'I Have A Dream'- to all futures traders

[sjfan]

I don't understand your premise. Aren't you basically just suggesting creating a mutual fund?

Also - why are you convinced that size is necessarily a good thing? Size is what makes it difficult to trade on a dime. I'm not so sure you understand how the market works if you think size for sake of size is how to get ahead.

Quote from cap'ncod:

Thanks for the clarification. How do the banks and big hedgies get away with it then? If a CTA traded 1000 individual accounts simultaneously then surely he could trade any market he wanted. It's just buying power after all? GS has billions the co-op would have mere millions to leverage.

 

[cap'ncod]

Quote from ammo:

even if you could do it, they would pick you off,the wars between merrill,bear,lehman,gs,jpm and their size positions went on for years,now the few left are working together

Yes, good point, you could very well be targeted. Not sure how they would co-ordinate and achieve this together though. I suppose it points to limitdown's non ecn and anonymous market presence advice. Do you think the banks have access to 'level 3'-stop placement - or do you think it's more synthetically identified liquidity areas?

 

[cap'ncod]

Quote from sjfan:

I don't understand your premise. Aren't you basically just suggesting creating a mutual fund?

Also - why are you convinced that size is necessarily a good thing? Size is what makes it difficult to trade on a dime. I'm not so sure you understand how the market works if you think size for sake of size is how to get ahead.

A fund would pay very little in comparison. This would be a pooled resources co-operative that would operate for it's members, who are the collective owners. They would not be clients. All profits would go to it's members and depend on their participation size. It would be (I understand the logistical difficulties) also run by the members who would have only their interests at heart. A CTA, programmer or quant managing the show would be paid and neutral, a facilitator of a collectivly agreed strategic approach.

Size can be used in many advantageous ways and I'm not veiwing it from the perspective you think I am. Size means staying power. Size means making a book. Size can be used in numerous ways that are far removed from putting in huge block trades at market, which is what I think you mean.

 

[ammo]

Quote from cap'ncod:

Yes, good point, you could very well be targeted. Not sure how they would co-ordinate and achieve this together though. I suppose it points to limitdown's non ecn and anonymous market presence advice. Do you think the banks have access to 'level 3'-stop placement - or do you think it's more synthetically identified liquidity areas?

archipelago,the mother of electronic trading,sold to a bunch of firms,every order placed has a cust id,so you are easy to track,its proprietary info,illigal,sec just hasnt gotten around to changing it,busy watching porn

 

[sjfan]

Wait... if a CTA/programmer/quant runs the operations, doesn't that just mean the 'co-op' is a fund where all the clients are also shareholders? Isn't that just another iteration of a hedge fund?

I'm still not clear what benefit this brings to the client/shareholders since alpha generation is external to the pool participants themselves.

I'm also not clear on what these 'advantages' you speak of are. Do you mean that a small slice of the pool can be used to pay for operational expenses and hire a manager? In that case, isn't this just basically the same as a mutual fund fee?

So far, it sounds like you are suggesting a client/owner model for a pooled fund - which is in itself not necessarily a bad idea; but what's this whole thing about taking on the sell side (whatever that means)?

Quote from cap'ncod:

A fund would pay very little in comparison. This would be a pooled resources co-operative that would operate for it's members, who are the collective owners. They would not be clients. All profits would go to it's members and depend on their participation size. It would be (I understand the logistical difficulties) also run by the members who would have only their interests at heart. A CTA, programmer or quant managing the show would be paid and neutral, a facilitator of a collectivly agreed strategic approach.

Size can be used in many advantageous ways and I'm not veiwing it from the perspective you think I am. Size means staying power. Size means making a book. Size can be used in numerous ways that are far removed from putting in huge block trades at market, which is what I think you mean.

 

[goodgoing]

Quote from cap'ncod:

A CTA, programmer or quant managing the show would be paid and neutral, a facilitator of a collectivly agreed strategic approach.

CTA, programmer and quant are three different jobs.

I wonder what motivates a man to propose a programmer for the manager position of a fund...

 

[ASusilovic]

Quote from cap'ncod:

Size can be used in many advantageous ways and I'm not veiwing it from the perspective you think I am. Size means staying power. Size means making a book. Size can be used in numerous ways that are far removed from putting in huge block trades at market, which is what I think you mean.

Size can be also a huge problem. Trading does not only consist of ENTERING a market, you also need to EXIT.

And yes, there is software out there, calculating small lot orders in futures markets. No secret. Every serious working CTA knows about it...

 

[ammo]

would it be legal to collect a large pool of investors under an llc and trade it as 1 customer, 1 advantage would be the trading experience of a few rather than the learning experience of many

 

[cap'ncod]

Quote from sjfan:

Wait... if a CTA/programmer/quant runs the operations, doesn't that just mean the 'co-op' is a fund where all the clients are also shareholders? Isn't that just another iteration of a hedge fund?

I'm still not clear what benefit this brings to the client/shareholders since alpha generation is external to the pool participants themselves.

I'm also not clear on what these 'advantages' you speak of are. Do you mean that a small slice of the pool can be used to pay for operational expenses and hire a manager? In that case, isn't this just basically the same as a mutual fund fee?

So far, it sounds like you are suggesting a client/owner model for a pooled fund - which is in itself not necessarily a bad idea; but what's this whole thing about taking on the sell side (whatever that means)?

Sifan, I'm just angling for ideas. I woke up one morning and it popped into my head. I think as joint owners profits will always be greater. Remember it would be mainly experienced traders pooling ideas and resources. There are some highly skilled and experienced guys out there. Who knows what sort of ideas would come flooding in? One thing though, they would not be motivated grabbing 2% of net assets and sticking the rest on an index (perhaps I'm being unfair). My preference would be a black box with some form of real-time input from experienced trader partners. Perhaps the ability to switch strategies/ markets- the more general decisions. But the finite performance would be machine regulated. A single programmer could ensure it's smooth running and change any parameters from time to time. Just thoughts.

 

[cap'ncod]

Quote from goodgoing:

CTA, programmer and quant are three different jobs.

I wonder what motivates a man to propose a programmer for the manager position of a fund...

Don't no what you're insinuating. I'm a small retail futures trader like tons of others. Easy pickings for the those with superior technology and firepower you coukld say.