is an objective, third-party service that helps measure trading system performance.” It advertises as a way to track your performance, period. It does not say that C2 replaces your web service and refuses to allow you to be indendendent any longer. TimerTrac, FuturesTruth, Timer Digest Hulbert, and many other tracking services do not force you to give up your indepenedence, so why should I consider this for C2??? In fact, some of those services are free. I am here because I happen to like C2’s functionality. I paid my fee, around $98 for the year. Being visibly tracked is the main purpose. Many have complained that they have had few or no subscribers through C2, so don’t get the idea that this is a free bounty for advisors. Whether I choose to use it this way is supposed to be my decision, according to the documented



“That you think its reasonable for you to pay a one-time fee to C2” "you understood all of these things"

You apparently don’t understand the C2 methods either. The fee is not one-time, it covers a unit of time, and is renewed periodically. The 30% take is advertised as taking care of the billing end. However, the real fee for this is closer to 3%, so that is what my opinion addressed.



Are you outraged because you want to be appear outraged? “Astounding” “skirting the law” and other terms are designed for shock value. Just say whats on your mind without trying to drum up pathos for your point of view. As Matthew said, this is undefined area, and the forum process is here to help C2 move in better directions.



I and others have fed a number of suggestions back to Matthew. He accepts some, and doesn’t accept others, which is his right. Don’t confuse opinions with lawbreaking.



And if you’re going to respond, address the issues, as I am trying to do here. Broad statements don’t help either of us or the reader. I got really angry and gave up on C.M., because he kept grandstanding and never said anything of value. He lists points, and then never addresses your response.


Unfortunately, some like C.M. are unaffected by anyone else. They take and do not give. The method is, throw a lot of mud at someone, but not learn from anyone else.

I got really angry and gave up on C.M., because he kept grandstanding and never said anything of value. He lists points, and then never addresses your response.


Frankly, I am getting tired of you coming down on Chris. He raised valid concerns about your approach, lack of understanding, the mistakes you made which is not something a trader would do and contradiction of what you are doing here than what you say on your website.

Maybe he didn't reply to you because to request from someone to prove that his posts have more substance than yours is not worth responding to. You say he never addresses your response. I have yet to see a response from you to any of his points. How you can say those concerns are of no substance is beyond me. You ignore any requests for explanation and your general response to anyone disagreeing with you is to insult them.

I for one do NOT think Chris' posts was without substance, but your lack of responses to his VALID concerns and points are very troubling.

Your freeloading and plan to bypass the fees from C2 is immoral and to justify what you do with "well, other people exceed the speed limit, so this is ok that I do this", is ludicrous. Pete's example about ebay is exactly what you are doing here. If you think FuturesTruth, TimeTrack, Hulbert's Digest is better, than why don't you use it? You sound like my 10 year old cousin when his mom tell him no when he want to do something and he replies, "but Johnny's mom let him do it".

I am also not happy with the 30% C2 charge, but it is what it is. If I want to use C2, I play by the rules. Even though the rules are not written in stone. Anyone know right from wrong. You don't need it to be spelled out to you.

I am amazed by your attitude and can honestly not remember the last time that I encountered someone as unpleasant as you.

- Fanus

PS: The lack of support from your usual followers should tell you something.

Frankly, I am getting tired of you coming down on Chris.



If you didn’t read the many passages we have exchanged in the past several months (as I kept saying), then it is not really possible to give an objective point. If you do, it will be obvious where my frustration came from.



Again, use facts, not broad agreements with someone else’s . If you are unhappy, that is fine. But valid opinions hang on back checking. Opinion and truth are two different things.



Maybe he didn’t reply to you because to request from someone to prove that his posts have more substance than yours is not worth responding to.



He didn’t reply because there is nothing to reply with. I asked several times. I can supply quite a few examples of having raised points as well as rants. But I went back and read every one of his posts for about 3 months, and there was little of value, and wild exaggerations are the norm. Your opinion about my attitude shows you have not digested what his overall approach has been on the forum.



"He raised valid concerns about your approach, lack of understanding, the mistakes you made which is not something a trader would do"



This is unfounded. He jumped on one item I said, because I was being honest. That is why I parted ways with the content of his messages. Pointing out the mistake someone already self-identified shows immaturity.



Let us examine in details what happened from my & Chris’ post that spurred this dialogue. And frankly, starting the whole thread “Ross deleted my post” is little removed from a temper tantrum.



Ross:

"Also learned about what a nasty beast the Russell is. I wanted to balance exposure of the 3 (of 4) different systems on this one advisory that signalled today (each kept separate by using a diff instrument). So I saw Russell, Nasdaq & S&P eminis with margins around upper $3000s and DJ with over $4800, and did 3, 3, and 2.



Well, the Russell had several times the dollar movement of the DJ and the NQ!!! It was like +$2800 for a long, +$1300 for a long, and ($950) for a short in open gains/losses. Some balance!!!



Tonight, we study recent movements for each of those and reconsider how to better balance these indexes among the 4 systems.




Mistake (note singular) - Having not used Russell before (but having used DJ plus NQ & ES eminis), decided for first day to use it for a 4th index



Chris:

So, after a year of “learning”, you launched your system and on the first day you realize that you do not have the faintest idea about the characteristics of the instruments you trade?




Chris broadens a first time user of Russell into someone not having a clue about all instruments and phrases it into a way to make having spent time observing C2 into a punch line.



Chris:

A clear sign of someone launching a system without ever traded real money with it, or traded much in general.




A majorly wild leap from a single observation of what someone self-identified. Having never traded Russells, I was unaware of its volatility to margin nature. Generally, petroleum products, grains, metals, indices, softs and others fall into a rough relationship of margin to current volatility, although there are outliers and some inter-exchange differences obviously.



Margins are generally good predictors of an instruments volatility and risk, as the CME, CBOT, KCBOT, NYBOT, and others keep adjusting the margins to reflect expanding and contracting volatility. Brushing away this reality actually shows the reverse; lack of familiarity of futures products. I have traded futures for 10 years and stocks for 25.

"Good thing that in your life, you never exceeded the speed limit, questioned the government’s decisions"



Irrelevent to what we are discussing. I find hilarious that later on you tell me “Don’t confuse opinions with lawbreaking” and yet you throw out an example of lawbreaking as a (poor) analogy. Can’t make up your mind?



There is a big difference between what you propose to do (only accept subscriptions externally) versus other systems that reference their web site which can also be used for subscriptions. Basically you are offering no options to C2 customers except to bypass the C2 system.



"Since there is no policy about that on C2, everyone’s opinion is arbitrary"



Everyone except MK’s who has already weighed-in, perhaps you forgot?



I’m not delighted when vendors instruct people not to subscribe through C2. I don’t have a general policy about it (yet), but will deal with these instances on a case-by-case basis. My current thinking is that C2 needs to create the best software and service possible, and that’s the way you discourage people from trying to cut C2 out of the subscription processing end. That said, it strikes me as pretty unfair to use C2 as a marketing platform (and to benefit from all its marketing spending, software development, customer support, etc.) but to end-run C2’s revenue share. Those systems essentially are being free-riders. Again, I’ll wait and examine the issue longer before promulgating a general policy. It’s not a huge issue today, but I’ll use this post to gently discourage this practice.



How much clearer does he have to make it that he doesn’t think what you are doing is ok? I guess you are the individual that is going to force him to add a policy just to cover your free-riding (his words).



Any adult can see exactly the purpose of this site and that you are trying to circumvent it. People like you are the reason that so many rules and regulations today. Instead of just doing what

is clearly right you attempt to push the limits and hide behind the lack of a specific policy that forbids your poor behavior.

Irrelevent to what we are discussing



Saying it is irrelevant doesn’t make it so. Since you ignored the thrust of the rest of the post, I will point to what I said above.



As to Matthew not being thrilled, yes I read that. And as he said, there is no policy about it, i was doing precisely what a number of other tracking services do. I wanted to be tracked. If he also wanted everyone to subscribe through here, that was never made policy. And as I said, many vendors complain they do not seem to get many subscribers here. The likelihood is, that the few top systems probably grab the bulk of those, as it works on most other net models. That is why EBay basically killed off Yahoo & Amazon auctions, and why Paypal’s success caused other auction payment services to fold, such as those offered by other auction sites.



The only point I will bring up and you seemed to have missed in other posts, is that I said I am reconsidering that point with services. I listen. It would help to read the issues before commenting.

"Having never traded Russells, I was unaware of its volatility to margin nature. "



Obviously you would not have needed to trade the ER2 in the past in order to be aware of its characeristics. If you had simply opened a chart or did even the most fundamental of historical research on it you would have know about its volatility.



The fact that you did not know this very basic fact before you throw up a trade speaks volumes about the kind of trader you - which is very different from the persona you put forth.



"Margins are generally good predictors of an instruments volatility and risk, as the CME, CBOT, KCBOT, NYBOT, and others keep adjusting the margins to reflect expanding and contracting volatility. Brushing away this reality actually shows the reverse; lack of familiarity of futures products. I have traded futures for 10 years and stocks for 25."



Instead of educating yourself on the average daily range and tick size for the Russell you just made a faulty assumption and put on a trade without understanding the contract you were trading. You can try to spin this anyway you want but the bottom line is that what you did is a newbie mistake.

"If you had simply opened a chart or did even the most fundamental of historical research on it you would have know about its volatility. " "speaks volumes about the kind of trader you"



Already said I had not used the Russell in the past, so I see no new info here. There are several hundred pure futures products in the world. There is going to be a first time use of each.



When I see you walk on water, I will consider you as omniscient.



"Instead of educating yourself on the average daily range and tick size for the Russell you just made a faulty assumption"



And done average true ranges, and checking the volatility aspects and checking to ensure it followed the same H. M, U, Z months as other index equities products, etc. And maybe if I had hedged with proper instruments and consulted my ouiji board and. For heavens sake, it was the first day, with no money or subscribers hanging in the balance, and I decided to put 4 instead of 3 systems into the mix, and I decided to try the Russell instead of the Midcaps. This is constructing entire mountain ranges out of the molehill, instead.



C.M. is the one to say "put up or shut up" So I starting putting up, and of course as I excepted, he just found another thing to harp on. If this is unapparent, then I am done with the conversation.



Having gotten the ball rolling, C.M. happily watches to see what happens. Again, a reason I stopped reading his posts.



It is tiring when people take a fact and fill it up with Helium as if they found the Rosetta Stone.



I will be wrong some times and right others. That is why most of these systems go under. And even the successful ones often stop wroking at some point. We fix the flaws and never rest on the successes.



Do not expect another response on this topic. This is getting repetitious. If you want me to say I am not perfect, my self-addressing a mistake is the reason this topic got started.



When you are free of sin, I will be more than happy to watch your stone-tossing abilities.


When you are free of sin, I will be more than happy to watch your stone-tossing abilities.


This is exactly what we are telling you. But of course, when someone else say it, it has no substance.

“My current thinking is that C2 needs to create the best software and service possible, and that’s the way you discourage people from trying to cut C2 out of the subscription processing end”



> Would be delighted use C2. But again, with an annual charge and 30% take, it is a daunting thing.



Seems it would be smarter to do both Ross (take subs through your site

and allow them the option of using the C2 interface which offers certain advantages).



In business they call that a win-win situation…and what would you have to lose?



You could charge $129 via C2 and $99 direct. There are full service, turnkey CC services for around 13%, and of course paypal. But if you only offer Paypal you’ll seem like a 2 bit outfit.



FWIW, I do think 30% is kinda high since C2 could outsource all the credit card, subscription stuff, charge-backs, etc. for under 13% and there is already the annual fee (if a system is doing $5K /mo. in subs, $1500 seems like a lot to C2), but hey, it is what it is. I’m not complaining; I’m glad C2 is here.

Since I readily discuss errors or other things, am willing to morph according to new info, and try to address concerns, I think this is a bit backward as opposed to harping on and ignoring dialogue.



There is a time to let something die instead of trying to score points.



As they say in court, "asked and answered."


Since I readily discuss errors or other things, am willing to morph according to new info, and try to address concerns, I think this is a bit backward as opposed to harping on and ignoring dialogue.

You only readily discuss errors made by other people in your opinion. When your own mistakes are pointed out by other people, their remarks are without substance.

As they say in court, "asked and answered."

And the answer is not pretty. Here we have a vendor launching a system trading a market he doesn't know anything about, he obviously doesn't trade himself and on top of that he will only accept subscribers outside of C2.

It is as clear as daylight that his only interest is his own bottom line. He is just here to make a quick buck. His agenda was to spent some time on the forums sounding smart and knowledgable about trading so that he will sucker a few people into subscribing to his system. This is the same as the junk mail we all receive from the so called gurus peddling their systems. He is only using a different venue and using C2 is cheaper than to spend money on flyers. He only need a few suckers a month to make a decent income. The sad truth is, he will get a few subscribers.

Asked and answered indeed...