As a hugely profitable vendor I completely disagree with the poster, who thinks subscription fees are too high. I will make the case that exactly the opposite is true. Of course it depends on account size, but if a vendor only charges $100 per month and has only a few subscriber, it really is not worthy of his time to run the system, unless he wants to get a public track record.
But for a system that makes at least 10% a month charging anything less than $200 is giving it away for free (and I have done that too). We have to assume that subscribers actually have a decent account size and they scale up, rather than down, compared to the vendor. And let’s ask you, if you as a subscriber make 1.5-2K profits on a 20K account month in and out, would you really want to cheap out because of a 100 bucks? And we vendors don’t know, but a subscriber could upscale that same account as 3 to 1 or 5 to 1, making a very decent monthly income, for a few hundred bucks.
The good old saying is true with vendors too: Good fish isn’t cheap, cheap fish isn’t good.
Agree, for a profitable system, the fees are too low. But, in the internet age, everyone wants things for free or cheap.
However, talk about 10% monthly returns is misleading. Check the Grid. How many systems have made that return for one year or more (>50 trades, <50% drawdown)? Answer: ZERO.
I have found 3 systems older than a year, and making more than 100%. Now if you want low DD, that is not going to happen, but those 3 systems charged $65, $160 and $400. So 2 of them are very cheap…
Sorry, but you didn’t see my qualifiers. #1 has had a 87% drawdown. #2 has had a 68% drawdown. #3 has had “only” a 48% drawdown, but with only 22 trades. Not systems many subscribers would be interested in.
I saw your qualifier, but I didn’t make such in my original post.
If someone can double your money with very low DD, he is not a vendor on C2 for a few bucks but running a hedge fund. But let’s say there is such a vendor, he should be charging over 500$…
Basicly you are saying system are cheap because they are shit…
What I’m surprised is that no system is happy with pay per gain subscription fee although all systems here think they generate good profit. IMHO, if a system is truly confident that the subscribers will gain, whey not charging them based on the gain? The complication of manual trading or having control over trades/signals can be resolved by forcing the subscribers who are willing to follow the pay per gain model to just obey the auto signals.
By the way, in the internet age, not many of us are looking for cheap/free services. I have a paid service for many other internet activities and I donate to many non-profit/open-source organizations/softwares. I’m talking logic and very open to receive logical debate on that. So far non of the system developers/owners could logically convince me that why they don’t want to follow “pay per profit” model as a subscription fee. It’s just so logical that I don’t pay as much as a $100k investor and also it is logical that any system is responsible and confident about the profit gains. This is how I see it: the only reason I see systems disagree with this model is that they don’t believe that they can get as much as subscription fee through “pay per gain” which is a red flag for me.
Systems are cheap because they are not exceptional , just some growth on an annual basis with the risks and drawdowns and the waiting associated with , not very attractive .
Provider of the super systems with 10%+ monthly income can trade his own system and add significant amount of income. Also trading their own system and adding TOS sign will add additional subscribers and increase incomes.
But I didn’t see a lot of TOS-certified super-systems. Does it mean that providers of such systems don’t trust their systems?
I personally wouldn’t mind to charge using the “pay per gain” method, but we still have to debate, what would be the acceptable price? Let’s say if I am making 10% per month (which I actually do) I would want 100 bucks per each 5% gain, so on average I would still charge $200 per month.
Would you think $100 per 5% per month is a fair fee? And that would still be very cheap…
I am not aware there is such a payment method, if there is, somebody could point me in that direction…
maybe Matthew can chime in here? I am pretty sure doing a model where you charge per performance is not allowed? I could be wrong. I certainly would love that. basically you make nothing for the month you pay nothing. then based on dollar amount made for the month you charge x percent.
Strategy developers cannot charge performance fees. It violates US regulations.
However, I have a very interesting announcement to make soon – within the next 7 days – which might make you happy. More soon.
As a middle way strategy, for auto-traders the subscription fee should be proportional to their investment. For example, if you charge $100 for minimum $50K investment, then it can be $20 for $10k investment. It makes somehow sense and I’m talking only about auto-trading (not manual with signals or other variations). The point came to me when I realized rather not many people have $50k extra cash to invest or they don’t wanna risk all of it and investing 5-10k will not be justified with the subscriptions fees.
I wanted to share my perspective as the owner of a top system. In January I released a system called Battlequant ES RX and it made it to the top of the charts within a month. I loved the site, it was fun to get emails with new subscribers everyday and communicate with them. I had a small tech issue one day, but that was not why I pulled it down. The main reason was that I made 52,000 dollars trading that very same system that month and anyone could have done that with a with a 199 dollars. I thought it was a great deal for subscribers but not so great for developers. The problem is what if i have one subscriber that trades a 100 lot. If i do my job correctly, like I do, then people will be increasing contracts continuously. If that ends up costing one tick of slippage on a system that trades 40 times a month i could end up actually losing money on the deal. I know I am not alone in this thinking, and have some trading friends with very powerful systems as well who will not put them up for that very reason. The current pricing model prices out top systems.
I agree with you. That is why I stil beleiev that my $250 was cheap when many may thought it was expensive. I am a business owner of 3 companies; it cost a lot to run and to start those businesses. Adertising alone would have cost you a lot without knowing if that will work.
I still chose to reduce my price at $150 just to allow everyone to make money.
However, I trade for living and I would careless about those who can not realize that making 10% each month from trading is not a joke and if you chose to compound for a while starting with $10000; you can become debt free, financial free after few years ( 5 years).
I had 10% in January
I had 30% up to now in February
I can not promise that things will be like this forever, but I have record that I have been doing this for a while.
Trading is a risky business. All of my results today may not be the same tomorrow. Trade at your own risk. Results are hypotheticals.
Lejeune Bauvil, for wugot.
C2 has told me that charging a percentage is illegal. However, I know other legal copy trade system that charge a percentage. I am not a broker lawyer to know if what is legal or not. All I know, it is illegal here on c2 to charge a percentage , but others are still doing it.
For user name wugot.
so why not options? some of the best anf profitable systems deals with option trading…
as my systems
Well, now, that does look intriguing!
Leave your self promotion out of my thread. Thanks…