Hi Matthew
The "typical comission" feature is really confusing. Please click system [LINKSYSTEM_57401890]
The preview thumb is ok, but on system page chart most of profit is gone because of "typical comission"!
There are only 3 trades, about +170-67+170 pips. What kind of comission would kill all of the profits the way it is displayed on the chart?
Who is this "broker"? I really want to know this robber 
I think something is not ok with "typical comission" for forex systems.
Thank you for a good service anyway.
I agree that the default commissions are unrealistic. I know you can change them but these are the default. Who would pay $6.98 per future contract when IB only charges $2.01? This has a big impact if your system trades a lot.
Also I have not been able to understand the strange C2 ‘standard’ charts. I’ve never seen charts like those. They don’t seem to correlate with the trades. And light green on white looks like light blue on white to me. Itâs not a line chart or a bar chart or a candle chart. It looks like a stacked area chart but I canât figure out what the high and low lines represent. I thought this might be representing drawdown while a trade is open but it can’t be drawdown because the stacked areas disappear if you personalize the chart and eliminate commissions. Does the stacked area represent a range of broker commissions?
Suggestion: Use contrasting colors, seperate the stacked data into seperate lines and have a âtool-tipâ pop up to describe the chart.
- We display the commissions of the brokers that are C2 AutoTrade Compatible and which many of our customers use. In addition to broker fees, we include relevant AutoTrade fees.
2) The green bands you see in the charts represent the high and low equity during a period.
I still don’t believe there is a forex dealer charging near $60 per small 10’000 lot! It is weird. Even a regular bank would charge just 10, forex dealers charge up to 5, not 60!
Any example? FXCM? :))
Where do you see $60 per 10,000? I don’t think you can see that on C2 anywhere. We should show $1 per 10,000 (round turn).
Hi Lazy T,
The discrepancy between preview and system page is that on the system page your subscription fee is accounted for in the chart as well as commissions. That was introduced last week by decree of the regulators.
Matthew,
whilst I agree that inclusion of commissions on the chart is a good thing, factoring in subscription fees is not.
Point 1:
Commissions scale with trade size and therefore with account size. So a system trading $100k will usually suffer about 10 times more commission costs than the same one trading $10k. In both cases the amended chart would look almost the same as it is the percentage cost that really matters, not the absolute value.
Now, when you include subs fees as well, this is not the case because they do not change with account size. A subscriber with a larger account pays proportionally lower fees than one with a smaller account. Lazy T could have created his [LINKSYSTEM_57401890] with an initial $20k starting capital instead of $2k and his chart would suddenly look much better, even though any individual subscriber would still be paying the same fees.
Point 2:
A fair charging model would be percent-of-profits each month/quarter/year or whatever. That is not allowed presumably because then the regulators class the trading advice as personalized instead of the current anonymous publishing model.
Since C2 is an independent bridge between system vendors and traders, it’s a bit of a silly overly restrictive rule if you ask me. But regulators will be regulators.
However, then there is a logical inconsistency in requiring the subs fee to be taken into account: by doing so, the chart becomes personalised to the subscriber trading exactly the same account size as the system, $2k in the case of “System 1” here, and can be very inaccurate for someone trading a different account size. Including subs fees is misleading… unless the fee is a percent of account size or percent of profits!
So regulators, one way or the other please, not an illogical mix-and-match to make everyone’s life as difficult as possible.
Point 3, and the final part of my rant cometh forth now:
We (vendors) can scale down a system but cannot scale up. That means that we are stuck with a crappy looking chart because we followed C2 advice to start the system with the minimum tradeable account size when it would be so easy to make it look better by re-scaling upwards. At the same time one would tell subscribers what the minimum tradeable account size is so they can scale down their own trades if they so wish.
Yes, re-scaling upwards would be an artificial fudge… and the fact that such a fudge could easily be done goes to prove that including subs fees in the chart is flawed!
Regards,
Dean.
My point about percentage charges is probably inaccurate. I guess that even if it is not the regulators that prevent such a model, it would probably be impossible for C2 to apply it in practice. I concede an error there… but I stand by the rest of my rant 
Here http://collective2.com/cgi-perl/system57401890 - 3 lots of EURUSD traded as
168 - 67 + 183 = around 90 with "typical comission" (286 without)
I tried 2 browsers on 2 PCs - the result is the same, it looks "default", not "my" adjusted comission.
I still just don’t understand what you are saying. Could you either email me a screen shot of what you are referring to, or explain it in really really detailed and simple terms?
Specifically, you write:
"168 - 67 + 183 = around 90 with “typical comission”"
Where do these numbers come from? When I look at your system, and when I hold my mouse over the right-most column of the trade details, I see things like: “Brokerage commission: $1” … not $67 or $60 or anything else.
Are you looking at the chart? If so, you should be aware that the charts include the system subscription fees, as per NFA guidance.
Yes Matthew I’m talking about the chart. I see the chart this way - http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/3360/systq.jpg
Your clarification about subscription price really explains why around 200 bucks of profits have gone, thank you. So I suspect the subscription price is being deducted somewhen near 5-6th of each month…
Dean- I agree with all three of your original points.Now that the rules have changed, vendors that have re-scaled down, should at least have the opportunity to go back to their original starting equity and decide what they want to do from there. How about it, Matthew?–Brad
