Murray new S&P500 and T-Bond Systems
- Thread starter Murray Ruggiero
- Start date
I send a private message to Mr. Murray requesting the information and he did send me the required details.
There is an "Investment advisor" who is trading his systems with 9 million dollars.
Mr. Murray may not be able to speak on other people trading matters due to legal constraints and also he is not registered as a CTA. Hence, he had to release the information only on personal request and it is not for general release
There is an "Investment advisor" who is trading his systems with 9 million dollars.
Mr. Murray may not be able to speak on other people trading matters due to legal constraints and also he is not registered as a CTA. Hence, he had to release the information only on personal request and it is not for general release
I am curious whether anyone here has actually USED Murray's systems. Personally, i never placed much faith in canned trading systems...
$9 million is super small potatoes
Murray Ruggiero
Sponsor
We just started trading this in October this year so 0 to 9 million in less than 2 months is pretty good.
I hear where you're coming from but also detect a lack of objectivity. In order to explore what you're saying, can you explain what "canned-ness" means? When does a system become "canned" seeing as any system must be rule bound and therefore "canned"? If you know what it means then please explain how this system that Mr Murray is propsing is "canned"?
Because I don't think in such black and white terms, such a notion is foreign to me. But I will suggest a few interpretations:
1. Canned = Phoney. I don't think do - most thinking people accept Mr Murray's legitimacy eough to give him uncluttered airtime,
2. Canned = One size fits all. Virtualy every system in existence, public or private, falls foul of this...1 user or 1000 is irrelevent. It either works or it doesn't. What one user vs another defines as working is a different question however.
3. Canned = Brittle - Maybe - the odds suggest probably. Those odds demand a robust approach to research and development in or order to have a chance of decent oos performance.
4. Prepared, in advance, for best appearance - yes maybe, who knows! But given the published results I can see that they're almost certainly not over optimized (knowing that optimization has to play a role in the process).
5. Implicitly inferior, perhaps knowngly so - The connection isn't clear given the dismal (but hidden) performance of most systems out there. Mainly a factor of knowledge of and (dis)trust in the vendor, or maybe, an overly cynical world view.
And this gets to the crux of the matter - What does a sample user demand of a given system. Looking at Futures Truth, for example, there are commercial systems out there that will have served many purchasers well. But many have hard periods of heavy drawdown or even longer flat performance. Generally, FT performance can be categorized as good from my recollection when offset against the performance of traders generally.
On reading through these points these systems don't strike me as "canned" in a way that would drive me away as a buyer. Really, it comes down to trust/beleif in the vendor and a pragmatic acknowledgment of where the capricious markets might go from here. Needless searching for ulterior mtives strikes me as pointles.
Thx
D
I am sorry this was so hard for you to understand. Try searching for "canned" system on the internet, and your massive confusion may go away.
...but above didn't you affirmed that 'who is trading his systems with 9 million dollars. ' ? :eek:
Maybe we're confusing here profits with equity account size.
I couldn't give a stuff about the internet. I was asking you to explain where you're coming from when you throw out that buzz word.
I sense you think I was having a dig at you when i was not. I know you're having a pop at me. So we'll leave it at that.