I totally appreciate the desire to set your own risk, however selling signals for a monthly fee at scale just isn't commercially viable for a few reasons.
1) When a trader has a negative month on signals they lose a very large proportion of subscribers. Whereas in the MAM almost everyone stays invested because it doesn't cost them anything. So any "down" periods really hurt our signal subscriber base to a point where we need to work hard to recover.
2) The liability is reduced since we're able to set risk at an appropriate level. I understand the majority of people know what they're doing, but just yesterday I was given a court order to compensate a client for thousands of dollars who blew their account when they mistakenly ran a signal at 300x due to not understanding the software. So now I either need to spend time, money and energy fighting what I looks to be a very obvious error on their part, or cop the loss.
3) The MAM is more equitable for everyone. Clients only pay a share of the money they actually make, so if a trader has a negative period they need to work for free until they recover it, and if they do a good job and a client wants to allocate a significant sum of money to their trading they are rewarded accordingly. Is it fair that a trader with one of the longest track records in the industry offer unencumbered access to their trades for a few hundred dollars per month? I don't think it is.
There are some developments happening with Mt Cook and it appears there might be the ability for them to offer MAM clients the ability to fund in their own currency and set their own risk & drawdown parameters in the coming months. If that happens then it will give us the best of both worlds. Because what I'm hearing is that you guys really just want the flexibility to set it up as you see fit.
1) When a trader has a negative month on signals they lose a very large proportion of subscribers. Whereas in the MAM almost everyone stays invested because it doesn't cost them anything. So any "down" periods really hurt our signal subscriber base to a point where we need to work hard to recover.
2) The liability is reduced since we're able to set risk at an appropriate level. I understand the majority of people know what they're doing, but just yesterday I was given a court order to compensate a client for thousands of dollars who blew their account when they mistakenly ran a signal at 300x due to not understanding the software. So now I either need to spend time, money and energy fighting what I looks to be a very obvious error on their part, or cop the loss.
3) The MAM is more equitable for everyone. Clients only pay a share of the money they actually make, so if a trader has a negative period they need to work for free until they recover it, and if they do a good job and a client wants to allocate a significant sum of money to their trading they are rewarded accordingly. Is it fair that a trader with one of the longest track records in the industry offer unencumbered access to their trades for a few hundred dollars per month? I don't think it is.
There are some developments happening with Mt Cook and it appears there might be the ability for them to offer MAM clients the ability to fund in their own currency and set their own risk & drawdown parameters in the coming months. If that happens then it will give us the best of both worlds. Because what I'm hearing is that you guys really just want the flexibility to set it up as you see fit.
Comment