You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Advisory Services
- Thread starter maggandre
- Start date
Has anyone heard anything good/bad about the following:
http://www.index-timing.com/
Returns are good, trade using ProFunds (see earlier posts) - in business for three plus years. I just hat giving control of my money to someone else.
Feedback on this - or this KIND - of service is appreciated.
http://www.index-timing.com/
Returns are good, trade using ProFunds (see earlier posts) - in business for three plus years. I just hat giving control of my money to someone else.
Feedback on this - or this KIND - of service is appreciated.
Quote from maggandre:
Rama, I assume you are talking about HotStix. I sent an emai and am waiting to hear back. KG, if you hear back please post here.
Anyone else with info on their track record - or anyone's track record - please post.
Thanks!
My trading partner emailed them - questions were (1) what are results since Sept 2002 (since website only shows results until then), and (2) if they would provide a list of past trades. Response was:
"We are sorry, but this is only available to our Premium Members.
We provide a risk free opportunity for you to try our services and determine if Hot Stix is for you. Subscribe and, at anytime in your first 30 days, simply send us an e-mail requesting a refund and you will be credited."
Risk free is fine, but if a service will not reveal performance, I am not interested. It is not so much about the money, but more about wasting time.
Quote from jester:
P2,
For someone not as well connected as you are, how do I aquire these annual letters? Are they available in my local library? Or do I have to write to get them from Berkshire directly?
J-
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/letters.html
Quote from kgharris:
Risk free is fine, but if a service will not reveal performance, I am not interested. It is not so much about the money, but more about wasting time.
I agree. The point was made earlier - if there are good results, any company/service would post them - it is the ultimate sales tool. The fact that a lot of these only partially address results, or disguise them, or don't publish them at all says a lot about their credibility.
Quote from pantherproject:
You could check us out at www.pantherproject.com We're pretty new, but our systems typically trade in that kind of time frame.
panther
Interesting...but I have a question after browsing your site.
Your perfomances for systems A, B, and C - up to which date does your performance consist of backtesting and historical data, and which date did you start actual implementation of the systems on a "real time" basis?
thnx...
Thanx, I stepped away for a bit. They're the best. Why bother to learn from anyone else. The best investor of all time gives you all the secrets for free.
Quote from maggandre:
I agree. The point was made earlier - if there are good results, any company/service would post them - it is the ultimate sales tool. The fact that a lot of these only partially address results, or disguise them, or don't publish them at all says a lot about their credibility.
Quoting myself, now - I got this PM with an answer to an email another poster sent in...this is good for why they don't show performance:
"Regulatory issues prevent us from posting or sending out performance."
Uhhh-ok, what regulatory issues would keep you from doing that?
You know, I would like to tell you how much we make, but I am prohibited by law...
There are a few things that do keep people, at least on the commodities side, from doing obscene amounts of advertising, though with disclaimers and no personal contact between them and their clients they are usually ok. The CFTC made its final rulings on that subject a few years ago. You can check out the regulations, or at least their final rulings at the following link
http://www.cftc.gov/foia/fedreg00/foi000310a.htm
In essence if your service provides commodity advisories they need to cover their asses with lots of hypothetical disclaimers and they're still affected by a quite a few CFTC regulations even though they might not register as CTAs or CPOs.
As for stocks, here are a couple of cases you might find interesting reading
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/complr17311.htm
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp18090.htm
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/aljdec/id218jtk.htm
You might also find the following paragraph from
http://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/roundtable/iadvrndt.htm
of interest. To wit:
Moderator Plaze: Maybe this is an opportunity to discuss the Tokyo Joe case. SEC versus Lowe, there's a publisher's exception to the Advisers Act, and that sets the exception which results in the major publications that you read everyday not being registered as an adviser even though there might be the equivalent of "Dear Investor" column. You know, where people write in and people actually do give advice, Wall Street Week in Review, publisher's exception. Question is how does that publisher's exception apply to a communication via any media, but the web makes it more convenient, which is essentially a piece of investment advice masquerading as the court. As in the Tokyo Joe case suggested, where is the line drawn? It was the holding of the Supreme Court a number or years ago in the SEC versus Lowe decision. Lowe, I think we can all agree, a bad actor. He had been criminally convicted of stealing from his clients, but worst of all stealing from a bank. It's gone. Anyway, we revoked his registration only to discover that he was continuing to publish newsletters. Then, went to court and got an injunction and he defending. It went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the court came down and concluded that he was, indeed, entitled to the publication exceptions. Now, the court in that decision had two choices to make. It could have held, as he alleged in his defense, that the registration provisions of the Investment Advisers Act as applied to investment newsletters violated first amendment considerations and actually amounted to a prior restraint. As a result, the registration provisions would have been struck down, but the fraud provisions would have prevailed. The court avoided the constitutional issue and held that it was not subject to the Act because of the publisher's exception from the definition of the Investment Adviser's Act. As a result, the Commission has no jurisdiction whatsoever over investment newsletters. Of course, if the adviser registers for some other reason, we assert our authority over their newsletter and any fraud that they may perpetrate through the newsletter.
Also of interest is the SEC's comment on cyberfraud and how to avoid it.
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/cyberfraud.htm
And on that same page is a link to the following
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/cyberfraud/newsletter.htm
which gives you some tips for checking out services/newsletters.
Also of interest
http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch473.htm
which basically gives some rules for what constitutes an investment advisor and what constitutes an investment company and why that is a problem with the proliferation of information through the internet.
In general, you probably want to be aware of the following rules set out in an Office Of Compliance and Examinations at the SEC as general guidelines for your search/vetting. While the link below is written to Investment Advisors, these are the things the governement will look for in an investigation of any service. Word to the wise.
http://www.sec.gov/divisions/ocie/advltr.htm
This is a long answer to a short question, but the service you are checking out is not prohibited from posting or sending out performance (which is protected by their first amendment rights), as long as there is no material intent to commit fraud and everything perforamance-wise is appropriately labeled. That's the bad answer, the more detailed and correct answer is outlined in the links above. In essence, the SEC is a bit hamstrung by SEC vs. Lowe, but as a rule they apply the same principles to advisories that they do to investment advisors. But you can send on the links above if you want Hotstix to turn over and play nice with you.
panther
http://www.cftc.gov/foia/fedreg00/foi000310a.htm
In essence if your service provides commodity advisories they need to cover their asses with lots of hypothetical disclaimers and they're still affected by a quite a few CFTC regulations even though they might not register as CTAs or CPOs.
As for stocks, here are a couple of cases you might find interesting reading
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/complr17311.htm
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp18090.htm
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/aljdec/id218jtk.htm
You might also find the following paragraph from
http://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/roundtable/iadvrndt.htm
of interest. To wit:
Moderator Plaze: Maybe this is an opportunity to discuss the Tokyo Joe case. SEC versus Lowe, there's a publisher's exception to the Advisers Act, and that sets the exception which results in the major publications that you read everyday not being registered as an adviser even though there might be the equivalent of "Dear Investor" column. You know, where people write in and people actually do give advice, Wall Street Week in Review, publisher's exception. Question is how does that publisher's exception apply to a communication via any media, but the web makes it more convenient, which is essentially a piece of investment advice masquerading as the court. As in the Tokyo Joe case suggested, where is the line drawn? It was the holding of the Supreme Court a number or years ago in the SEC versus Lowe decision. Lowe, I think we can all agree, a bad actor. He had been criminally convicted of stealing from his clients, but worst of all stealing from a bank. It's gone. Anyway, we revoked his registration only to discover that he was continuing to publish newsletters. Then, went to court and got an injunction and he defending. It went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the court came down and concluded that he was, indeed, entitled to the publication exceptions. Now, the court in that decision had two choices to make. It could have held, as he alleged in his defense, that the registration provisions of the Investment Advisers Act as applied to investment newsletters violated first amendment considerations and actually amounted to a prior restraint. As a result, the registration provisions would have been struck down, but the fraud provisions would have prevailed. The court avoided the constitutional issue and held that it was not subject to the Act because of the publisher's exception from the definition of the Investment Adviser's Act. As a result, the Commission has no jurisdiction whatsoever over investment newsletters. Of course, if the adviser registers for some other reason, we assert our authority over their newsletter and any fraud that they may perpetrate through the newsletter.
Also of interest is the SEC's comment on cyberfraud and how to avoid it.
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/cyberfraud.htm
And on that same page is a link to the following
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/cyberfraud/newsletter.htm
which gives you some tips for checking out services/newsletters.
Also of interest
http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch473.htm
which basically gives some rules for what constitutes an investment advisor and what constitutes an investment company and why that is a problem with the proliferation of information through the internet.
In general, you probably want to be aware of the following rules set out in an Office Of Compliance and Examinations at the SEC as general guidelines for your search/vetting. While the link below is written to Investment Advisors, these are the things the governement will look for in an investigation of any service. Word to the wise.
http://www.sec.gov/divisions/ocie/advltr.htm
This is a long answer to a short question, but the service you are checking out is not prohibited from posting or sending out performance (which is protected by their first amendment rights), as long as there is no material intent to commit fraud and everything perforamance-wise is appropriately labeled. That's the bad answer, the more detailed and correct answer is outlined in the links above. In essence, the SEC is a bit hamstrung by SEC vs. Lowe, but as a rule they apply the same principles to advisories that they do to investment advisors. But you can send on the links above if you want Hotstix to turn over and play nice with you.
panther
Quote from maggandre:
Quoting myself, now - I got this PM with an answer to an email another poster sent in...this is good for why they don't show performance:
"Regulatory issues prevent us from posting or sending out performance."
Uhhh-ok, what regulatory issues would keep you from doing that?
You know, I would like to tell you how much we make, but I am prohibited by law...