How many subscribers do the best systems get on this site? This would be valuable information for all system vendors so we can gauge how much more marketing we need to do.
Thanks,
-Raystonn
This has been brought up before a couple of times, and it will be difficult for you to ascertain. Few seem willing to share this number and others may be flat out lying. The C2 site does not publish this either. But the number will vary based on factors such as:
– price. There have been people who seem to be happy having 0 subscribers at $1999 a month. Some try and get $500 a month; but there are many systems for maybe $100 a month (do the math as to who is likely to want to pay 5 times as much), In fact, it has almost seemed as though expensive systems tend to blow up or underperform…
– length of time. Doubtful that systems around for 2-3 weeks are going to get subscribers (unless they are stupid).
– what you trade (stocks, forex, futures)
– performance stats (PF, W/L%, Sharpe). Too many people try to maintain a pretty equity curve using tricks like averaging down. The experienced people here tend to shy away from such systems. They tend to implode when the market moves too much.
– system philosophy (scalping, day trading, position). Few scalping systems seem to work here, in spite of what the track record says.
– the perceived character of the vendor. Some vendors become unreachable when it goes into serious drawdown. Think they will be trusted again?
Advertising is likely a waste of time if the system does not do well on most of these. Advertising a mediocre system is somewhat like advertising an 83 year old stripper; who wants to see it??? Mature, reasonably-priced, profitable systems almost don’t need to advertise (although it can’t hurt). They will constantly appear in the various “good” lists and will be constantly followed by many.
A better method, is probably to make the system free in the beginning, while building a history. Getting people to watch you is half the battle. If you do well, some of those will likely pay you to continue to get access to the signals.
I’m just trying to get an idea of how much it is really possible to make annually off subscribers with a very good system and an optimal subscription fee. The system and subscription fee will need to be determined, but can you give a ballpark as to expectations if these are optimized?
Thanks,
-Raystonn
I’m just trying to determine the current maximum potential of C2 for a system vendor who has a great system.
-Raystonn
Until a system establishes a track-record that has been independently verified (such as on C2), the rest is speculation. With that in mind, I’d be happy to offer my opinion…
- Since I’m only interested in futures (at the moment), a system that trades something else is worth zero to me, and that’s what I’d pay for same.
- A system that generates unnecessary draw-down in an attempt to “survive” a bad trade (rather than close and wait for a better entry, or close and reverse) is pretty much worthless to me.
- A system that averages down on losing trades is also pretty much worthless to me, unless it has a clear policy for doing so and sticks to it. Still, if the system wastes time holding and waiting for bad trades to reverse, it’s not for me… the opportunity costs are too high.
- A system that performs reasonably well, limits its exposure (time) to the market and stops out bad trades is worth something to me. What it is worth depends on how each month, averaged out individually, performs.
- I’d pay $1200/month or more for a system that meets my criteria… but at the first sign of vascillating from its stated rules, I’d bail and not trust them again. Such a system would have to earn at least 8% monthly, with no excuses (good, bad or flat market cycles).
- Any system that exhibits heavy draw-downs or tries to average their way out of a bad trade, or breaks its own rules, goes on my black list, along with the vendor.
- Any system that requires me to go through a managed account goes on my black-list, along with the vendor.
Hope that helps. I’d be happy to answer any specific questions you may have.
You are unlikely to get a "ballpark." Even if you get a reply from someone, it is not necessarily accurate nor true. These questions have been asked before, and the results never seemed to pin this question down reliably.
Lew,
I like your criteria, So is there anyone on C2 that has met this criteria yet, I have been watching this site and tried a few venders over the past year. And my experience has not been that good at all. I seem to see a few that might be good but it seems they better have at least 8 months record and still meet your criteria.
So who do you use currently?
thanks
Rex - the answer is complex and not straightforward. Nobody meets my primary criteria currently. ATDow used to, went the managed accounts route, and was then unable to maintain profits for various reasons (of which I decline to opine, else an argument ensues).
A few vendors meet my secondary criteria, which is to produce accurate signals. Their draw-down is unacceptable, however. I subscribe to them, and filter their trades through my own set of signals to manage risk. You would not be advised to use them as-is. Recently, however, these systems have become inaccurate, and their signals are now ambiguous at best.
What look like promising systems open up each week, but without a track record they remain gambles. Zen-Kerma was one such system, which made you think David Carradine was behind the wheel, but turned out to be a Jonestown massacre in the end. The vendor is now on retreat, gaining new wisdom as to how to best rearrange his furniture to be one with the stock market.
One vendor, which uses compound trades to manage risk (making it a bit more work on C2 to see what’s going on), is doing well in my opinion. Mentioning the name immediately leads to narrow-focused arguments. That system is SixSigma. If you follow the cash allotment, I believe the system produces long-term profits. The draw-down is sometimes a tad large, but it’s managed… which is more than I can say for other systems.
I hope the above was informative.
Lew Payne With all my respect to you, but it looks like you represent point of view majority of C2’s subscribers.
Holy Grail for cheap! Buy one, second is free! lol
Such a system would have to earn at least 8% monthly, with no excuses (good, bad or flat market cycles).
Do you have a calculator near you? Pls, compound 8%/month return and say me when you’ll have all money of the world.
Ironically, you cannot compete for a price of the kind of system. Simply, there are guys who will buy it when system loose 6% on slippage on their sizes on futures market. Gosh(!), 2% per month on any size and no matter what’s going on on the market lol
-Averaging down, scaling in/out, hold&hope and so on.
I understand your fear, because most of C2’s futures/forex systems use black box approach that covers modifications of martingale game. It’s first sign of alarm. Agree.
However, personally I won’t accept that any subscriber dictates me what I have to do to hold DDs of my system. I’ll listen and probably back test subscribers suggestions, I don’t like mushroom factory approach and I share risk information with my subscribers, but nobody will dictate me and it doesn’t depend from subscription fees. There are ~3K systems on C2. Be happy lol
- And two things that I totally agree:
1. Violation declared rules means mental instability of a system vendor in most of cases
2. Around C2 business for a system. It’s good indicator imho.
Eu
"Such a system would have to earn at least 8% monthly, with no excuses (good, bad or flat market cycles). "
One of the criticisms I have of this web site (C2) is that expectations are not well managed. Improvements have been made with Grandma systems etc but there is an abundance of systems making unrealistically high levels of profit. The process of natural selection does not work in a simulated environment. Every time one of these systems implodes there is another waiting to take it’s place.
People blame the problems on averaging down or “scale trading”. Although this is a genuine problem the bigger issue may be excessive use of margin to attract subscriber attention. As long as subscribers flock to these systems they will continue to flourish (until they self-destruct).
I suspect it is possible for a very experienced guru to make 8% per month for a period of time. But it wouldn’t be a mechanical system. It would be dependent upon that particular guru making perfect decisions over and over again with one mistake away from complete disaster.
But people can manage their expectations based on the statistics of those systems with the longest history. For example, the best futures system with a history over 2 years has an annualized profit of 46% and Sharpe ratio of 1.4. No forex system has survived for >2 years, and a few stock systems have done well for more than 2 years, but b/c of slippage for some the true performance is likely lower than what is shown by C2. Many systems with shorter histories have far better performance, but chances are high that these results are idiosyncratic and will not be sustainable in the longer run.
So, when a system with a fairly short history and reasonable realism factor shows statistics like Sharpe > 3 or 200% annual profit, the possibilities are:
1. the system is unlike any other of the 3,000 systems that have been launched on C2 before and will continue its exceptional performance in the long run (probability: extremely small).
2. the exceptional performance is idiosyncratic and long-term performance will be more modest and closer to performance of systems with longer histories. In the course of this subscribers might be disappointed and think performance is deteriorating. (probability: high)
3. the true underlying nature of the system is that of exceptional performance for a short while, followed by a sudden collapse, e.g. similar to a system that would sell options (many small profits with occasional rare but huge losses). (probability: fairly small, but b/c these cases look spectacular and draw a lot of attention on C2, the perceived probability is high).
To avoid #3 it helps to have a good understanding of risk and analyze the individual trade results. Trying to catch a #1: dream on. To me the trick is finding a good balance between #2 systems with shorter histories and exceptional results and systems with longer histories but more modest results.
But people can manage their expectations based on the statistics of those systems with the longest history.
No. Lew isn’t bad example, others are much worse.
Eu
Pls, compound 8%/month return and say me when you’ll have all money of the world
Assuming a young person with ~40 years ahead to trade, a simple 3% per month and 30K in starting capital would suffice to equal Bill Gates’ current wealth. With 10 more years, 2.5% per month would be enough–that’s less than 35% per year.
For those with young kids living in the western world, their life expectancy will exceed 80 years. 1.5% per month (or 20% per year) beyond inflation is enough to make them or your grandchildren one of the wealthiest people in the world.
Think about it.
Well, I’m 45, I smoke a lot, I am single, and I am too heavy. So I expect to die at 65 without children. I want to have the money when I’m 55. So even 10% monthly is not enough to beat Bill Gates in my case… 
But I will be happy with 5% monthly. That is 80% annual and $10M when I’m 55. Hmm, that still sounds like a dream…
100M of TC, 20% annually, 1% of management fee + hight water mark fees. It’s what miserable trader can have by trading others capitals. No “rocket–science”, just systematic trading on scalable system.
Think about it. lol
It’s acceptable. There isn’t 100-200% of return at every month. Bare 20% per year and no one f@cking smart ass dictates how you have to make it, just make it and hold DD.
Sorry, I apologize. Of course, of course… There are a lot of gurus and … gurus. Hmm… trade it lol I apologize for speaking…
Eu
One of the top rated systems said he had 34 subscribers.
1 Like
Hey, an on-topic answer! Thank you! 
-Raystonn
"People blame the problems on averaging down or "scale trading". Although this is a genuine problem the bigger issue may be excessive use of margin to attract subscriber attention. As long as subscribers flock to these systems they will continue to flourish (until they self-destruct). "
True. Many vendors think climbing the charts ASAP attracts subs. I am fascinated how quickly some of them (Mr. "PrimeTime Challenge" for example) implode. It is like a bird hitting a cliff.
But I think similarly big problems are:
– systems that have a good 2-3 month track record are almost always due to luck. With about 100+ active C2 systems at any one time, a few of them must be "the best" at any one time. After seeing a promising system. I usually follow it out a few weeks to see if it continues. I find it does "rarely." Systems that KEEP outperforming get my attention.
– systems with rotten stats but a pretty equity curve. Scalping systems and those that "hang on until a big DD turns profitable or I go bust" contribute to this as well as "average downers." Bad APD, average unit profits of $0-$20, etc.
I only wish there was a C2 indicator that separated long from short performance in an easy to see fashion (eg, PF of longs vs. PFs of shorts). The REAL outperforming systems are often those that make regularly money on both longs and shorts (not just ride a bull or bear market in that instrument).
"But people can manage their expectations based on the statistics of those systems with the longest history. For example, the best futures system with a history over 2 years has an annualized profit of 46% and Sharpe ratio of 1.4."
Sure people can manage their expectations but most don’t. As long as systems that go from $100K to $1M in a few months are compared to systems with annualized profit of 46% guess which one they are going to subscribe to 99 times out of 100? And when that system self-destructs, well it was just bad luck and they move on to the next high flying system. Until they have used up all of their trading capital and decide that this stuff doesn’t work and they move on.
Whereas if this person started with a system that had produced 46% annualized return for greater than two years he/she would probably do quite well over the long term.
"The REAL outperforming systems are often those that make regularly money on both longs and shorts (not just ride a bull or bear market in that instrument)."
Well perhaps. But examine where the real subscriber market is. If there are 50M people in the U.S.A. trading stocks then 49.9M probably have never shorted a stock, don’t understand options, never speculated in futures or dabbled in Forex. So yes, for a few elite traders there may be advantage in long/short stats and systems. But, regardless of trading methodology, the system has to be right about the long term market direction. Any system that includes shorting when the market direction is up is likely to get killed. So it really comes down to how well a system predicts the long term market direction. To evaluate this takes a long period of time (> 2 years at least) and there will always remain the possibility that the system or system trader has incorrectly assessed the long term market direction.
