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.
It’s true to some extent, because even a “long” C2 track record is not a guarantee of anything these days.
We have seen systems with a “proven” trading record (3 years or more) burn and crash after just a couple of losing trades or so.
(Of course this does mean that a short track record is better )
Couldn’t agree more. The return is just one measure, but if you compare the return v’s the drawdown, then you start having a good understanding of what can be achieved moving forward. It will also suggest it will have a strong sharpe ratio etc. I personally look for something that does 3 x’s it’s worst case yearly DD…That’s a cracking strategy over the longer term.
Longer is better. Definitely…
The big problem with Sharpe ratio is that it does not reveal whether volatility is on the plus or the minus side.
As a result, it will automatically penalize all the highly successful trend-following systems, whose volatility is on the plus side (in other words the good side), by definition (or they wouldn’t be that profitable in the first place!)
Here’s an example of a very good system TQQQSQQQ which is mine with very few subs, did well through a pullback and was also up a lot the last 3 months. AI swing has done amazing but if there is any knock on it it’s that it started a day after the March collapse which begs the question how will it do in a bear market and was this leader around before and just changed his name several times. I know it’s a free market but lopsided systems that have all the subs can’t be great in the long run for C2 as many will quit.
you are describing exactly what i was thinking. invest 10 million in your own fund and just scale up the base amount to accommodate. … truly every fund couldn’t handle that but i’m pretty sure mine would (or at least it would be an interesting test) and certainly those that only trade a few high volume-large price stocks probably could too.
Another leader to consider is Robert Peterson who has a few systems with several subs. This is kind of an anomaly for me as his returns are above average at best and are extremely risky as they short VXX, but hey it is what it is.
In general yes.
However go to the Grid, select 1000 days, the equivalent of 4 years (4 times 250 days) and you will find plenty of systems with a 50% drawdown or more.
A long track record is of course better, but I believe the most important criteria is the smoothness of the equity curve.
Trading systems that produce consistent results with minimal downside volatility (regardless of market condition) are the best.
it’s seemingly the same old story, trade in volatility and make more money (well if you are sensible about it) but then it is harder to get out whenever you want. bonds are great for flat reliable income, stocks, futures and currencies are good for a much longer plan (your mileage may vary)… the more diverse the shorter the plan might be… eventually being so close to a bond in nature that you only really see changes based on long term societal and tech changes.
someone recently asked me if i knew how my fund would do during the 2008 mortgage crisis. which isn’t that long ago but was just far enough back that my response was i have no idea. I tend to think poorly but its hard to know. having crazy large 1 time draw downs because of global or national events seems unavoidable unless you are either hedging against that specific scenario or you get lucky with the timing.
making crazy money during those events while possible is an equally 1 shot sort of deal. (how are your knife catching skills?) so i guess this leads me to think that as long as the meta technique adjusts for the market consistently and the time span is long enough, drawdown just becomes noise in the signal.
Trend following traders make precisely the bulk of their money during these “scary” financial events (stock market crashes included).
In fact they are counting on them, while most traders want to avoid them.
Agreed with your definition @ TheForexSniper but again that is not a generic definition. Running a good system and getting steady subscribers are two separate items. I am sure that C2 has many systems which fulfill your definition but there is no way a potential subscriber can filter them out (Unless they check 1 by 1). The leaderboard does not show them. So the C2’s algo to show the leaders are based “on the flow”. Again, With respect, This is my view so far with the platform.
Hi AASS,
As mentioned in another thread, most potential subscribers come from the Grid : Collective2
They go there and sort these systems according to their Annual Return first.
And this is how they decide if they want to subscribe (or not) to a particular system.
Thanks a lot@ TheForexSniper. I was not aware of this grid. I am learning 
With Regards.
You are welcome, happy hunting.
Some of the strategies that seem to be brand new are getting their subscribers from white label versions of C2. For example, KT RP Swing which is on the list is run off the same signals as my strategy Patience is a Virtue. I do not run any white label site, but I know some people pay Collective2 for the right to White Label and resell or rebrand strategies certain strategies. The leaders still get the proper cut, but that is why you may see some strategies with higher than expected AUM.
Also, that AUM link does seem to be somewhat delayed, since it doesn’t quite match my dashboard which shows $7.3 million. That link is pretty cool though. I also have to say I am quite proud of my subscribers sticking with the system despite a lack-luster year so far.
Based on the findings here I think switching from popular strategy to popular strategy isn’t going to be a good strategy in the long run. I am of the opinion that subscribers should find several strategies, diversify, and stay the course. I think they should also realize the most outperformance on C2 compared to the market, including mine, is based primarily on smart use of leveraged - not timing prowess. My goal is simply to avoid the worst time periods and maintain reasonable levels of leverage and diversification at others.
I think the findings here show that simply picking on the popularity leader board, isn’t a winning strategy. I will definitely be recommending to @DwightSchrute 
that he add this AUM board to his tracking. Discussion for: Leader Board Performance vs. Market - #43 by DwightSchrute
