Nick Radge's Weekend Trend Trader

[minwa]

...You managed to miss my point. I also compared it to managed funds (in performance fees - using YOUR example of not paying whilst in drawdown; I simply queried whether you think you should pay more when the system OUTperforms?)

Look - you missed it. What I am saying is - in my opinion - you buy a system. For $10, $100 or $1000. You like the system. You like its stats etc. And YOU decide to trade it. Do you owe the system provider any of your profits? Do they owe you a refund because the system went into drawdown? Are you seriously suggesting they do?

So - assuming (and that's a big assumption) you agree with me in buying a "one off" system...how does that differ to a "signal provider?" If you like the newsletter's philosophy and disclosed stats etc enough to use it - that's your choice. That's my opinion. It's your choice whether to keep going or not in a drawdown. Again - does the vendor owe you anything? Do you owe them anything?

Of course- there's nothing to stop a vendor offering the money back - that's their business choice.


...I only invest in one fund, and I'm the investment manager.

Buying a system that you then "own" is different to a ongoing subscription. I agree if you see the stats for the system and then buy it and assuming the stats were correct, the vendor owes no refunds. For an ongoing subscription it is different.

Buying a system is like a buying a lawn mower how you use it is up to you. Subscribing to an ongoing subscription that losses money consistently over the defined period (say 1 month for short term trading portfolios or 3 months for intermediate holdings) is like continuing to pay for a gardener to work on your garden but with weeds growing faster than they are cut.

On outperformance, it is up to the vendor if they want to increase the price of their subscription as their signals keeps generating better performance than the last period. I will bet that given the choice, people will be more than happy to pay higher subscription fees next period if this period performs better than the last as opposed to paying for a subscription keeps losing money.

 

[Muschu]

I've had some experience with Nick on a business level and it was all good.

I've also seen Nick's actions on a personal level and I will say this, he has helped a very young man facing very significant adversities. Nick has donated his time, money and efforts to this person without asking anything in return. I will always hold Nick in a very high regard and will always believe money is not his sole objective in life. I found him to be someone who genuinely cares about your success in life, not just in investing.

He is, without a doubt, an educator, not someone just after your money.

I've met Nick a couple of times and communicated with him by phone and email.

My view is that he and his wife are very authentic and good people who also contribute to our society in selfless ways that are unrelated to their business.

As for the business model and its merit .... DYOR... I think a 14 day trial costs $19 and that this gives access to an enormous amount of current and historic data as well as views on future direction.

Rick

 

[skc]

My on Radge based on my subscription to his service back in 2009 for 6 months, when I just got into trading.

Positives
- Service was as much educational as it was giving signals. He taught about reading charts as well as trade and risk management.
- Service was fairly priced.
- It requires fairly minimal efforts to follow.
- Nick was approachable and appeared geniune. He signed a copy of his book (it came with the subscription) with personal encouragement which made me felt warm and fuzzy.

Negatives
- Results were patchy and overall probably just paid for the subscription fee and probably didn't cover cost of capital over the period I subscribed.
- It had too many breakout type setup for what was a pretty volatile period. And it was a bit too slow to capitalise on market reversals (e.g. the current market has been ripe for shorting for 2 weeks, but Radge's system may still be waiting for another 150 point fall before break of support is confirmed).
- It's trend following without regards to fundamentals (which is fine) but it disagreed with my emerging style which relied on both analysis.

Overall I rated the experience as a big positive. The principals in trade and risk management that I learned stayed with me till this day. It may not be the best system to live off (as drawdown/quiet periods can be long), but I think it's quite suitable for someone with a regular income and little trading experience. You can go into the market reasonably well protected from massive drawdown and learn some universally useful principals of trading. If you make some profit on the side it's a bonus. If you grow your interest in the market as a result and develop your own style and turn into a full time trader... even better.

So on that note I don't think an audited result was that important to me. Every signal he called live were recorded on his website for all subscriber to see. I don't know how far back the data is available to current subscribers but I'd imgaine someone here can quickly tell us.

Please again note that my subscription was some 5 years ago so many many things may have changed.

On outperformance, it is up to the vendor if they want to increase the price of their subscription as their signals keeps generating better performance than the last period. I will bet that given the choice, people will be more than happy to pay higher subscription fees next period if this period performs better than the last as opposed to paying for a subscription keeps losing money.

Neither here nor there imho. As long as the seller of the subscription spells out that conditions, it's up to the buyer to decide whether that is acceptable. Any system will go into drawdown over different periods, and with Radge's services, any reduction in subscription fee is likely very small relative to the drawdown (and any subsequent profit) anyway.

 

[tech/a]

Both educational programs being run by accredited organisations and with qualifying examinations and physical checks all along the way.
Doesn't really seem like a practical analogy to me, though I understand the point you're trying to make.

You can do Finance as a degree and I've been told academics are terrible traders. Particularly if they attempt discretionary trading. Dr Bruce Vanstone is an academic who teaches his trading knowledge and its pretty intense and its pretty expensive---you don't come out with a degree or diploma.
You could add Dr Howard Bandy into the mix.

Guys like Nick have actually worked and traded not only their accounts but the accounts of some pretty high stake traders and have more experience than 99% of those here. They know what works---they know that "When you get it you get it for life.

They also know that its not going to be profits every month or even every year of your trading life. They know there will be years of feast and years of famine. The general public accept the Feast but not the famine. They'll jump ship as soon as THEY anticipate a change of fortune. Accepting the advice when its profitable and rejecting it when in drawdown. Frankly I want to know how the Pros handle bad times---anyone can handle good times.

And nothing wrong with that. Unlike medicine or aviation, all the necessary information is available for free on the internet. Anyone with a reasonable comprehension capacity can become financially literate.
The same cannot be said of someone wishing to become a doctor or a pilot.

I think this is true and possible for those who have a longer time horizon.
But those who wish to trade really should in my view get quality guidance.
Not just to regurgitate but to learn---watch and see their light bulb moment where the KNOW they GET IT.
Then they have it for life!

 

[RegularGains]

Contact Radge

I did and he just replied:

We operate three portfolios within the US PowerSetups service. A membership gives you access to all three.

(1) The Discretionary Portfolio will trade on the short side during down markets. The two systematic strategies are long only and will revert to cash.
(2) You do not require any software.
(3) Returns since Jan 2013 includes IB standard comm rates:
Discretionary: +39.5%
Systematic "Original": +48.5%
Systematic "HFT": +24.6% (note: this strategy requires margin. Margin was not available for 5 months last year rendering the strategy useless)

Nick

 

[PinguPingu]

Does anyone know how the Growth portfolio is going? With the ASX YTD being ~-1% now it would be interesting to see a comparison.

Just trading the ASX50 div momentum trades have been great this year, its also been in cash this entire decline. It will be interesting to see how it performs going forward if we get interest rate rises.

Interesting note, his ASX 'Hit & Run' discretionary set up hasn't traded since September 9th, and with this recent decline it is now outperforming the ASX with a return of 19.23% vs 13.99% since Jan 1st 2013 when it was implemented. But like the momentum strategy, under 2 years is not enough time to make a true judgement.

 

[Sir Burr]

I believe so.
I don't know monthly results
But on a few occasions I remember Nick commenting on how well it was going with double digit returns
I remember thinking at the Time that it was extraordinary ,excellent, well above average,impressive.
It's a short term method which is very active in the market.
you get the trades emailed or " The chartist " can for a fee handle your trades.
Thats about all I know.

We hardly ever talk trading!

Tech,

From the post above:

Systematic "HFT": +24.6% (note: this strategy requires margin. Margin was not available for 5 months last year rendering the strategy useless)

Same period S&P500 gained 35% vs HFT 24.6%.

I'm not for a second saying Nick isn't excellent at what he does but the numbers do not match extraordinary.

 

[tech/a]

Ok whatever
Clearly the method was designed to trade with margin
And it would have done better had IB retained it's margin for Aussi traders---- but if you insist.

I was talking about a conversation some time ago and he was
Happy with the US method. The figures he was chatting about a the time was
In my view extraordinary.

To most people a profit is extraordinary.

 

[burglar]

... To most people a profit is extraordinary.

Yes. I remember profit ... from the old days .... and savings!!!

I remember savings too.

 

[Porper]

Yes. I remember profit ... from the old days .... and savings!!!

I remember savings too.

What many tend to forget is that we aren't in a bull market...unlike the U.S. It's a bear market bounce with the banks, Telstra etc. pretty much dragging the XJO higher by themselves. This is why most traders are struggling. Even proven mechanical systems have been/are struggling though nothing changes...we have been here before and will be again in the future. Patience, as the good times will return...just not yet. Those that have diversified into other markets are doing ok.

 

[Julia]

To most people a profit is extraordinary.

???? Then what are we all doing here?

 

[tech/a]

???? Then what are we all doing here?

Well I'm interacting

 

[piggybank]

Well it appears the feedback from the Amazon buyers (of Nick's above mentioned book) have been very positive...

http://www.amazon.com/Weekend-Trend.../178-2513996-9462426?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

 

[Sean K]

Does anyone have any experience using Nick Radge's Weekend Trend Trader?

Thinking of buying his TurnKey code. The system generates an incredible MAR (CAGR/maxDD) of 1.16 on the US market (Russell 3000 small cap) over 17 years (1995 - 2012).

I still haven't seen this validated. 17 years of audited results? Tech was going to ask Radge about this.

 

[Wysiwyg]

I still haven't seen this validated. 17 years of audited results? Tech was going to ask Radge about this.

Would it be illegal to advertise a subscription service that was based on a backtest?

Thinking of buying his TurnKey code. The system generates an incredible MAR (CAGR/maxDD) of 1.16 on the US market (Russell 3000 small cap) over 17 years (1995 - 2012).

 

[Sean K]

Would it be illegal to advertise a subscription service that was based on a backtest?

Good question. I'll ask ASIC.

 

[tech/a]

I still haven't seen this validated. 17 years of audited results? Tech was going to ask Radge about this.

Radge is still in the US and I'm still on a ship in the Pacific

Would it be illegal to advertise a subscription service that was based on a backtest?

Why?

If you did have audited results for 17 yrs then if you failed to match the results you could argue you haven't traded 17 yrs.
Infact pretty well 100 % of traders who subscribe to a method fail to hold through any drawdown
And it could be argued are their own worst enemies.

Mind you if a method I was trading systematically traded outside of the farthest range of deviation I'd close out as well.
But that's not the case in most cases I know of.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Why?

Most of those FX Expert Advisors are sold on back test results after optimisation so probably all good. Not interested really as I don't even follow the guy. His business and I wish him well.

 

[systematic]

I don't understand the vitriol. I took a look at the book thanks to this thread, it was a nice little read. Always nice to see a backtest in a book (however short) as opposed to the 99.99% of other books that don't bother.

Re: buying the code: isn't that what you're buying? The code to run the system on software? Back tested results are just that; a test going backwards in time to see how something you've proposed would have done. Never mind the details, pitfalls etc involved...that's the essence of it.

If I have a theory that stocks mentioned over a certain frequency on ASF outperform the market over the next time period...I can back test that. Whether it was a good back test or a poorly constructed, over optimised, data fitted back test (happens all too often, including in academia)...is another (important) story.

Anyway, I thought that's how most system code was sold? Standard sort of back tests provided...up to the buyer to decide if that fits their needs or not (meaning; the type of back testing itself, not just the results).

So, what's the prob?

 

[banco]

A number of years ago the annual results of the growth portfolio was on the actual chartist website but they were taken down at some point.