First off, I don’t find the poke towards older people, with comments about their teeth being crooked, discolored, etc… the least bit clever or humorous.
If not offensive, it is certainly unprofessional right off the start which takes away from the credibility that C2 it (trying?) to cultivate. Not that I am all that old myself relatively speaking, but I just find these comments in poor taste, if not disrespectful towards seniors.
And no offense meant towards any system vendor that is on this list, but for starters the top system of this list (of supposedly systems that should according to the list description, well managed, conservative, etc… ) is DEFIANT.
Does anyone have any ideas, how a system with the following stats should qualify as “conservative” for making this type of list when according to C2 stats it is a system that should not even be traded unless you want to lose money to brokerage fees:
after typical commission ($123,761)
and real-life slippage ($123,713)
I’m not sure, but I think the points of trading / investing is to make money - and that would be (after commissions).
Maybe it’s time to rethink what C2 is trying to accomplish with the “grandma” list. It looks more like a “Alzheimer’s” list to me at the onset.
I agree completely with the point about the “grandma” list. Defiant is a money losing system and besides that, it is the complete opposite of what I would expect my grandma to invest in. My grandma is not interested in a scalping trading system that holds positions for less than six minutes and has 1,500 trades per year. She would more likely be interested in position trading with very few trades per year. The “grandma” filter makes no sense to me either.
Regarding the description of grandmas, haha, I dunno, it doesn’t offend me. Description simply doesn’t match with what a grandma wants, IMO.
"First off, I don’t find the poke towards older people, with comments about their teeth being crooked, discolored, etc… the least bit clever or humorous. If not offensive, it is certainly unprofessional right off the start which takes away from the credibility that C2 it (trying?) to cultivate. Not that I am all that old myself relatively speaking, but I just find these comments in poor taste, if not disrespectful towards seniors.
What in the world are you looking at? I clicked the Grandma’s list, and don’t see any of what you claim. I see only the following:
“Here are the systems that Grandma C2 likes. Grandma C2 is very conservative. She likes orange marmalade, macrame, and making money, but she hates taking undue risks.”
I was about to post about this the other day. Grandma should be trading systems like Have Fun, or long-term, easy-to-trade systems like mvp-3. Definitely NOT Defiant! I don’t see the comments about old people’s teeth though, where is that?
Aspire Trader wrote:
Does anyone have any ideas, how a system with the following stats should qualify as "conservative" for making this type of list when according to C2 stats it is a system that should not even be traded unless you want to lose money to brokerage fees:
after typical commission ($123,761)
and real-life slippage ($123,713)
Cut and paste from Defiant description:
Commissions on Collective2 are calculated as 0.01 cents per share which puts this system at a slight disadvantage. I am using TD Ameritrade and it costs me about $22 to open and close a position ($11 per side). On Collective2, hypothetical commissions can be more than $300 for large positions.
Maybe there is the difference from real world and Collective2 simulation.
In real world you can have commissions $4.95 per trade (until 5,000 shares/trade) and even better (depending on your trading style).
(I am not talking about "grandma list" topic now.)
Good Luck
Bob
"Maybe there is the difference from real world and Collective2 simulation. In real world you can have commissions $4.95 per trade (until 5,000 shares/trade) and even better (depending on your trading style)."
Bob, you are absolutely right and that was precisely the point I was trying to make, whether one agrees with the schedule or not is irrelevant, a vendor needs to be aware of how his system is going to be interpreted by others because that is what he is going to be judged on, but this point seems totally lost on our ‘persistent’ friend. Thanks for pointing it out.
I’m going to throw in my 2 cents and help move this conversation even more off-topic.
The typical commission structure for C2 could be improved so that site users could view the commissions for their broker. One way to do this would be to add a user’s broker information to the user profile. From a usability point of view it would be easiest to list the most common discount brokers as well as to have a small form that would allow a user to enter non-standard commission rates or to include a broker that isn’t listed.
Whenever a user then views a system their commissions cost would be displayed rather than the current “typical commissions”. If the user has multiple brokers, each broker would be listed, which would then give the user the ability to compare costs between their brokers.
Anonymous users and users that haven’t added their broker’s commission structure will still need some estimate of commissions costs. This could be an opportunity for broker sponsorship. That is, a broker pays to have the commission costs displayed using their commission schedule.
This change could also help vendors support their subscribers. I imagine that most vendors aren’t aware or don’t give much thought to the commissions that their subscribers are paying. By making it easier for vendors to see how their systems perform under different commissions structures a vendor could share their opinion on the maximum acceptable commission schedule for their system.
Ultimately the hope is that subscribers sign up for a system fully aware of the impact of commissions on the system’s performance.
Anyhow, just a couple thoughts I had.
Cheers,
Erik P
"The typical commission structure for C2 could be improved so that site users could view the commissions for their broker."
An excellent idea. But I think the easiest thing is that a C2 customer has a box "enter your commission" and that is used in all calculations. It also allows the customer to look at different scenarios, as some brokers base commission on trading volume. So if someone trades many contracts or many times, they can tailor C2 to their reality. Many brokers have a flat rate for a customer, and that is also what a C2 customer can use for all transactions.
