Hey Murray, Pay no mind to the playa haters. This site is full of them. Congrats on the position with Tuttle! surf
I've looked into the managed futures a while ago but could never pull the trigger and it seemed people weren't giving me all the information. I would have no problem doing it but I would have to know exactly who you are (kinda like what a bank would require) tax returns / personal financial statement / brokerage statements. If you are as clear as a book to me and show stability over the past 5 or so year then I absolutely have no problem investing money, but we people see trade station reports... It just comes across unbelievable.
Tuttle wealth management - certainly no barn burner with regard to either size or ROI. Out of sequence successful funds grow exponentially, at least for a while. Average or less returns and the fund tends to stagnate just like the stagnate software discussed in this thread. Lots of mention about articles, articles and more articles but very little mention, or really no mention of real money trading results. Even more mention of electrical engineering and neural network credentials yet no neural networks in any of the strategies offered. Even with your claim of embedding neural networks in a spreadsheet we see no product or no work along those lines. Neural Ware has offered a very robust neural network development kit embedded in Excel for almost 2 decades. Other firms offer neural network development tools that can embed the trained networks into strategies deployed by platforms like TradeStation. Oh, yea, you use TradeStation and yet no mention of neural networks for or in the platform you used to tout the gold system. Miles and Miles from the state of the art, art you claim as your own. What is they say down in Texas - All hat and no cattle. The game is about making money in the markets - so where is the beef/proof/slightest evidence? If any of these systems worked to any significant degree then I don't think Tuttle Wealth management would only have 100m under management and Murray wouldn't be complaining about his development budget interfering with his ability to trade. Keep flogging away Murray. My bet is that, regardless of voracity, the more you post, the more likely you are to catch another fish.
http://www.google.com/patents/US5241620 Here is a reference to my patent. How many patents to do you have ?. The patent was owned by my old company Promised Land Technologies so I could not do anything with it. In terms of Tuttle, we are growing and did not have all the logistics in place to recently to grow to 500M -1B. I guess since you just talk, you would not know about anything practical. You also say the following <b>yet no mention of neural networks for or in the platform</b> http://tradersstudio.com/Products/t...cmd/CatalogItemDetails/psmid/657/Default.aspx Here a product available on my site for 6 years, so again your talking without knowing what your talking about. I see you still don't answer the question , give me a list of your publications and your real name. Let's compare.
See, I understand your concerns, leverage levels are the key. If I was trading my intra-day gold system with a 30K account, I would have a 40% max drawdown, and make 100% a year based on historical results. If I traded it with 150K ,I would have a 8% max drawdown and 20% per year returns which sound reasonable. My underlying methodology is to trade multiple uncorrelated systems. Thjs allows me to trade with higher leverage but reduce risk. PM if you want to see real brokerage statements.
Murray, one point here is that forums like this are financially supported by people/companies like you who pay to advertise your products and services. Those that do not pay are forbidden from mentioning/advertising their products or services. While it is certainly true that advertisers and in some cases hucksters do indeed add content it is also true that without the members who read, comment on and sometimes dispute ads like yours there would be no forum. These forums only exist because there are members enough to warrant people like you to pay to advertise. My posts sell no products or services so I don't believe I am obligated to provide documentation of anything. I do believe that as a responsible member I am obligated to make honest posts that are on topic and reasonably well written. I have spoken to you in the past and told you I thought you were full of it then and still do. The topic here is three systems you are trying to flog to members. I think they are lame, I think Tuttle is lame and even lamer when you post something like you don't have the logistics to grow in place - you didn't see it coming, you didn't plan for it? No, I think the reason Tuttle isn't at the 500m-1b you reference is because it doesn't have the subscriptions not because you lack the proper back office or other infra-structure. All of your replies about your articles, patents and lack of infrastructure do nothing to sell your systems. Your questions about my lack of patents or publications or my identity do nothing to sell your systems. As an aside, while I have no patents, I am indeed a paid published author with deep experience in the dynamics of markets and associated technologies. Show us proof that your systems will make steady money, that an investment in Tuttle will provide better returns than any of the thousands of competing funds and your advertising dollar will be much better served. Where are the customers' yachts?
The OP has every right to grab a share of the trading system for sale market. If he doesn't then some one else will. People want to buy systems and always will do. Im sure Murray's stuff is better than 99% of the crap out there, although that still doesn't mean his stuff is profitable, perhaps it might just lose less money than the competition. Really good (ie robust) edges in the markets are like gold dust. Very hard to find. Why would anyone ever want to disclose one even with a NDA contract in place, if its any good it will leak out. I cant ever see a trader ever disclosing a good trading edge (even for 250K a year and NDAs), the only reason would be because its not a very robust edge in the first place, they were never going to trade it themselves, and so they really got nothing to lose by selling it.
Hi, Jack In a thread I posted in the Trading Software forum, I asked why system vendors don't supply optimal or even near-optimal position sizing in their packages now that such is available. Murray responded with a (broken!) link to his website about a position sizing tutorial! Given how much money they charge, it's amazing how these vendors always take the laziest and cheapest routes to satisfying their customers needs.