Q1. Is the InteractiveBrokers fee structure and capabilities as good as MBtrading for options, futures, forex and other derivatives?
Q2. Is the $50/monthly TraderBullet adequate for autotrading most c2 systems?
My reasons for asking. TraderBullet possibly reduces subscription + software + commissions to perhaps $1,500 per year. Thus possibly reducing average overhead on $30,000 from -10% annually to -5% annually. Thus making it more attractive to my subscribers to join c2.
I only publish equities and ETF systems. However whatever is used for my systems should be compatible with most c2 systems. All c2 clients then can reduce per-system overhead with diversification. This makes my more conservative systems more feasible. This in turn attracts a wider audience to c2. If c2 is made feasible for more conservative systems, this make it feasible for investors to place more value in the c2-enabled account, thus making the difference between giving c2 a try or not.
I hope I have made myself clear? Thank you anyone.
Krystof,
I’m a TB user, and although I have definitely had my challenges with it, I think it’s very solid for what it does. But I have to caveat that that there’s definitely a learning curve and users have to check their computer at least once a day to keep IB from logging them out.
As for IB, it’s the best broker out there, both in terms of executions and fees. (IB is the reason I ended up on Gen1, not the other way around.) That is why everyone is so anxiously awaiting the Gen3 interface for IB, even though that will move us into the additional C2 Gen3 fees.
For TradeBullet, it’s a very safe bet for equities and ETFs and I have no plans myself to move off of it even for the Gen 3 interface for stocks and ETFs with the systems I’m currently trading. It has also been fine for me on forex (and IB is no bucket shop) but that’s also just my opinion. It won’t do Options (no Gen1 system will) and Futures might be best handled through a different broker and Gen3 but it depends on the system (See Futures Trader Daily).
Also, I’ve learned from hard experience that Gen1 is definitely best avoided for rapid or simultaneous signals (such as reversals).
Bottom line, I think, is that it might be a very safe bet for your own system, but there’s no way to make a blanket recommendation for it across a wide variety of systems. It’s a totally subjective choice and the setup can be pretty daunting, and some people just won’t want to mess with the client side of it no matter what the cost savings.
Hope this helps,
Christina
Thank you very very much Christina. Christina or anyone, please verify if I am understanding this correctly…?
1. TB (TraderBullet) is an older Gen1 system, more limited than Gen3 but at the same time more difficult to use?
2. All autotrading (Gen1 or Gen3) works from a desktop download? It is necessary for each user to keep their computer running? Any user with a computer failure, power failure or ISP interruption may possibly fail to close a position?
3. Gen3 is much better, if not essential, to autotrade options or futures?
4. The Gen1 user needs to be aware of possible complications, more than the Gen3 user?
5. Gen3 is not yet available at InteractiveBrokers.
Certainly Gen1 is adequate for my equities systems. In fact, if autotrading depends on a desktop download, requiring daily monitoring and restarting, autotrading seems kind of ridiculous if only to run my type of system.
Nonetheless… if my interpretation is correct… this seems to confirm my suspicion that c2 autotrading only makes much sense for people willing and able to afford putting $50,000 to $100,000 into high-yield ventures. If so, my type of system with a target yield of "only" 30% annually might not be the usual expectation for the c2 subscriber. Nonetheless, I believe my systems might find a niche as an "enabler" for subscribers with a borderline level of commitment to high-yield trading. Also (except for people who already have an InteractiveBrokers account) there seems not much point to cut costs by suggesting Gen1–because this substantially reduces the variety of systems someone might reliably try out–thus somewhat undermining the whole point of autotrading… I.e…
Looking at c2 systems with the highest CAGR and 2 year track records, there are promising $50 systems, but it seems necessary to budget $100 maximum per system to achieve a good diversity. This results perhaps in an average cost of $75/system monthly, including trading fees. Dividing the $100 software cost among 4 systems results in annual overhead of $1,200 per system. This requires a value of at least $25,000 and a 4-system portfolio of $100,000 to keep overhead down to a tolerable 5%.
Of course, people can start with $50,000 and hope to be up to $75,000 in a year or two if their high-yield subscriptions pan out. But that is still a lot of money for a lot of people. It may be attractive to place only "some" of this money into high-yeild systems, and possibly half their value into more conservative systems such as mine.
Can someone please tell me if my facts are correct and my reasoning makes any sense? Thank you.
Krystof:
The one factual point I want to clarify is this:
The big difference between Gen1 and Gen3 is that Gen3 is “server-based.” This means you don’t have to run any software on your computer (indeed, don’t even have to keep your computer turned on). Just set up AutoTrading on this web site, specifying broker account information and trade size constraints, and viola.
In addition there are a few other nifty Gen3 features, such as: automatic subscriber-controlled stop losses (i.e. you can type a dollar value for stop-losses that you always want applied, to every position, regardless of whether the system uses one or not), and the ability to manually modify positions via the C2 web interface (close them early, decrease them, increase them, etc.).
Gen3 is coming for IB, although we have stopped promising a particular date, since we have been horribly unable to make our estimates accurate, or even somewhat reality-based.
Matthew
“”"“The big difference between Gen1 and Gen3 is that Gen3 is “server-based.” This means you don’t have to run any software on your computer (indeed, don’t even have to keep your computer turned on)… Gen3 is coming for IB, although we have stopped promising a particular date…”""“
Aha! Aha! Aha!
Then so far as I am concerned, suggesting Gen1 to my clients is out of the question. And thanks to “Collective2 Commissions” MBtrading is quite tolerable for my clients.
A few more questions:
1. With 4 different c2 systems enabled by Gen3 at MBT, can the subscriber automatically see separate readouts for the individual performance of each system?
2. With ‘collective2 commissions’ enabled at MBT, does the subscriber still receive these low rates when he trades manually on his own? Or if not… can he subscribe to some free c2 system… turn off all of its trade signals… and then enter manual signals, thus receiving 'collective2 commission” rates?
My reasons for these questions. I have an InteractiveBrokers account myself, like it very much, but even their simplified “WebTrader” is not very friendly to the average person. I have not yet tried MBtrading, but I assume it is more warm and fuzzy. With MBtrading, the c2 commission rate of 1 cent for equities is double the 1/2 cent rate at InteractiveBrokers–but it is still a good rate and sufficiently low for non-day-traders.
So, it seems to me, “if” as I assume the MBtrading platform is less intimidating (a bit more like TDameritrade)–and “if” my clients can enable c2 commissions for everything they do themselves–then I will make MBtrading my first recommendation for my clients, even after IB has Gen3… And also… this is an added incentive for them to use c2 systems…
I would like to say to my clients, "To enable c2 autotrading, you must pay $100 monthly. But you can then automatically enable numerous hedging systems. And you also receive very low commissions for all your hedging activities, while remaining at MBtrading, one of the more reputable and user-friendly online brokerages."
This in my opinion broadens the appeal, not limiting c2 to traders, bikers and base jumpers, but instead attracting a few Volvo drivers who want a little measured excitement.
