marco, fwiw - I think current AAII subscribers might be a potential audience. I found p123 after using the AAII Stock Investor Pro database for probably 20+ yrs (initially got CDs in the mail), and for users of that screening software the backtesting ability of p123 is a nice step up. There are so many investing philosophies and approaches that can be studied and implemented, but the inability to properly backtest ideas always bothered me. I don’t know how best to appeal to those users, but I suspect some potential customers are there and “backtesting” might be a powerful draw. I would’ve likely come to p123 sooner, I just didn’t understand this type of backtesting was possible.
We think alike. We’re attending, exhibiting, and doing a workshop at the AAII conference in October.
I’m agreed with that.
To me, as a non professional investor, it’s more reliable to invest or believe in easy-to-understand models, created by a professional enterprise (place the name of P123 here), rather than the group of designers you have here (no offense guys), because looks more trustworthy.
Then, maybe it is better to improve and expand the offer of your models, market them and create a two ways platform, one for individual investors and another one for developers, and of course create subscriptions for each of them, accordingly to the value of the product for the customer.
How about Designer Model +
I thought they were to augment one’s own models… diversification.
Low price 5 stock DM models by multiple designers and different themes that can be put into a book should be a prime use case.
Steve
Go for it, just try it out, tweak it, step by step. I you ask the existing customer base, they will only protect their own interests and have no downside / Skin in the game (in fear that too much Attention, capital goes into new ventures!)
Also, the customer does not want what he or she wants (until he or she sees it). Also you will find new customers.
Besides lacking international stocks P123 is fine!
At the end your ventures will pay out and also stabilise the existing Business Modell for existing customers.
If you want to innovate, do not ask existing customers / emloyees etc.
Go bold and apply Change Management (to employees and existing customers) by ensuring them, that
the Innovation is also in their interests.
Also you could Partner with your customers in this Business case (e.g. mixing it with customers who could
use p123 as a Plattform to build a Service like this.
Regards
Andreas
How about allowing Books as DMs? That should generate some interest.
What about international stocks?
Andreas,
good points! Agree wholheartedly.
Indeed, asking current customers what they want is futile because they don’t know what they want.
Classice example is Apple. They never asked what their customers wanted, they just innovated and came out with new products.
AFTER that, the customers “knew” what they wanted and bought Apple products in the millions.
P.S. Lange nicht mehr gesehen. Wieder mal ein Treffen? Von mir aus gerne.
Is there any way to go hunting for capital partners? Have a hedge fund division of P123 where you match people with capital with people running strategies. We provide the strategies and fees are split 50/50 with P123. Noviscient is doing this. Strategy designer and signal provider gets 20% and Noviscient gets 18%. Heck, they might even be interested in partnering with P123. Lots of very clever people here. It wouldn’t take long to inject $1 or $2mm into P123 doing this. I don’t know the regulations of how this works but ask Noviscient. They are currently doing it and its working well.
Yuval, here is my challenge.
I have just launched one of my best market timer models “Ultimate Stock- & Bond Market Trader”.
https://www.portfolio123.com/app/r2g/summary?id=1580577
This model picks 4 equity or fixed income ETFs depending on market climate as signaled by 6 underlying market timers.
It is time for you to list your best stock picks which you think will provide great returns in the future for prospective subscribers to the stock picking service. I suggest that you put your stocks into in a book for easy comparison with my ETF model.
We can then every month compare performance to see whether your stock combination does better than my “Ultimate Stock- & Bond Market Trader”.
Georg,
clicking on the link above, gives only “The model is not visible”.
Werner
Werner,
Sorry about that, perhaps it will become visible a bit later. Strange, I can see the page-views and number watching.
Attached are current holdings for my stock picking challenge.
Georg, I keep track of all my actual buys and sells in an “Invest” (manual) strategy called “Existing Positions.” I update my buys and sells nightly. I cannot (and would not wish to) make it public–that is not (yet) supported by our platform. I started recording my buys and sells on 3/25/19. Since then I have basically kept abreast with RSP, barely. See screen shot below for my performance. I have no reason to be proud of it, and wouldn’t be surprised if your strategy proves superior. A position in a highly leveraged ETF that is balanced with positions in more stable ETFs is a good idea. My track record since I started using P123’s ranking systems in November 2015 is a CAGR of 32.5%. Maybe yours is better over that same time period–I don’t know. All I know is that there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Automated strategies have beaten humans in chess and go and, recently, even no-limit six-player Texas hold 'em. Nonetheless, I believe that a truly skilled discretionary stock picker with years of experience who works at it every day can beat any one of us. She might indeed have some psychological handicaps that our systems don’t have. But there are limits to data, and the combination of human judgment, deep research, and long experience is hard to beat.
Furthermore, there are limits to the things that P123 systems can take into account. We have no way to examine the workings of different parts of a company–we can only look at it as a whole. We have no way to measure a company’s “moat,” and assessing its strategy on a purely numerical basis is a poor substitute for looking at the various components of a company’s business model. Our industry classifications are deeply flawed since they don’t take into account the fact that many companies work in more than one industry at a time. And so on.
Personally, all my stock-picking experience is with automated systems. I suspect this is true for many P!23 users. Discretionary stock picking will never be my forte–at least not until I do it for ten or twenty years straight. And I believe I’m too old to start now.
However, I would definitely be willing to pay to follow the strategies of some Seeking Alpha Marketplace providers if those strategies were manually input in real time so that their performance could be tracked, and if their performance was superior to mine, and if I judged that their stock picking was based on sound principles and practice.
@Werner. Yes lets meet up. I will be free of my Job about mid September and start my own Business. I will contact you after the summer.
Best Regards Andreas (Sorry for using this board to comunicate directly)
Andreas:
Prima!
I think you have my private email.
Bis dann,
Werner
Do not forget that it does not have to be one or the other (all machine or no machines). There is the “Quantamental” approach.
De Prado even mentions this approach as perhaps the best. However, it is hard to know whether this was just a technique to get some people who are on the fence to accept his arguments for machines or whether it was a real belief.
But even in de Prado’s formal quantitative methods at AQR Capital Management there are “fundamental analysts” helping to determine which factors to use. I take this to be people like Marc who help determine which factors are rational and will interact well together.
I did not know until Yuval posted it that Texas hold ‘em had fallen to the machines (DeepStack and Pluribus are two programs with Pluribus being a later program ) so I cannot add any information to Yuval’s points. But perhaps it does not have to be an either/or proposition for everyone.
As an aside, one article says the Texas Hold ‘em beating computer program (Pluribus) is looking for the Nash Equilibrium (which has been difficult to calculate for six players in the past). This, I think, is a good strategy if your opponent is not making any regular errors that do not deviate from her Nash Equilibrium. Capitalizing on (exploiting) your opponent’s errors takes you away from the Nash Equilibrium. In other words if your opponent bluffs too much (not a Nash Equilibrium) then you could win more by deviating from the Nash Equilibrium yourself—and calling more than the Nash Equilibrium would dictate.
In Rock-Paper-Scissors the Nash Equilibrium is to randomly pick one of the three. But if your opponent likes to repeat rock in those situations where she just lost with rock you should repeat paper yourself—until she learns what you were doing and starts to take advantage of your deviation from the Nash Equilibrium (i.e., repeating paper).
In addition to not deviating from the Nash Equilibrium for “weak” players (i.e., fallible humans) the program had no way to look for tells (e.g., no facial recognition or voice analysis for stress).
Looks like there is room for programmers to take even more of our money in poker (if we play). Probably in stock investing too (which we do play): except for some of the best humans, perhaps, as Yuval suggests.
-Jim
The more I think about it, the more I think it adds to P123. If the goal is to cater to both the retail investor and the guru then it’s actually a good idea. I see no reason not to do it other than the resources it may take away from other projects that may benefit me more, but that’s just greed talking.
Is it the intent to offer picks of anything, i.e. FX, foreign markets, crypto, options … securities that aren’t recognized by P123 or keep it within the scope of what is currently listed here?
Barn, only for what we have in the database since we need to track performance. That limits us right now to stocks and etfs for North America.
PS. we’ll make an announcement soon re. Europe. We are finalizing negotiations with vendors (yes, that’s an ‘s’ at the end)