The opinions expressed in these forums do not represent those of C2, and any discussion of profit/loss
is not indicative of future performance or success.
There is a substantial risk of loss in trading. You should therefore carefully consider
whether such trading is suitable for you in light of your financial condition. You should read,
understand, and consider the Risk Disclosure Statement that is provided by your broker
before you consider trading. Most people who trade lose money.
The following statistics were posted on another topic but I decided to just start a new topic with the data gathered.
I decided to do some research on that very subject (I am sure someone has done this in the past). I just looked at the longevity of every system that is currently available on C2. The results are as follows:
Total Systems Available - 577
Systems One Year or Older - 174
Systems Two Years or Older - 69
Systems Three Years or Older - 46
Systems Four Years or Older - 33
Systems Five Years or Older - 15
Systems Six Years or Older - 9
Systems Seven Years or Older - 6
Systems Eight Years or Older - 3
Oldest System on C2 is over 12 Years Old.
As is plain to see, there are relatively FEW systems on C2 three years or older (only 46). These number only included systems that are current active/available. I am sure there have been MANY more systems created on this platform but they were either abandoned, killed or the account deleted (I believe it is possible to delete an account, but not sure if the trading history ever disappears).
Based on the forgoing statistics, it is probably safe to conclude that the vast majority of systems just don’t make it past 2 years (which many would probably consider a minimum evaluation period), or about 12% of Active Systems. Just something to think about.
While this statement is true according to the C2 Grid, here are two elements we should also consider:
1: Do C2 trading systems with “longer” track record (1 year, 2 years, 3 years, etc…) perform better than the others, or simply in general?
2: Precisely because “the vast majority of systems just don’t make it past 2 years”, is it then safe to trade 2-year old (or more) C2 systems, since they are probably about to “disappear” very soon, according to your own analysis?
If you average performance of systems < 1 year old and avg performance of systems < 2 years old, < 2years old systems will have better performance. This is the reason why so small number of systems survive 1st year and only “better” systems will do it. I don’t see any paradox here.
Here is something else to keep in mind, GlobalInvestingRep : C2 developers can abandon their system(s) for a variety of reasons, and some of them have absolutely nothing to do with the profitability of the system or its drawdown.
Here is a perfect example, among others.
This trader was one of the most successful C2 developers of all time (see below), his system was making about 20% a year on average (twice the return of the S&P 500!), he had tons and tons of subscribers and yet he chose to abandon it, after 9 years : https://collective2.com/cgi-perl/system25860974
Although my little exercise in looking at the data on C2 was just to present some variables to discuss, it is really difficult to draw conclusions. As illustrated by the data, the age of a system is certainly not related to better performance, or lower risk. It essentially just means that the developer is still around supporting the system and the system will most likely have a better than average CAGR (but certainly not ALWAYS the case as there is one system older than 10 years with a CAGR less than 4%) because otherwise, they would probably just drop the system. That being said, I believe the biggest reason for the low number of older systems is probably tied to underperformance and the developers just abandon or kill the system and move to something else (or just drop the system for a variety of reasons).
Excellent point, GlobalInvestingRep, and yet traders and C2 members still believe that “old” systems will necessarily give them superior performance in the long run.
Please note that I am absolutely not suggesting that “younger” systems are better, we are simply talking about the real performance of “old” systems, as shown in the Grid.
Yes, I remember that system! I remember it was featured as one of the “Systems of the Week”, or other “System Profile” a number of years ago. I did not even know it was no longer available.I even searched to see if some explanation was posted explaining why it closed but I have not been able to locate it. It came out of the blocks very strong initially but eventually, through the middle part of it’s life, it was hit with some big drawdowns. Don’t know if that had anything to do with it closing , or not. It displays a CAGR of 19.5% throughout it’s life (it was displaying a MDD of about 40%, but for some reason it is not showing up as of this writing). Just goes to show that a system can be dropped for no apparent reason and the reason may never be known!
An older system may give the appearance of greater stability, or the trading style of the system may produce less volatility or a smoother equity curve, but the data I look at does not lead me to believe older systems produce higher returns and lower risk. In fact, I would not be surprised to find out that average returns would diminish as systems become older. If I get the time, I will run the numbers on that also.
Thousands of these strategies were probably created just out of curiosity, for fun or simply for testing purposes only, with no real intention of broadcasting trading signals on an ongoing basis, or paying the recurring listing fees.
BTW topaz stopped attracting subscribers after it’s first dd they all left , so no it wasn’t attracting subscribers like crazy when the system was killed .
Not quite my friend.
If you look at the chart you will notice that the biggest drawdown (44.13%) started in 2011 and lasted 1 year, and yet the system was abandoned only last year.
So obviously the strategy was still attracting new traders during all that time.
Which also shows that traders are more willing to overlook medium to large drawdowns if the system has a relatively long track record.
No it wasn’t attracting subscribers maybe a couple , but it certainly it wasn’t attracting subscribers like crazy at the time when it was killed i was watching the system and i know . They all left after the DD , it is irreverent why he kept it running years after that . Its a mediocre system that no one wanted to subscribe to after the big DD .
That “mediocre” system made almost 20% a year on average, double the return of a buy and hold strategy.
Wall Street traders would kill for that kind of return.
Millions of Facebook, Wordpress and Gmail accounts are created every single day, for all kinds of reasons, but how many will still be active in three, five or ten years?
That’s a good question. I guess not a very small percentage of the facebook and the gmail accounts. As for the wordpress, well probably most will be discarded, for similar reasons as C2 systems.
Edit: if the facebook / gmail include those that aren’t personal but created for biz usage, then yes many of those may be discarded as well.
