JeromeFut
04-24-2016,
My premise is as follows:
As "Pay for service" entities they are out to make money.
If you have a system that accurately predicts stock movements over time, the most profitable thing to do is invest your own money in those positions (think Buffett) or to actively manage other peoples money in the positions (think Hedge Funds) while keeping your methodology, and actual positions, a closely guarded secret.
If a company is clearly the former (pay for service), yet elects not to be the latter (most profitable), there must be a reason. The first and most obvious is that they do not possess a predictive methodology, and must therefore do something else to make money. Second, maybe they are just really nice people who want you to be rich.
Occams razor certainly hints at the answer.
When I get back in the states and have more time I will demonstrate how these entities appear to be successful, and why they are just a modified ponzi scheme that must at some point collapse under their own weight. A point of interest is how many of them have a multi year record of success.
I wonder if any of the folks who have given these companies their money will defend them on a motivational level. Explain where my premise is erroneous as opposed to saying they made X amount on this trade or that.
As "Pay for service" entities they are out to make money.
If you have a system that accurately predicts stock movements over time, the most profitable thing to do is invest your own money in those positions (think Buffett) or to actively manage other peoples money in the positions (think Hedge Funds) while keeping your methodology, and actual positions, a closely guarded secret.
If a company is clearly the former (pay for service), yet elects not to be the latter (most profitable), there must be a reason. The first and most obvious is that they do not possess a predictive methodology, and must therefore do something else to make money. Second, maybe they are just really nice people who want you to be rich.
Occams razor certainly hints at the answer.
When I get back in the states and have more time I will demonstrate how these entities appear to be successful, and why they are just a modified ponzi scheme that must at some point collapse under their own weight. A point of interest is how many of them have a multi year record of success.
I wonder if any of the folks who have given these companies their money will defend them on a motivational level. Explain where my premise is erroneous as opposed to saying they made X amount on this trade or that.