They got back to me, so we are talking. I find it a little unsettling that they still have the elementary things wrong. For example, here is the cumulative returns chart for my account:
Clearly, this chart wants you to believe that I made 254 million percent gain in 3 days! Yeah, if I am so good, how come they don't give me OPM?
Now, let's look at the "account size history" chart. My account does not have enough history, so let's use your account (hope you don't mind). Here is the chart:
Hi NL
The discrepancy between NAS and assets over time in my account is not an error.
If you read the FS information you can choose to eithier have a fixed NAS (essentially the asset base value used to calculate % returns from the actual $ returns you make) or use the actual account value. The actual amount in my account (the lower chart) is (a) varying and (b) always much more than I actually have at risk (between 300K and 400K depending on the period involved).
So for example the withdrawal of capital I made in November 2014 would have resulted in my % returns
going up and my risk profile changing. But in reality the amount of money I'm deploying would have stayed the same. So the fixed NAS method made more sense.
A fixed NAS has to be higher than the account value, hence my choice of a relatively large value.
So the answer to your question is I currently have about £600K in the account, but the NAS is over £2 million (the reason for the odd number is to do with a currency translation as you can only specify a NAS in $).
For your returns it's most likely your NAS is too small. So even a very low $ return is an amazing %. I had a similar problem in that my NAS went in initially with the wrong scale (other direction - my % returns were very tiny), and yes I had to complain to get it fixed, and yes it was a pain in the ass.
I agree it's frustrating, and these kind of issues could be picked up with better quality control and basic communication ("Hey you put in your NAS as $2 billion / $2. Did you mean to do that?"). This takes time but is quicker in the long run than having to repeatedly fix problems because they weren't right first time.
For everyone's information I had a long chat with the CEO of fundseeder today. Of course I can't guarantee they'll get this working overnight (like most startups they're probably trying to do too much, and they're probably under resourced), but I can tell you that they're definitely aware of what they need to fix, and the fact they were so keen to talk to me indicates they trying to do this.
I'm even more convinced that these guys have exactly the right approach to this problem and I'd really like them to succeed.
GAT
PS Just in case anyone is suspicous I'd like to put on the record that I have no financial arrangement with these guys; this is my honest opinion. I'm not a shill for FS*, just a customer who likes the idea but is fully aware that the implementation is far from being spot on.
* OK this is exactly what a shill would say. But shills, in my experience, tend not to write long reviews including a certain amount of criticism; short effusive posts are more their style.
