Marathon Trading
Sorry for the lenght of my answer but your detailed post deserv it. Even becasue I do not want to be misunderstood at all.
Some people here don't seem to know what they are talking about.
It dipends: there is people who knows exactly how much they pay, the tools they need to work, the Investment Banks in NYC & London & Zurich for whom worked as consultant or customer since 1980 with very high knowledge of the top management and easy access to the trading rooms (either in NYC or in LOndon or Paris or Zurich).
- CQG
CQG is above all a techical analysis software. CQG is rock solid. The quality of the data feed is incredible (no outage was ever due to CQG).
[/b] This is an absolute allegation that has to be proven by fact. I always spoke well of CQG, I do consider it the Bentley Around ,
never said it is not good or excellent . Nevertheless I said that belongs already to the past: the segregated strategy of being "closed" to the external world has secluded CQG to an irrelevant MS, limited to the Istitutionals: But how many ? And strategically for how long? If you are an Itsuitutional and you can get as well solid rock data at a lower price with "open view" for the future why keep paiyng a lot for the 10/ 50/100/150/200 workstation taht you have in your trading room in just one city?
For what concerning the malfunctions and outage I have the CD available to everyone with all the logs of the CQG software created by itself in zip file that shows above any possible doubt the problems in OUTAGE that I experienced not only once but at least 5 or 6 times. I had to suspend the Tom de mark studies in order to have the machine lighter. My hardware is at the TOP
4 2.8, 1GIG RAM ASUS MB etcetc and more machine each one dedicated to one job :so on the CQG machine was running only CQG , with a dedicated ADSL . Trace Route pictures and graphs shows "197" wich is a very acceptable level of connection between the computer and the data source. So no way to blame the lines or the providers. So saiyng NO OUTAGE EVER it is alittle too much. I would say a more safe "very seldom, almost never" but not "zero, Zilch, Gurnish, Zippo outage".
As a matter of fact what I contest is not the fact that a Machine can fail once or two or have a fault, but that there is NO POP UP WINDOWS to advise you; The system should continuosly check the CQG clock and the PC clock: once it goes over an inaceptable level of difference , should WARN THE USER IMMEDIATLY as it does when the exchange has problem with the message " DATA DELAYED". Or that if a huge number of packets are left behind will immediatly warn the user
This is not implemented in CQG and for the amount of money I pay I pretend it. More over It will never be( they do not pay attention to their customer) : because I asked for and I had N_O_ R-E-S-P-O-N-S-E-A-T-A-L-L as well as the many times I asked the possibility to use OTTO: the partners brokers DID NOT EVEN ANSWERED TO MY MAILS : I'm poor yes, but not THAT poor. In CQG am 'I riding a Bentley ? Yes I Do : so I pretend that that once I ring the bell the Garage will answer and open the door. With the white gloves.
I tell you what: in ESIGNAL ADVANCED GET IT HAPPENS: you ask for an improvement in the platform or there is a problem or something is missed? Voilà vit dit dit fait :a la facon du Le LOUIS XV a Monaco. I mean I get immediatly from the Tops Dogs. At least an answer.
Not just me, I'm just an emeritous MR. Nobody , but everyone who is client. And you know what ? for me this that you feel yourself - just because MR. NOBODY - a valuable customer . Period.
The software doesn't have all the tricks others have but is very well designed and easy to use (the custom study builder is really easy to use).
Sorry but the software HAS all the tricks , and many more; though each one is locked and you have to pay for it. The tricks and gimmicks in CQG are even redundant . The custom study ( tool box) it is a little outdated with its macro like language even if simple for us not programmers.
Let's take an example: I want a study that take in consideration the Color of an indicator or oscillator or bar. With CQG I cannot, wit esignal EFS propietary java script language in 5 minutes is ready. Perfectly working . And you do not even bother to develop it with the formula wizard: for someone will - enormously kindly- do it for you at no cost.
Someone pretends in the review of another software that the price was 2500 euros. This is not true at all. CQGNet should cost around 600$, CQGLan (satellite) atound 1200$. A basic version of CQG is ALREADY fully functional (who would like to add the Tom DeMark crap?). I have used both (internet and satellite) and both were pretty good.
That someone Is myself, and again I can say that what you say is IMHO not completely correct.
I state herebelow a
monthly invoice of CQG:
-CQG NET SERVER ACCESS: 0â¬
-NET 2001 595â¬
-CBOT and MACE 38â¬
-CME 50â¬
-COMEX 71â¬
-Dow Jones Key Inexes 0â¬
-NYMEX 71â¬
-One Chicago Non Pro 4â¬
-EUREX non pro 12â¬
-Italian Futures & Equities 20â¬
-AMEX non pro 5â¬
-NASDAQ Stocks non pro 5â¬
-NYSE non pro 8â¬
-Advanced Get Bill by vendor 0â¬(AGET RT Feed from CQG)
-Demark Indicators Full Pack. 287â¬
-Dow Jones Bankers Report 205 â¬
*Monthly service sub Total 1,317.00â¬
Add to this about
250 ⬠for backtesting & Signal evaluator
VAT of 20% 313â¬
TOTAL AMOUNT: 1880â¬
If you add some little pro rated service ( you maybe added at the half of the past month a service that correctly they have to charge yopu for the 15 days used) you get to over
2.000⬠or 2240 USD Why add TDM crap ? Larry williams maybe works with just a 5 level book and no chart and makes millions; others istitutional works with 2 screens 2 oscillators and couple of moving averages. And make millions.
I am just a little limited and to make money I need: ADVANCED GET , 5 screen and TOM DEMARK; add some news and a decent editor to create your study , plus a backtesting machine, plus other minore studies like envelope, volumes, MA, DMA. Sorry .
Their customer service (at least the Paris office) and accounting service (in London) was however very poor (to stay polite...).
.....
- Bloomberg
I think Fabrizio should sit in front of a Bloomy once in his life.
Bloomberg poor in analysis
That's not true at all. Bloomberg is poor in technical analysis but not in analysis. I have been a professional fixed income trader for several years and could not have worked without a Bloomberg. Bloomberg is useless for most of us who focus on TA.
As mr. Nobody I can only say "hat off to Bloomy". And I'm sorry if I was misunderstood: poor in technical analysys I ment. Again the system is closed , segregated . Great for the Istututional. Asa matter of fact they do not need to be too much technical, right? But Do you remeber Bloomy in 1986 ? , Salomon Brothers trading Floor in Victoria London? By and large the system is just that one with no major changement excxept the green phosphorus. And we are in 2003. They had - and IMHO still have - the istitutional market but always IMHO i cannot see any particular "improvements, at least "ergonomics "( those screens and pivots..... you can get much better resolution and quality for a bunch of dimes!)
- Reuters.
Reuters is above all a news and price feed. As a professional fixed income trader, I have used Reuters to feed my excel pricers. Reuters is very useful to have price in cash products and in otc derivative products from banks and brokers from all over the world. Reuters is useless for most of us who focus on TA.
That was exactly my trading setup at the major investment banks I have worked in Europe.
- Reuters for news and to feed my excel pricers
- Bloomberg for fixed income analysis
- CQG for technical analysis
All that for a low fee of around 5000$/month
[/B]
You see at the end we get to the same point: I posted the same thing : each one is good for is job.
But for technical anlisys and TRADING , which means "MAKE MONEY" not be a fortune teller, having had both I belive taht ESIGNAL INTEGRATED WITH ADVANCED GET is better for someone who does not want ( i do not say cannot afford because if you make this job you ought to have money and you ought to implement the best tools around) put in array BLOOMY , REUTERS, PLUS ANOTHER PLATFORM
All this with :
*No intention of polemics and the maximum respect to you and yours Ideas and opinions
* no preconceptual position against CQG at all and the highets vrespect vs their strategies and company policies,
Conclusion: I am totally indipendent. But I think that something really interesting and new - as a company case I mean- is growing. This is ESIGNAL ADVANCED GET .
IMHO it is mistake in terms of intellectual Honesty " OVERLOOK" It by default as a pro.
Have you tried the last Phaeton by Wolkswagen? I did : it is outstanding by any level. IMHO the best luxury car around at the moment. Even more snobbish than any other else.
But in wolksburg they did the best engine around ( either gasoline or diesel) and they do not rest or sleep on their positions because a new venture , a new vision from their boss had to became reality.
Right now.
Cordially
