Taken from their site, our managers have only gotten a 2.69% return of $752 for our top client, and $1,092 but only 1.01% for the bottom Top 10. I've calculated the size of the accounts according to dollars made and lost divided by the return. Top 10 clients Bottom 10 clients Return Gain/Loss Risk Return Gain/Loss Risk 1 2.69% $752.75 5 $27,983.27 1 -43.97% ($11,509.36) 4 $26,175.48 2 2.50% $255.66 5 $10,226.40 2 -34.89% ($54,630.96) 5 $156,580.57 3 2.24% $236.04 5 $10,537.50 3 -33.61% ($21,201.47) 4 $63,080.84 4 2.13% $318.03 5 $14,930.99 4 -29.90% ($2,988.01) 5 $9,993.34 5 2.09% $248.78 5 $11,903.35 5 -29.48% ($8,947.48) 5 $30,351.02 6 1.81% $249.32 5 $13,774.59 6 -29.15% ($10,456.54) 5 $35,871.49 7 1.77% $197.74 5 $11,171.75 7 -29.07% ($10,299.80) 5 $35,431.03 8 1.67% $266.78 5 $15,974.85 8 -28.89% ($20,671.44) 5 $71,552.23 9 1.40% $146.18 5 $10,441.43 9 -28.05% ($13,730.91) 5 $48,951.55 10 1.01% $1,092.20 5 $108,138.61 10 -25.70% ($81,818.12) 5 $318,358.44 1.93% $376.35 $5.00 $23,508.27 -31.27% ($23,625.41) $4.80 $79,634.60 Average return of a top 10 client is 1.93% for an average profit of $376.35 with an average account size of $23,508.27. Covestor's bottom 10 clients had an average loss of 31.27% or $23,625.41 and an average account size of $79,634. I don't think these returns are very competitive. What do you think? Doesn't it seem like the average loss is much larger than the greatest gainer?
Covestor and Collective2 really aren't the places that any serious investors look for talented management. Why would anyone go to either of those sites looking for profitable strategies when there are much more legit places like IASG, which has dozens of managed programs with much better performance, and real money track records. On the same note, why would anyone seeking capital for their program attempt to market it on C2 or Covestor? If it is a good program then by necessity it will have a good real money track record. If it does, and the manager is having a hard time raising capital on his own merits, he should be looking for the most legitimate place to market it. Sites like IASG and BarclayHedge are head and shoulders above the other two mentioned here.
I can't make sense of anything Weirdinsky mentions. Does the guy even have one investor at all? If he does, how in the hell is he allowed to discuss returns as a registered CTA? Maybe the guy couldn't afford an attorney to actually tell him about advertising returns on a public forum.
Covestor is probably superior to C2 due to the trades being with real money. Covestor is an excellent site to post trades to, and as far as marketing until there really is like a 20% gain I'm sure most people will not subscribe to it. IASG and BarclayHedge are too difficult to get into with limited capital. Unless you've got hundreds of thousands, there really isn't a better place to post my trades to than Covestor. It's not like I cannot be profitable just cause I'm on Covestor rather than IASG and BarclayHedge. My pairs system has $10,000 going to $535,000, and I'm pretty sure no one has a backtest like that, even if it does drawdown 40%. The returns discussed are reported on covestor.com.
Why pay someone just to get beaten by a couple of mindless indexes? http://covestor.com/kc-capital-management/quantitative-etf
I find that inexperience leads to most of the failure in trading, yet it is that inexperience that they think they can overcome. People do not have systems that work as well as mine. That's why they should pay, because it is much easier than gambling without a system. There are lots of folks that think they can make money trading, but when it comes to the risk/reward stats they probably aren't any better than an index fund. My system has sold TQQQ as high as 87 then went to a low of 53. I've sold SQQQ at 28 and it's now at 21. Anyone who wants to trade highly leveraged instruments <b>MUST USE a PAIRS TRADING MODEL</b> in order to avoid the effects of negative compounding. If they do not, <b>they will lose.</b>
What planet are you on? I see your "working system" is down ~9% since inception... is that right? Christ Bowo, I didn't realize you've gotten this deranged over the last few years. The fact that your backtest doesn't even come close to real world performance should be enough to cause some sort of re-assesment of your ability and core system logic....BUT, nope. You still think you have a working system. The worst part of all this is that you're a RIA which makes you appear knowledgeable in front of people who don't know any better. Do yourself a favor and stop before you face legal action. Its not worth it. From the system description: "trend following price physics, capital management arbitrage, risk management arbitrage" What the f--k are you talking about? This makes no sense!!!
He follows the mad scientists of ET (Hershey, Proflogic, etc.). You'd think he'd learn from top CTAs and other reputable traders with audited, real-world performance numbers, but no, he'd rather dabble in junk voodoo science.
Do you actually trade real money or do you just "paper trade" through C2 and those pretend sites? The only time I heard of Covestor was when Tim Sykes mentioned he used it and was a top ranked trader on it. Adios credibility.....
Clearly inexperienced, jsp. You do not start at the top, and there really isn't anything they're going to teach you other than if your point is our numbers are real yours aren't. The models I have aren't just superior, their development <b>is not any different than the task of development at any larger institution.</b> I don't particularly ascribe to Jack Hershey's method at all. It's only for the S&P Index Futures. Proflogic's system is built for every symbol and every interval so there's nothing wrong with telling you all that I really liked the results I was getting in Multicharts. I liked them so much, I started a CTA. Also, my pairs trading model turns $10,000 into $543,000 in 5 years, and that is my objective on Covestor. I'm using both my system and Prof's so that when the two of them agree not only will the trade be more likely to win, but it's also much more profitable.