Previously all my strategies had a minimum capital required of $5,000. All of the sudden I have noticed that the minimum required starting capital has jumped big time. Take for example this strategy that simply holds 15 stocks. Doesn’t use margin. Makes about 1-3 trades on average a week. Why is the required starting capital $100,000? It doesn’t appear reasonable to me. Previous the minimum was $5,000.
minimum $5k ? why is the strategy starting pt is 250k. if you are looking at your summery statistic on the right hand side, c2 will change that base on your trade size, margin, and starting balance. so its not a stat telling your potential subscriber they can follow you starting at $5k. its very misleading.
When i started i wanted my strategy recommendation of subs commit at least 25k, now i want to up that to 50k/75k minimum. but 3 month after i started “Minimum Capital Required - $25,000” changed to 100k. I wish c2 will offer a spot where the leader can suggest a minimum starting capital or allocation $.
Why not put an explanation as to YOUR suggested minimum starting capital in the description section of your strategy ?
we do, but when the 1st page you see said “Minimum Capital Required $100,000” a lot of people just look at that and make the assumption of this strategy “recommended” 100k by the strategy leader.
Since you posted this, I looked at your closed positions. From the period of 11/20 to 11/27, you held 4 positions. There may be more that are still open from that period also that I don’t see.
Values were VIPS $13,836.48 (you had 3421 shares and sold 1717 and kept 1704 shares on 11/20 at $8.12). Also, GTS $$16,741.03 and DAC $17,188.05 (after you sold on 11/20 and kept 10,417 shares) and finally CTEK $16,789.50. Your total holdings for this period was a value in stocks of $64,555.06. This reflects what you sold on 11/20 (partial positions). Again, it could be more than this if you had open positions that are still to this day open.
Even on margin, a $5000 account should never hold this much stock ($64,555.06). That’s probably why the platform reflected the true capital required to trade this account. Hope that helped clarify. It could be a different reason that I am unaware of but that’s the logical reason.
I have not seen the details of CharlesTines’ system, but I can second the fact that I have seen a jump in the requirement from $20000 couple of days ago to $60000 as of today for my below system. I too do not understand the logic for such a jump in a matter of coupe of days where there has not been much trades as well and no ‘unusual’ trades were taken. A change in C2 algorithm, may be?
I totally believe the previous shown $20000 should be the minimum which should work at 1/3rd scaling.
@VixTrader I started with the highest allowable starting capital for my subscription, $250,000, so that people on AutoTrade plans that cap the scaling to follow with more money. For example, if I started with $10,000 and someone had a 100% scaling limitation on their plan then the max they could follow with would be $10,000. Because I started with a large amount even those on a 100% scaling limitation can invest up to $250,000 if they wish.
@StephenMeyers However, I do believe that even $5,000 would be enough capital to trade SAFETY FACTOR. This strategy does not trade frequently and holds 15 stocks at all times only making about 3 trades a week. This is why I believe $5,000 is plenty.
@O5355p you are correct. This strategy trades with about $265,000 which is about the value of the equity curve and much more than $5,000. Also, I started with $250,000. However, the “Minimum Capital Required” is calculated by C2 and meant to tell subscribers that they would only want to trade this strategy if they have that much money to trade with. Aka they were saying you would only want to follow the equity curve of $265,000 if you had about $5,000 and were able to follow at a 2% scaling factor. I don’t see why a person would need $100,000 to hold 15 stocks at a time as I do in SAFETY FACTOR. . Previously they were calculating all of my strategies could be traded with $5,000 each. Some of their calculations in my opinion were a bit low. For example, I probably wouldn’t have traded DIVERSE with less than $10,000 personally. However, now all of the sudden they must have changed their calculation as @QFund suggested. I will say something that I learned when I started AutoTrading myself was that you have to follow with round percentages. For example, you can follow at 1% or 2% but not 1.5%. This does create a problem for some followers with small accounts when my strategy equity curve is large like in DIVERSE and SAFETY FACTOR.
I noticed a jump in my strategy as well.
Used to be $50k, now it is $65k (current equity).
Does it mean that no one can follow my strategy unless they are willing to put at least $65k?
@Sagor I believe anyone can follow any strategy regardless of what C2 says the minimum is. It is just a recommendation. I was following DIVERSE with $10,000 on AutoTrade even though it now says you shouldn’t do it with less than $100,000.
Hm. It specifically says:
Minimum Capital Required
Meaning, it is not a recommendation. It is a requirement.
I guess we will have to wait for C2 to comment on this. As right now it is quite confusing.
@Sagor I see what you mean but so far the only true limit I have experienced is that you must follow with a minimum of a 1% scaling factor. I have followed with less than the “Minimum Capital Required.” Also, I just found a different page that talks about it. Here it defines it as “With scaling set at 100% (default value for AutoTrading) a trader should anticipate needing the Minimum Capital Required to comfortably AutoTrade the strategy trade for trade without triggering a margin call or receiving a rejection notice due to insufficient funds.” I think they should change the name from “Minimum Capital Required” to “100% Scaling Minimum Capital.” What do you think @MelissaKarty? I think with the way it displays now people will think it is a minimum regardless of your scaling factor. I can now see why the minimums jumped up for me since $5,000 would indeed be too low and trigger a margin call at a 100% scaling factor. I thought it was meant to imply minimum for any scaling factor. https://support.collective2.com/hc/en-us/articles/217387517-Can-I-change-the-Minimum-Capital-Required-
@JohnSnow2019 Yes, I agree. That would make much more sense to rename it. And your explanation makes sense.
I’m not sure how I missed this thread but I also just noticed the “Minimum Capital Required” for my system is now significantly higher than I set it. So apparently C2 has changed the definition for what that value means. This is very misleading as my system is specifically designed to scale easily to arbitrary values, and subscribers can and usually do use less capital than the new “minimum.”
I guess I’ll have to update my system description to inform potential subscribers to ignore that value until Collective2 fixes it or changes its name.
To add a note here when a starting capital is allocated at 250k (for example) then on the simulator it will also consume 250k. Its best to set the starting capital to the true capital size that is required in my opinion.
Someone has been making improvements. My system now lists a “Suggested Minimum Capital” and it’s a much better number than the previous “Minimum Capital Required.”
I agree. I just checked mine and they do seem a little better. They aren’t exactly what I would call my minimum but certainly more reasonable than what you would need for a 100% scaling factor like it had before.
Same here. 6.000 $ became 10.000$.
A bit sad, as my trading was designed and tested for 5000 €.
And then there is that mysterious connection between Starting Capital, Minimum Capital, Subscription Fee and Performance…
How can Suggested Minimum Capital be higher than Starting Capital, in a TOS account?
That’s what I’m asking myself too. I’m trading my strategy TOS with $12000 and the suggested minimum capital was set to $35,000 now by C2. I absolutely don’t know why!!! It makes absolutely no sense.