Stock Reports/Newsletters

[banco]

Sure why not? It doesn't stop us [the newsletter writers] from taking positions. It simply provides an alternative income stream, and assuming we are correct, bragging rights.

But more importantly, what might the prospective subscriber gain? Over time I suggest that they will learn how to analyse the market, how to trade trends, which is not as easy as one might imagine, and learn to spot major inflection points, in short, an education.

In addition, if they are trading the signals, they will make a profit. So an education and profits, seems fair for $400/year. Of course, if they are unhappy, many will provide a pro-rata refund, or simply subscribe for short introductory periods of time.

jog on
duc

Of the subscription services I subscribed to only one of them provided proof that they traded on their own signals but even then it was clear they only traded signals on one of their portfolios (out of about 6). It also seemed very likely that the vast bulk of their income was derived from subscription payments. In the account for the one portfolio they traded there was (from memory) slightly over $100,000 in the account.

 

[pixel]

I don't want to get sued so I won't name names but I've subscribed to a few of them. Some of the things I've seen:

Recommending lots of trades (too many for any one to take) and then pointing to the succesful ones

The prices of the subscriptions are usually so high that unless you have a large account you are starting way behind the 8 ball. If you are paying $1000 and you have $50000 to trade with you are already down 2%.

+1

... neither would I want to name names of those, whose recommendations I've followed in the past and found ... very mediocre ...

 

[wombat40]

+1

... neither would I want to name names of those, whose recommendations I've followed in the past and found ... very mediocre ...

Dont get it, why cant anyone name names? how else can anyone steer clear of em..

Also arent we in a free country still....its not Afghanistan or Korea here..

 

[ducati916]

Of the subscription services I subscribed to only one of them provided proof that they traded on their own signals but even then it was clear they only traded signals on one of their portfolios (out of about 6). It also seemed very likely that the vast bulk of their income was derived from subscription payments. In the account for the one portfolio they traded there was (from memory) slightly over $100,000 in the account.

So it is your expectation that they trade their own signal? Why?

If they provide accurate recommendations, why worry if they do/do not actually trade themselves? I could argue that by not trading, they do not become emotionally involved in the analysis, and thus provide better signals.

Conversely, some like to trade their own signal.

The important point however is this: are the signals accurate, and could you trade them to make money? There was an example of a service providing numerous trades, and taking all of them would be difficult, if not impossible.

If the answer is yes to both questions, then who cares whether the author trades his own signal or not: you have a win/win situation, he receives income from subscriptions, you receive income from trading.

jog on
duc

 

[banco]

So it is your expectation that they trade their own signal? Why?

If they provide accurate recommendations, why worry if they do/do not actually trade themselves? I could argue that by not trading, they do not become emotionally involved in the analysis, and thus provide better signals.

Conversely, some like to trade their own signal.

The important point however is this: are the signals accurate, and could you trade them to make money? There was an example of a service providing numerous trades, and taking all of them would be difficult, if not impossible.

If the answer is yes to both questions, then who cares whether the author trades his own signal or not: you have a win/win situation, he receives income from subscriptions, you receive income from trading.

jog on
duc

Yes I'm sure if people were making money from the signals noone would care. Although in the case I'm thinking of I suspect the short term signals lost money and this could well have a been a factor in why the vendor failed to trade their own signals.

Absent liquidity considerations I'm not sure why a vendor wouldn't trade at least a portion of their signals if they genuinely thought they had an edge? It's no secret that there's a big difference between paper trading and live trading. How would the vendor know how their trading signals were really faring in the market if they never trade them?

 

[ducati916]

Yes I'm sure if people were making money from the signals noone would care. Although in the case I'm thinking of I suspect the short term signals lost money and this could well have a been a factor in why the vendor failed to trade their own signals.

Absent liquidity considerations I'm not sure why a vendor wouldn't trade at least a portion of their signals if they genuinely thought they had an edge? It's no secret that there's a big difference between paper trading and live trading. How would the vendor know how their trading signals were really faring in the market if they never trade them?

I would agree that if the signals were losing money, then the author/vendor of those signals would be silly, or unlikely to trade them. But this is essentially irrelevant: you as the purchaser of said newsletter/signal, would also become aware, quite quickly, that you were in point of fact, losing money, and end the subscription.

This brings us to an important point. How is the newsletter sold? If you have to pay an entire year upfront, with no pro rata cancellation refund, yes, I agree, you potentially have a problem, and also possibly defrauded.

However if you can subscribe on a weekly basis, and have various other options with regard to subscription periods, then your 'risk' is small, essentially the cost of a brokerage fee, and if you are unhappy, viz. losing money, you simply never purchase another issue.

If however you make money, then, presumably, you would be happy to purchase another weeks newsletter?

There is a difference between 'paper-trading' and 'live-trading' absolutely. However the newsletter writer does not fall into the 'trading' model on either count, or rather, he need not. The author is producing a signal, or recommendations: it is really irrelevant as to whether he trades the signal or not. The only consideration is - is the signal accurate?

Therefore his skill as a trader is not what is being sold: it is the validity of his analysis and it's contribution to your realizing a profit, and thus receiving value from his product.

You can always stop by my blog, pick a newsletter, and ask questions about it. I'm pretty much always around during US market hours, possibly that may answer some of your questions and garner me a 'sale'!

jog on
duc

 

[freebird54]

I subscribe to most and always on the lookout for replacements.

I have heard good reports on this one...............

http://locantro.com/locantros-life - anyone like to comment please?

 

[freebird54]

Anyone like to comment on how they are doing - I have subscribed to most and the quality varies from year to year.

Particularly Eureka, Huntleys, anything from Port Phillip publishing, Rivkin, Fat Prophets, The Chartist,

 

[freebird54]

Newsletters/tipsheets etc.

I have subscribed to most over the years and still look at Eureka, Motley fool,Fat prophets, stockdoctor etc.for their performance.

I have a friend using a new one "Equity story" which has excellent returns on mostly small caps following short term trends and taking small profits.

Check their website - they publish their performance not like many.

I may give them a try - anyone any experience?

 

[skc]

Re: Newsletters/tipsheets etc.

I have subscribed to most over the years and still look at Eureka, Motley fool,Fat prophets, stockdoctor etc.for their performance.

I have a friend using a new one "Equity story" which has excellent returns on mostly small caps following short term trends and taking small profits.

Check their website - they publish their performance not like many.

I may give them a try - anyone any experience?

The record they published showed about 90% hit rate... with the average win of 17% vs average loss of -5%, over ~330 trades .

The chance of this being legit is not zero...