Ignore my lack of knowledge but I’m new here. What I’m puzzled with is that in the case that I subscribe to any good system, I have to pay around $100/month which will be around $1200 per year. If I want to start with 10k, assuming that I will have 10% profit after deductions, then I’m paying all my profits (+ $200) to the system I’m subscribed with. It makes much more sense that subscription fees are based on profit per month (proportional to the profit). For example if a system charges me 20-50% of my profit, I can trust it more since it will gain from my win and will lose from my lost. Why never good systems who are confident have a percentage subscription fee? And why the fees doesn’t match any low amount of investment? Thanks in advance for your replies.
I can tell you my point of view.
I am the developer of successful system ‘crazy options’
I work hard to stay well in the market and when you desire to subscribe me you get all statistics and know basically the gains/risk stat.
Great systems can cost $200 like my system or even more. Remember that the developer get only 70% of the money so $200 is $140 and I give coupons to loyal costumers and smart people how prefer to follow 2-3 systems to lower the combined risk. So it could be less then $100 per person that the depeloper gets.
If i put in my options very low fee I will have a lot of new consumers buy also too much auto trading and I will be almost market maker by size of trades.
I don’t wand a model of paying acording to success and trading side (and After %700 gains you can’t suspect me that I Think this model is so bad for me).
Yes to follow with 10k you need first class system that will worth your expense - it’s possible but you should choose carefully !
When I work for you I deserve fee even if I had bad month, or loosing trader.
I could also charge $4000 for following my system but I feel this price is not fair. But $200 is fair enough to start with - and I always help people to find their match with c2 systems
I think that if I was possible I would give special discount for small accounts followers … But I don’t think I can really know that is the side of my followers account …but if somebody ask I will give him discount for that reason
Look at the different position sizes these autotraders have. Obviously, they have different tolerance for risk and different relative amounts of money in their accounts. One guy may well have made over $6000 on this position. At the other end, a trader with a smaller position size may have made less than $300. One size does not really fit all with respect to subscription price.
The one size fits all fee structure is my main gripe with C2. Other vendors operate on a unit fee basis, so if a $25K account is one unit at a $100/month fee,then a $50K account would pay $200/month. All systems have some limit on their capacity, and one big trader can effect all of the others for the minimum fixed fee. Since the accounts can be sized (such as at 200%) the fees should be sized up or down as well.
Regarding paying a share of the profits, there are regulatory and accounting issues. As a subscriber, you are free to put in your own stops, limit the number of contracts, or skip trades. Therefore, your results would differ from the model, and if worse than the model it would result in the developer receiving less than he should have earned.
With 10k you probably will be able to trade long term stocks systems only.
Go to the grid, I was able to find at least 8 systems with 1 year age, min 100 trades and more than 10% annual income for less than 50$/month.
ps and I subscribed to one of these systems
The developer only gets 70%. It this was raised to 90% or zero then it would be better for all. C2 gets paid from all trading, so they are cashing in two times. In addition they also hit the trader with a fee every six months to run the system.
It is C2 that is making this too expensive.
My fees will be going up.
C2 used to have pay for profit model. I liked that model. But it doesn’t work when subscribers decide not to take some trades that actually make money. They pick and choose the trades and end up as net losers. The developer is working hard(I hope) to generate signals and s/he deserve to get compensated for their time and effort.
Subscription fees are way too low (of course depends on the system and account size) not too high.
Most of the systems are under $300 per month and show me another place where you can have a monthly return of 5% for that cheap, or for any price for that matter.
Yes, that is good idea. I agree.
Ideally, 10% income will make $500 from $5k investment. 12 months x $50 = $600 subscription fee. Even 10k invesment will make $400 profit which IMHO not worth the risk of auto trading.
Optionally that problem can be resolved forcing the per per profit model subscription to just follow the auto signals.
I respect you and all your efforts but I still think that pay per profit will be a fair system for both parts. IMHO, If you are dealing with one’s money you should also consider the responsibility for their loss. I’m not saying you should pay for it but at the same time they shouldn’t pay any fee in the case of loss. C2 can force the subscribers to follow auto signals as it is if they decides to go with the pay per profit model. If you really believe that you can have generate %700 gain, then why not charging your subscribers for a portion of that %700? If you have a bad month it will be faded in other great months you have. So for me this is a win-win. That’s why you see all subscribers like the pay per profit model and all developers and system owners don’t like it. Any confidence system should be able to offer such service.
In the past C2 did have : pay a monthly subscription fee - only if profitable - , but it wasn’t a portion of the profits it is still a monthly fee 100 200 etc but only charged if the month was profitable - based on high water marks - . However if the subscriber cancels one day b4 the fee is due he/she wont pay a dime .
There were many options available , like the one i just mentioned , and pay per profitable trade but that one wasn’t loved by potential subscribers . Pay per quarter . Pay per week if profitable … etc .
Sharing a percentage of profits is not legal in the US. That’s why we don’t support it.
We simply support flat-monthly-fee publishing.
There is no way sharing profits works without the developer having complete control (power of attorney) over the account. That will not happen here and would require CTA registration.
Regarding these wild claims of !0% per month or other “crazy” returns, let’s be serious. Check the Grid. There are zero systems with a one year record, >50 trades, and <50% drawdowns. There have been so many disasters on this site by over leveraged braggarts that I have lost count. Buyer beware.
This makes sense if it is not legal. But can’t the subscription fee being proportional with the investment?
I agree, the subscription fee should be proportional to the account size. Then smaller accounts could receive a lower fee and larger accounts would pay their fair share.
Basically the monthly fee should be applied for 100% scaling , so if it is possible to scale down to 30% then pay 30% , scale up to 300% then pay 300% … etc . But what about manual traders ? Really there is no solution for this as C2 doesn’t really know how much subscribers have in their accounts .
No fee system is perfect. The proportional system would work with autortaded accounts, which should be most futures accounts. Subscription fees for slow moving stock accounts are more like a newsletter flat fee.