I've never deleted posts...ever. I deleted a Gilbert Arevalo post once, but that's it. The thread is still out there, and last I checked, you were still running Spy 1 trade per day, or is that not your system? I also let Magna clean up the thread for me when someone gets out of line.
You'll find very quickly that any publicity is always good, and I do find ways to keep it going. I treat my money very well. I only trade based on my trading systems, and have since I started. Assuming I don't trade is your first mistake. I've made money, that's all I need to say. I don't use WL for entertainment. I use it to find edge, and I'm telling you I have it. I think you confuse confidence with arrogance. They are not the same thing. Every credential I have is suggestive of the ability to generate profitable trading systems, whether it is my college degree, the backtests you see, and/or successful completion of Level I of the CFA Exam, they are all part of my plan and long term goals for the future, part of which may include a permanent presence on sites like C2 and Covestor. Eventually, as with the letter of commitment I received, it will play out for me with a huge plus to my bottom line. <i>The last thing I will leave you with is what's it to you? If you don't want to listen to me, then ignore me. The thousands of people who have read my thread can decide for themselves if they'd like to follow my life's work for the next several decades or so from this thread. It's best if you decide whether you want to pay attention to me or not. Your presence is wearing out its welcome here.</i> <b>We will have issues if you continue to slander me by calling me a liar. Everything I've said is documented, and you have no substantive evidence of any misrepresentation. So go on, prove I'm lying, because you can't, and it probably bothers you. I will pursue legal action if I feel it is affecting my livelihood and professional activities.
I apologize for saying you deleted posts. You did not. Here is the post I was refering to. Quote from Beau from C2: "Hi, all. I recently presented Pairs Trading QID QLD Scalper to a VC firm. They agreed to be a co-investor with one of my other clients in the amount of $5 million. (I didn't pitch them on buying the system). C2 has been a great way to build a verifiable track record. The returns are very similar to what you see on the site, and I've noted some positive slippage between real life fills." So, what exactly are you representing here, Beau? Did you recieve funding or not? If you did not recieve the funding, but, claim you did... should we assume this was an effort to build up your rep or attract attention from other potential clients? That's the definition of shilling Beau. Point 2: So, your personal/client returns are very similar to what we see on the site? Is that what you're trying to say? Do your investors know exactly what you're doing with their (hopefully imaginary money)? You should know that misrepresenting an investment plan/track record is a huge no no... let's all hope your disclosure documents are up to par. Where exactly can we look at your personal/client returns? You say "your money", which one is it, clients or you? Point 3: You are not trading a pairs system. Talk to anyone with some knowledge about the subject matter. You are misrepresenting your strategy. And no, Beau, I'm not confusing confidence with arrogance. You are arrogant. Legal action you say? Good luck with that. This is not slander. FYI, my wife is an attorney Beau, she has quite a bit of knowledge in Hedge Fund/Investment law. You are towing the line with your current approach. Honestly, Beau I do wish you sucess. I don't want to see anyone fail. That said, you're going about this process immaturely, arrogantly, and ignorantly. That's why it concerns me. Should things go very wrong with what you're trying to do, you will be in a world of financial and legal hurt. Mike P.S. Yes the SPY system was mine. Its a very old system. Someone in a different forum said that intraday mechanical edges do not exist in the SPY/ES. 1++ year of track record proved them wrong, system cancelled, end of story, bet won. FWIW I felt *very* uncomfortable revealing trading signals in public and will never do it again.
QLD Projection: 63.3234967912947 QLD Close: 53.6599998474121 QLD Projection: 54.9777100302956 QLD Close: 53.6599998474121 QLD Projection: 56.0530481974284 QLD Close: 53.6599998474121 Now, what needs to be understood here is that we are oversold. We have crossed under the volatility based oversold threshold. What keeps us from entering is that the volatility based values have yet to <i>normalize</i>. A process by which the volatility based thresholds must come back to <i>more normal levels that are dependent on the previous trades result, or whether we had a wash sale.</i> If we did have a wash sale, the secondary levels would have kicked and had us buying on monday, but since we are not in a wash sale for qld, we have no trades until we cross back over the oversold threshold in what I call a normalization of the volatility based thresholds. It's what allows the market to decline tens of percent without fighting it. Couple that with a prediction of fair value, though pointing higher, without normalized volatility based values, no trades should be taken. I anticipate another 2% rise in QLD is required to return to normalized values. Till then, I believe it is possible to see a little bit of a pullback. The reason I don't take my volatility based thresholds signals literally is because some consideration to both taxes and market conditions is required to have long term, higher risk-adjusted returns. Trending markets are my worst enemy. If a trend starts, we take a countertrend trade, we will lose, and that's been what you see on covestor, but masks the massive outperformance from not taking position as the market crashed more than 50% last November. We'll see what happens.
Hi, deaddog, I know it's hard to understand this, but it goes back to expectations. A professional doesn't see 3 of 7 are profitable, <b>a professional sees 6 out of 7 outperformed the S&P 500,</b> and <b> that is why I got the letter of interest in the first place.</b> All hedge funds and all mutual funds are correlated with the S&P 500, the extent to which measured by the correlation factor is also a measure of synchronicity with the benchmark. I always benchmark my systems to the S&P, and I suggest you do the same in the future. You should really accept that if the market goes down, you'll probably be down to, and if the market goes up, you'll probably be up. Once you do that, you see all you have to do to be as rich as Warren Buffett is beat the S&P by 10,000 basis points annually for 40 years. That's all. Compounded it amounts to a 22% annualized return, and, really no matter if the manager is up or down, if you still have him at this annualized rate, you probably should keep him. If you're down in a down year, that's fine, but in the case where you're up, and you put 50,000 basis points between you and the S&P, long term you will do a lot better than the market, and that's what I hope every investor understands about mutual funds, hedge funds, and other equity futures systems.
OK I checked your systems against the S&P. Year to date 2009 you seem to be lagging. I had assumed that since you were trading both ways with QLD long and QID short you intended your system to have positive results no matter which way the market trended. Why should I expect to be down in a down year? It almost seems that your best performance was during times the market was dropping. Again itâs a confidence thing. How do you convince an investor to commit funds to a system that hasnât beaten the benchmark for a year? Why the S&P for a benchmark when you are trading a derivative of the Nasdaq?
The S&P is more representative of the market. And you could say the real derivative I should be benchmarking myself to is QLD, which is down 49.4% in the last two years, and drewdown about 75%.
It's all in the time frame. In the past year QLD is up significantly. Based on the last 2 or 3 years the market hasnât done that well but with the benefit of hindsight a simple 10wk/30wk MA cross system would have given you results that outperform the S&P. Most investors will ask, what have you done for me lately? Back testing is fine but you have the opportunity to fit your outcome to whatever market you are trading. You have the luxury of being able to change criteria to achieve optimum results. Yes history repeats itself but not exactly. So basing a system on what should happen wonât always work. There is the off chance that the market will get stupid.