The “Decision” is here:
http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/CaseDocument.aspx?seqnum=4254
1 Like
Serious stuff … !
More suitable for stocks … can be applied easly …
What I am getting at is what do I need to do in the future to protect myself from Collective2 system creators who are being accused of impropriety or have ever been accused of impropriety at the NFA, SEC, CFTC or any other such agency.
Presumably, the current subscribers of YZ systems are re-considering their subscriptions. But what about other system creators on C2 who are in the same situation but haven’t been called out simply because nobody knows about them.
The important point is that using C2 actually prevents cases like this. If you read the NFA complaint, you’ll see that the accusation here is that the strategy creator lied about his results to people outside of C2. Something like that really isn’t possible on C2 itself, because C2 publishes strategy results – not a strategy developer – and because these results are not fudge-able by a strategy developer. This suggests one can put more credence in objective, third-party reporting (e.g. Collective2’s) and ought to be somewhat more cautious about results controlled by a strategy developer without independent verification.
2 Likes
Understood. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t subscribe to any system if I knew the system creator was found in violation of NFA rules. It really doesn’t matter what his C2 record is.
These violations has nothing to do with his trading abilities and what he is doing here at C2 , after all your money with your broker not the vendor , whether he can trade or not is another issue .
What you can do : IMO don’t accept back testing results from vendors , don’t visit vendors external websites , don’t take vendors words of mouth granted , don’t deal with vendors outside C2 , and take systems description with a grain of salt . Only decide whether you want to subscribe to a system or not based on C2 trading history results and trading statistics .
Frankly the NFA wont sue someone for trading martingale and risky strategies which could be more harmful for subscribers than these violations !
Hi AshM, how did you know there are 23 auto traders following this strategy? How do people find out how many followers are on certain strategy? thanks a lot~
Hi, the followers stat has been removed so you can only get a very rough idea by drilling in to the track record, showing details, and clicking on the fill price icons next to each trade. It’s not exact at all because some trades are broken up or not shown, or were following by email or at a different leverage level, but it’s all we got unfortunately.
Interesting discussion. Liveforex.xyz https://collective2.com/details/97953713 is anti-martingale, scaling at different levels of drawdown, scaling up at different levels in profit. It cannot be seen yet because the records are too young, but I can’t wait for it to be confirmed. It does include a few profitable strategies that are martingale, but they are excluded from this system published here as of today. Check it out and spot any Martingaling if you can ! Cheers fellow traders !
Thanks Riverside. Your strategy certainly does not show any martingale behavior to my eyes. My only comments are that it’s too young to be charging such a high price of $349. Also, you might want to reduce the position size unless that 25% draw down is an outlier. But since it happened in the first month I would guess that future draw-downs will be quite a bit higher and thereby make your strategy unattractive to most people browsing the grid. Finally, get yourself TOS certified so that we know you’re seriously paying attention to the strategy 
Hi AshM, your thoughts could not be more correct. Thanks for your feedback, it is great you took the time to actually go look it up ! And your insight is actually of great help. For the price, I must admit, it is intentional. I am not expecting many subscribers for many months still. The strong start is rare but the drawdown is very indicative of what it will still be in months to come. Big scaling down happen at certain levels, not only with allocated funds but also the chosen strategies vary at the same crucial moment. I certainly dont want anyone with less experience (not talking about you ! hehe) get the wrong idea with this early drawdown and quick high returns. If you look closely, all is scaled up only after certain degrees of success & other factors are in place. Again, these last weeks was an unusual start but the funds were managed accordingly and it is not done the same when loses and strategies fail in time and frequency. Your mention of TOS is not a concern to me. 6 to 12 months of tracking by Collective2 should be enough to instill the necessary trust. That is one of the many reasons C2 exists. I will keep it in mind though. I will see how the trust is in 3 to 6 months time. Ash, its great to talk to you! You’re making think even more and have opened my eyes how the potential client sees the strategy. Take care and please if you have any other thoughts, dont hesitate, I am eager to learn the views of my fellow traders.
Guess who is back!
Maximus Decimus x 2.
Will anyone take a ride on the portfolio destruction ride?
Hmmm, here’s “Maximus Decimus I” we warned about as being a martingale strategy destined to implode. It looks like it lost about half a million dollars of subscriber money based on the contracts being auto-traded while the manager was grossing about $1400/mo off the unlucky subscribers and defending his strategy on the forums. So I think I’ll pass on his new one!:
1 Like
Hard to say they were unlucky subscribers when it was easy to see what the system creator was doing by valuing the percentage of winning trades higher then the long term sustainability of the system. Now we see the creator probably on the road of ditching the system and opening a ‘new’ martingale system to implode on the new subs.
1 Like
I will still defend the stratey not being a martingale.
The later implementation of system didn’t work out but that was more from me altering the implementation of system rather than anything else. You can tell my trading habits changed, but that is on me. I never cared for win trades or win %. What made the system good is for whatever reason I got away from.
I would also add I closed this strategy at astronomical gain and that drawdown is due to some collective area. Do the math, I couldn’t have exploded that high and that low at once on that day. 8/19 was not that volatile of a day.
Im a system developer and know that any system that has to average down 9+ times is a red flag. Your systems are for a pure gambler, sure 500% sounds great! But then you also have to get in purely off luck and avoid the 90% draw down that happens with each one of your systems.
Regardless, good luck on your new system. I myself have spent my time developing a futures system that can yield 3 to 500% a year, but I focus on eliminating draw downs and only trade one contract. To each their own.
1 Like
