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.

Strategies Making New All Time or 52 Week Highs


Deleting posts?
What on earth are you talking about??

Alright, you wasted my time long enough, I won’t answer any more of your silly and way out of topic messages.


Oooops. Sorry, It was wmwmw :smile: No hard feelings.Now I will play with deleting posts.



I never suggested that 52 Week highs were predictive of anything, that is your assumption. I only suggested using All Time Highs and 52 Week Highs as a measure of applying an equal benchmark to all systems. If a system is making All Time or 52 Week highs, they should be included in a post here if the developer, or a subscriber, desires. Nothing less, nothing more. Take care!



I agree with your points but even making an All Time High is no determinant that a system is beating a benchmark. Equally applied, All Time Highs are just a way to identify systems making progress and exceeding certain parameters.

Bottom line, it would be great if C2 could just produce a list with systems making new highs, and have been around for a reasonable amount of time. As it stands now, there are some VERY questionable inclusions on the current “Strategies making New Highs” list. Take care!



I am not assuming anything, the article I posted earlier was given for informational purposes only, as a side note.

Your topic does bring an important question however : do C2 systems that make new high perform better, on average, than other C2 systems?

And what about solid C2 trading systems that make new 52-week low (or 26-week or whatever), do they somehow generate a superior return on investment later, say the following two months for instance?

It would be interesting to investigate that idea, but that’s another story.

Take care too.



It appeared as though you were implying that I was suggesting 52 Week Highs, as a benchmark, was somewhat predictive in it’s nature. If I misinterpreted your comments then it is my error. Take care!

P.S. 52 Week Highs, when used in conjunction with other parameters, CAN certainly be useful in developing a stock selection strategy. In fact, my work is based on stocks breaking out of a basing area, and in many cases, moving into new high ground. I do agree that in and of it self, 52 Week Highs alone are not predictive in nature.


True, using volume and momentum indicators, for instance, can give the 52-week high concept some predictive value, at least in the short term.


Excellent, this “old” breakout technique is still one of the most reliable trading strategy.


It is only meaningless since you didn’t get to 52 week system age :wink: FYI system can make 52 week high every day or every week or every month. I would not say that such system is a garbage.


The system you describe is the same as all time high.That is, when a system makes 52 week high everyday, it is same as all time high, so why duplicate?
When the system only makes 52 week high once in a year, it is a garbage.



With all due respect, a system, or stock, can make numerous 52 Week highs and not make All Time Highs. Take MSFT as an example. MSFT began making 52 Week Highs back in 2011 and 2012 but did not make an ALL Time high until late 2016. If a correction is long or deep enough, then numerous 52 Week Highs can be achieved before an All Time High is realized. Therein is the basis for my suggestion to recognize 52 Week Highs AND All Time Highs because each can be measures of a benchmark that could be significant as a component used to make investment decisions.


My point is:
A 52 week high without all time high is not a good thing and should not be included in the new high list.
It means this system did not make money since 52 week ago it made new high.It means for the past 52 weeks this system has been flat or down and did not made any money for its subscribers who joined 52 weeks ago.
Any high together with all time high is a positive for the system.
Any high without all time high is a negative for the system.
In another word, only all time high is a positive, any other high is negative.



I get your point, we just disagree on the significance of each high. I respect your opinion and I have my own. With that, I think we have debated this enough. Take care!

P.S. One of my biggest gainers for the year is YY. It last made an All Time High back in 2014, but it continues to make 52 Week Highs (which is one of the factors that caused it to show up on my list). It is STILL about 30% below an All Time High yet I am up about 40% in the stock. Granted, I am using stocks as my examples rather than systems.


Nothing could be further from the truth my friend.

Here is an example.

On December 31 2016 the balance of a C2 trading system is $12,000.
The following months the system goes immediately into drawdown mode and on June 30 it reaches 33.33% (still a manageable drawdown if the system is robust and sound).

A few C2 traders subscribe to the system at that moment and on December 31 the balance of the strategy is $12,100, a new 52-week high as far as this system is concerned.

These subscribers earned a juicy 50% on their investment and yet the system was in drawdown mode for a full year.


It is just another misunderstanding on my point.

No more talk on this subject.


What most likely people will subscribe that new model with lack of track record, especially reaches DD more than 10%. Most people will either stay away from that model or just want to see how the manager manage the account. We are talking about high probability. Back testing is also not guarantee n most of models are only good in back testing, but when the model apply with the real acct, we have to count such as slippage, filled the positions etc. ( I have seen many times and experience my self, my position price had bad filled from the model). My point is , please do not bring up if the subscriber earned a juicy 50% on their investment from your example. The percentage is very small n can not be accountable. Furthermore, many new models are ending very badly, even a model that has already long track records with good performance (more than 3 years), the manager killed his model. I believe everyone know what model that I am referring too.


Not sure I understand your question, assuming it is a question to begin with.


That’s the example what I am referring to


Yes I know, but what about it? Where is the problem exactly?


I think I have already explained what is the problem. When the system in DD mode. most people will not join immediately the system, they want to see how is the manager can manage his acct. No one can predict if this system can survive or not. Most people subscribe after the manager survive his acct. But, in your point of view, you only look after the account has already growth up and successful and you look back comparing between now into the past. Most people do the opposite way. If I invest in one model , absolutely my expectation will be profitable but this model is a new model. Limited track record (especially in this case , we are referring from December 31, 2016 and have not reach 52 weeks). Who will invest for the model while the model is in DD mode? I am not talking your model, I am just referring your example. Furthermore, since it is a new model, there is a high risk to invest during DD mode. The manager can easily kill his model and he just make a new model. The manager’s skills has not proven yet.