I too am in favor of systems remaining hidden until a certain time or number of trades has elapsed, or some combination. This would prevent people from jumping on a 1 week old, “hot” system, which I have seen plenty of people do (even mine).
FYI, one major competitor of yours does exactly this - results aren’t “public” until 31 trades have been taken. I don’t necessarily agree with the number of trades - I think time is maybe more important.
This would keep the jokester vendors to a minimum.
I agree with Keith. Reviews. etc either have to be two way, or none at all. It can’t be “vendor says what he wants, and nobody can challenge him.”
Thanks Matthew this has been one of my biggest difficulties with C2 since I discovered it. I am sure the name calling and flame wars have resulted in a loss of business for all.
Rick Haines
I would, also, add that a lot of the worst systems seem to get the most attention. I would like to see systems that have negative realism factor be penalized. Several vendors are taking off large numbers of contracts and scalping or averaging down in an unrealistic way: And I don’t mean averaging down one time, either.
Instead of showing the “hottest” systems on front pages it would be nice to show best risk/reward adjusted systems with the highest realism factors. It would, also, be good to see a non leveraged view of systems such that we can compare how much leverage plays a role. I would like, also, to sort systems based on capital requirements: based on number of contracts traded and margin. If a system is trading 4 or 5 asset classes versus taking 1 position then that system would need a lot more money allocated too it. Systems that have well distributed winnings over time should place higher then a system that has only a few large winners.
A really diversified strategy would be diversified across time frames, instruments, asset classes, and strategies.
Matthew,
This decision to police messages is an excellent step in the right direction.
Reading the quality of the comments in this thread and knowing from experience many of the names who have taken time to post and the essence of their message(s) here, could we urge you to implement one or more of the suggestions about minimum grace periods, banning messages both vendors and customers for a short period of time, etc., making all new systems private for a short period of time, etc.?
It’s time to clean up C2. Elsewhere, I have heard it called a a number of unfavorable things, like it is run like a circus, populated by amateurs and gunners trying to hit Home Runs, instead of a serious site conducted with professionalism where customers can go to discover serious systems that are investment-quality.
Some of your best (and most knowledgeable) customers (that’s both vendors and subscribers) are talking to you, Matthew. Perhaps it’s time to TRY these things for a while. Let’s implement them and then take a checkpoint and see how they worked out. A 6 month trial period would not be the end of the world to implement. I hope you have the fortitude to listen and act. I’m pulling for you… and for C2…
Best,
Skip
I’m in total agreement as well. In addition, I would recommend for the first offense a warning should be issued and expulsion for the second offense. The terms of service should also be updated.
It’s funny that mention was made of the site being run like a circus, for the past few months I have been thinking the same…well not circus as there is a different terminology used in my country.
I just had time to review this thread. I wouldn’t agree with the blackout period. I would have been invisible for nearly 1.5 years with my first system for a 30 trade minimum to show, and not visible for nearly 2 years for 50 trades. I wouldn’t even have bothered with C2. I think there should be no blackout periods. It’s fine without them. Subscribers to early, young systems I think have made a lot of research into their decision than you give them credit for. An active vendor in the forums and chatter area can get subscribers quickly if they are making credible, verifiable statements.
Performance summaries I believe should be a requirement prior to any trades being conducted by a vendor. In this way, we preserve the essence of C2 as being a “Black Box Provider.” I know some of you don’t see yourselves that way, but, at the core, people are entrusting us as vendors with our decisions, and it is unlikely that they ever truly understand with certainty what the vendor is doing. At least as it relates to discretionary systems, I would say those are more unlikely to get subscribers early on, and, as I found with my newest one, as long as you’ve thoroughly explained your system with performance summaries and have written a good long description of your system, there’s no reason they should only be allowed to subscribe after a certain minimum criteria is met, whether that’s number of trades, time, etc.
To summarize, there should be no blackout periods, and evidence of a backtest, performance summary, or other history should absolutely be provided by a vendor before allowing them to trade. I think C2 would definitely not be known as the “System Graveyard” with this simple requirement, and I truly believe that. Now I can tell which vendors actually have mechanical systems, but I do not believe the lay, newbie can, and I think that would do more for us than worrying about preventing subscribers from jumping onto a hot system. In most cases, it’s considered hot by subscribers for a reason.
I believe the “Best Systems List” is already filtered for Risk and Reward. The Sharpe Ratio is part of that criteria, and I think it ranks them accurately.
I just had time to review this thread. I wouldn’t agree with the blackout period. I would have been invisible for nearly 1.5 years with my first system for a 30 trade minimum to show, and not visible for nearly 2 years for 50 trades. I wouldn’t even have bothered with C2. I think there should be no blackout periods. It’s fine without them. Subscribers to early, young systems I think have made a lot of research into their decision than you give them credit for. An active vendor in the forums and chatter area can get subscribers quickly if they are making credible, verifiable statements.
Performance summaries I believe should be a requirement prior to any trades being conducted by a vendor. In this way, we preserve the essence of C2 as being a “Black Box Provider.” I know some of you don’t see yourselves that way, but, at the core, people are entrusting us as vendors with our decisions, and it is unlikely that they ever truly understand with certainty what the vendor is doing. At least as it relates to discretionary systems, I would say those are more unlikely to get subscribers early on, and, as I found with my newest one, as long as you’ve thoroughly explained your system with performance summaries and have written a good long description of your system, there’s no reason they should only be allowed to subscribe after a certain minimum criteria is met, whether that’s number of trades, time, etc.
To summarize, there should be no blackout periods, and evidence of a backtest, performance summary, or other history should absolutely be provided by a vendor before allowing them to trade. I think C2 would definitely not be known as the “System Graveyard” with this simple requirement, and I truly believe that. Now I can tell which vendors actually have mechanical systems, but I do not believe the lay, newbie can, and I think that would do more for us than worrying about preventing subscribers from jumping onto a hot system. In most cases, it’s considered hot by subscribers for a reason.
I believe the “Best Systems List” is already filtered for Risk and Reward. The Sharpe Ratio is part of that criteria, and I think it ranks them accurately.
Duplicate post. That problem does not appear to have been fixed.
Good comments. I stand by my suggestions, however.
If the issue is obtaining subcribers, the following is relevant. If vendors are NOT interested in obtaining subcribers, then it isn’t… so please read the following with this in mind…
Wouldn’t it be SOO simple just to publish the number of subscribers per system (I know it’ll probably never happen). Let the Marketplace inform us as to who has attractive products and who doesn’t. That would eliminate ALL the chest-beating, the excuses, the promises that next time will be better, etc. Make it a real, capitalistic marketplace. Let the best (and most attractive systems win). For instance, in the software world, the number of subscribers for software companies is ALWAYS available in the marketplace - even for those vendors who try to hide it. We all eventually find out. Wouldn’t that be nice…
Regarding black out periods and the quality of the products offered on this site, no one should get to “sell” their system until they have proven their product is worthy or meets minimum criteria… That’s what the black-out period and other similar ideas are for. Of course if you’re a vendor who doesn’t want to invest the time and effort in this process, you can go somewhere else. If, however, you are a vendor who feels he/she has a superior product, simply prove it before being allowed to sell it on this street corner. If you believe, demonstrate it first. If you don’t care about obtaining subscribers and you are here to merely establish an independent third-party track record for your product, then you shouldn’t care whether your system is “visible” to potential subscribers or not, n’cest pas?
Back to Vendors who care about obtaining Customers - if the Marketplace perceives that your system is “better” than someone else’s, you’ll have more subscribers. If you don’t, certainly there can be a myriad number of reasons. If a Vendor truly cares about obtaining more subscribers, then those can be addressed and perhaps cured later on. At a macro level, however, subscribers are speaking with their checkbooks and that is what is most important.
I have always maintained that one of the biggest problems with vendors I have observed at C2 is (1) their utter lack of understanding of how subscribers analyze various products (the thought process behind the Buying decision), and (2) their insistence in telling us how to analyze systems and and/or discounting our approaches when we do try and tell them how we approach a Buying decision (i.e., “they don’t know what they’re talking about” or “they should be analyzing systems around these criteria”).
It’s the difference between a group of engineers talking to Customers and Salesman talking to Customers. Engineers often don’t understand why Customers just won’t take their advice - after all - they’re the Creators! they have Superior Knowledge! What’s wrong with these People?
Salesman know that technical differentiators and basic science behind products often means nothing to Customers - they happen to like the list of colors currently offered or this one has has a remote control and that one doesn’t. To engineers, this often DEFIES LOGIC!!
Buying a system is very similar to buying many other items - take real estate. You develop a short list based on a small number of cursory factors. And you go from there. The engineers behind those products might violently disagree with the criteria that potential customers might use! (Can’t they see the superiority of this product?) If a property makes the short list, THEN AND ONLY THEN do you invest more time and money to learn more about it. The same is true for reviewing and selecting systems. IF YOUR SYSTEM CAN’T MAKE THE FIRST CUT, THEN NO AMOUNT OF STATISTICS OR RATIONALE WILL HELP YOU SELL IT.
So… it has to make the first cut on its own through a cursory set of criteria that Customers develop, you don’t.
This is where C2 can come in and help potential Buyers (subscribers). By policing the site and setting some reasonably well-thought out and widely-used business policies from other sites/industries, it can position itself as a “purveyor of better products”.
Why do I not shop at KMart and often shop at higher priced stores? Quality. Why do you go to certified medical doctors as opposed to a neighborhood clinic working in a back alley? Professionalism. Quality. Higher probability of success.
I still hope Matthew decides to take this moment to make some changes at C2. It would help if some of the others currently quiet came forward and expressed their opinions. Matthew started this whole thread by announcing that C2 had to “reluctantly” start policing the inmates. So this is all a logical extension of that courageous decision. I think we’ll benefit from it.
Skip
Well, as a non-vendor, I’m sure that’s good enough for you. I sell my product. When somebody decides to subscribe is between me and them. The number of subscribers I have is not relevant to your decision, either. You just wish you knew. Ever new vendor or every new system would automatically be weeded out, by your poorly thought out metric. You’ve said it before, you do not need to say it again. Privacy is something I value on C2. Maybe one day when you have something to offer, you’ll understand. Everyone can see everything they need to see from the C2 stats, and people can see even more if they understand what the vendor is doing as a basis for his trades. My suggestion is the best out of all of these.
Provide performance summaries, histories, and quantitative statistics prior to allowing any person to trade on C2. I guarantee this alone would decrease the amount of failed systems by three-fourths.
No - I really don’t need to know how many subs you have. If we can talk on a mature level without tossing insults around, analytically I wouldn’t have chosen your system as one making the first cut based on my criteria. Please - no ill will here - no insult - it just wouldn’t have. But perhaps other people might have it on their short list or even subscribe to it. I really don’t know and it’s OK. It’s their choice and it’s my choice. I know you realize that not everyone is going to select your product. That’s just business…
I was making comments aimed at the Good of C2. I’d like to see it become a more discerning, higher quality site that I think it currently is. So does Matthew - that’s why he had to take the initiative to take the action he is taking.
To your comment about “my poorly thought out metric”. You so graciously just proved my point. Engineers/Vendors who just can’t believe how and why Customers make their choices. Now ask yourself… What Value will you receive by making this comment at all (or worse - in Public?). Will it make me want to buy your system? Will it make me change my mind? No. Or will it shed even more light on your attitude as as someone trying to sell products tp people like me than my choice of selection criteria (which I have not even fully revealed as we speak). What were you thinking? Ouch!
Once again - I have no interest in becoming a system vendor. I trade my own account. I have no interest in becoming a hedge fund manager.
Thanks for responding, though. You want to sell products and I want to buy them. I think we can do so in a much more satisfying and productive way…
Hope you agree.
As I have previously said, on one level I think the Marketplace is telling all the Vendors how they are doing (even if they keep it secret).
Skip
Excellent idea. Some posters on here aren’t going to know what to do with themselves now. Will be interesting.
Please reconcile:
Everyone can see everything they need to see from the C2 stats
and
Provide performance summaries, histories, and quantitative statistics prior to allowing any person to trade on C2.
As Eu implied, Calmar Ratio, which is an industry standard, alone is enough to categorize the risks taken by a system. I tend to agree, I think Calmar Ratio should be included (but, only after a sufficient time has passed, min. 3 months) in the system details page (without having to go to the grid to take a look at it, i.e., this ratio should be suppressed (not displayed in grid or in systems details page) for systems that are less than 3 months old.
More importantly, the C2 score of a vendor should primarily be based on the Calmar Ratio of his active systems as only this metric clearly shows accurately which vendors are taking excessive risks for the returns achieved by their system…
The same goes for Sharpe Ratio also, as these 2 metrics for systems 3 months or under will likely have artificially good values, because they haven’t experienced a significant drawdown - yet and so is misleading…
Also, again as Jack pointed out, most stats are pretty meaningless the first few months, which is a good reason why systems should be “incubated” before public release. Maybe C2 should have a incubation period of 3 months for all new systems. This also would protect the unsophisticated from subscribing to systems that fail in early walk-forward testing…
These 2 actions I believe will protect the unsophisticated from subscribing to systems that look good in the early periods but fail suddenly due to vendors who are taking excessive risks or misleading stats like Sharpe Ratio that look too good to be true in early periods…
We vendors can only do so much… I hope C2 also would do its part to protect the unsophisticated…
I’m saying I wish vendors had proof of a plan before they started. If vendors were required to show at least some figment of proof and at the ver least a simple backtest, we would stop a lot of the failed systems from even starting. The everyone can see everything they need is when the vendor, with his research to show before even starts, allows subscribers to compare what they see to the research to test the validity of the model. I don’t think it was a point to be “Reconciled”; I just want to tilt C2 away from a gamblers casino to a more reputable site that promotes professionalism and hard-core research.
In a way, the only benefit to this incubation period is that failed systems will never come to light if you never cross the minimum trade threshold. I think the way it currently works is fine. My suggestion to show a backtest prior to trading would probably decrease business to Matthew, but it would weed out a lot of vendors.
Let me clarify. It does not matter if the systems fail or not in the incubation period as after the incubation period all systems will have their stats displayed.
Your suggestion to show a backtest prior to trading is also a good suggestion as I strongly believe that a backtest (combined with walk-forward validation) is a better way to develop systems rather than walk-forward testing alone. The incubation period is to prevent subscribers from subscribing to systems before the walk-forward test has validated the backtest.
I don’t think providing a backtest will prove anything at all, you can make a backtest show whatever you want it to, and it offers no proof of what will happen going forward.
Besides, the fact that subs still flock to systems that currently fail to provide any such information should speak volumes. Making those vendors provide a backtest won’t help, if anything it could further embolden said subs to subscribe when they now have ‘proof’ that their system of choice really isn’t too good to be true because look it says here it has been fully verified, but i’m sure the backtest will very conveniently leave out the single trade or circumstance that eventually wipes the system out.
The backtesting issue has been covered many times here. It’s too flawed to be valuable. I still see no reason NOT to enforce a grace period or blackout period. If a vendor doesn’t want to wait that long, there are many other ways to market their products. If their product can endure 5, 6, 9 months of actual operation and produce above average results, then they probably have something of Value.
The REAL issue is what can we do and what can C2 do, to consistently offer better products over time - thus attracting better vendors and ultimately, more customers who actually see their assets grow over time and not lose their money.
Is the purpose of this site “Trading = Gambling” or is it “Trading = Investing”?
If it is Trading = Gambling, then that in itself tells us a lot about the types of Vendors that will typically gravitate to this site and it tells us a lot about the psychology of many of the Customers who eventually gravitate to this site, too.
For me - Trading = Investing. Not Buy and Hold, but careful consideration and an eye to capital preservation at every turn.
So… how do we promote better standards? How does C2 promote better standards?
This is good dialogue.
