Quote from QUANTUM_QUANT:
After being a system developer for quite some time I have experienced the âHOW DO I SELL MY SYSTEM?â problem numerous times. The solution to this problem is not obvious and it is much more complex than the developing of the system it self.
Description of the problem
1. Inability to answer the question: âIf your system works and it is that good why in the hell do you want to sell it? Why not to trade the system your self?â No answer to this question will be satisfactory to one who is asking this question. All the arguments that the system developer can come up with will only result in sarcastic remarks and the further isolation of the potential buyer.
2. Disclosure of the principles that the system is based on leaves the developer completely unprotected and vulnerable regardless of any elaborated protective agreements that the developer might come up with.
3. Non disclosure of the principles usually turns the buyer off because he/she would immediately suspect the fraud.
4. Sending remote trades/signals (real time or look-ahead trading plans) even with the free trial or with the charges in the rears makes the buyer uncomfortable because if the losses occur the buyer has no repercussions against the seller of the system other then stopping the payments for the service and bad-mouthing the seller (which does not help much).
5. No joining accounts, agreements, NDAs etc will ever work because neither buyer nor seller wants to be exposed to losses or law suits.
Of course, there is a tremendous desire in the trading community to
- develop the efficient and reliable systems
- to purchase efficient and reliable systems
Fortunately for both parties there is a simple and effective solution to this problem that eliminates the risk and anxiety on both sides!
Here it is:
1. The developer creates the system and protects it any way he likes.
2. He determines the maximum drawdown the system should experience during its operation.
3. After reaching the payment agreement with the client in case of successful operation of the system the developer deposits the amount of money that would be enough to cover the drawdown on the clientâs account.
4. If the system at any time produced the loss that is equal to the deposited amount the client has the right to stop the system operation and use the deposited amount to cover the losses.
If the system works the way the developer thought it would then the operation continues. If the system fails the developer only loses the deposit (which could be as little as $250 or so).
Let me know what you think of this approach. I certainly see my self entering in this kind of an arrangement.
QUANTUM_CATALIST
Here is an alternative view.
I sweep the market place periodically. What I look for is bait and switch marketing efforts.
To shut these down it involves three groups: the marketer; the person who delivers product; and the associated legal aggregation.
It has turned out that often the marketing group is looking for products to market since they get overrides. They well know the consequences of improper marketing and how "bad" products play into that set of consequences.
They have crews who do check outs. These people are paid by the marketers to "prove in" products.
When the prove in is in place paper begins to fly.
You the product provider are at arms length from the client since the marketer is the client's contact and guaranteur of the product, all based on the check out crews guarantees for which they are paid by the marketer.
You will only get a period of income that starts and stops. Your value to the client is different than you think. The client wants to make money and he is buying two things: the system and the training.
The principle guarantee that you get comes from the marketer. He guarantees traffic and fees to you.
This all is more lucrative than the returns in the P and L thread. There are some by products too.
The drawdown issue that you raise is not on the table it turns out.
You lack several skills as well: marketing; training and legal pop up for me right off.
Sorry to intrude with experience.