Quote from dwpeters:
I am exploring opportunities. .. I am planning to set up a model for Covestor but that's as much a matter of establishing a track record as anything. I don't think they have the customer base yet to really drive a lot of income through subscriptions to the models.
Google thanks for pointing us to the site!

So GS guys are trying to hijack the social investing brand? I'd rather stick to Kiva for that... both for karma AND performance (so far).
But I did study Coverstor's offering in detail, and I think I will give it a go, because it is the only advisory service that eliminates the biggest problem in the industry (apart from the lack of edge of course), i.e. the client's perverse market timing (fund investors earn much less than their funds, chasing rallies and selling into panics).
And if you are any good, there is also the free incubation / audit potential. One used to pay for this priviledge at least $5k a year before NET 2.0... And if you aren't, then your money invested there won't be wasted either, because there is at least one guy whose equity curve I really liked, so I suppose they got me hooked already.
It seems though they have some wrinkles to iron out first before they start attracting CTAs and ex-traders on top of SeekingAlpha bloggers... :
* you can only charge an asset-based management fee, i.e. NO INCENTIVE FEE permitted, so the real work of earning alpha for the clients will not be rewarded at all. Compensation structure suitable for backfitted system vendors and no good for hedgies / CTAs. After all, when trading for a living, you can pay yourself only the exact fee which is missing here...
* they cap your management fee (at 2.30% p.a.) but no caps for client funds, they can grow to any size, stifling your edge,
* painfully delayed auto-replication ("typically less than two minutes"), so prepare for slippage (the more adverse the better you are), especially if the large time window has been left for tail-gaters (this is financial industry after all...)
* they require mutual-fund-style instant liquidity (no minimum holding / lock-up periods so no illiquid assets either),
* no derivatives (but surely that should include a ban on leveraged and inverse ETFs, which are obviously worse than the things they wanted to avoid, especially for longer time frames),
* shorting considered too risky (will give you a risk score of 2/5, barring all incoming IRA money),
* full trade history visible for everyone to see and reverse-engineer (not merely portfolio composition, but full trade history delayed by just 1 day, which is sometimes good enough to repicate performance without subscription...)
* excessively large minimum investment (the usual $25k PDT minimum for daytrading strategies), too large to attract funds from the average guy. After all, they sell mutual funds in units of 100 bucks not without a reason - a quarter of Americans have < $1k and 40% < $10k in savings...)
So in essence they say they are for the small guy but in fact expect them to bring the large guy's capital. Worse still, they plan to compensate advisors of large guys with small guy's fees and in return require high levels of protection, transparency, and liquidity, typical of those seen only in small guy offerings... so it won't work for clients and won't work for advisors either. But I'm wrong in 60% of cases, so don't bet on that
