Coming soon: free P123 membership + Designer terms chages

Announcements
121

Konstantin - I appreciate that you found the old RS optimizer tutorials, and that your English is not so good, it must be tough making arguments in this forum under such circumstance. So whether right or wrong, I have made my suggestions to P123 about R2G, you have also. I’m sure they will figure out what they want and I don’t have any problem if they stomp on each one of my ideas. I’m just trying to contribute and generate ideas based on what I see.

Performance - I have a very strong will on this issue and unfortunately I am dragging you and other readers through the mud. Do you work for someone? Do you remember your last annual performance review with your boss? Now did you talk about what you did in the last year, or did you tell your boss what you could have done if you didn’t have absurd deadlines, resource shortages, and all the planets were in alignment. Performance is what you actually did, it is your record, it is not an ideal scenario about what could have been. Now there is nothing wrong with using in-sample data to judge whether a model is right for you, but you must understand the context of the backtest data, and also that it is not performance. The problem I have is that the more times the word performance is repeated in reference to backtest, the more credence it takes on. It may seem insignificant to you, but is huge deal to me, and I worry about newbies not familiar with the development process.

Steve

122

Let me state a Thing as a designer and (!) an Investor / Trader using P123.

Using p123 is a 1000 times more important to me than making big bucks as a designer.
Leveraging the possibilities of p123 and trading up my port is the main target. Here is the real money!
The Designing Part is nice because I can view my models in competition to other models and I love it, if subs have success and most importantly to build up a long term Reputation over the next 5-10 Years.
Nevertheless p123 knows where to go strategically and if this way supports my designing part, why not take that opportunity?
In this context I think the Idea of p123 to attract more r2g subscribers is a good idea for p123 (20% for p123) and for Providers (e.g. streamline the Sub process and free Membership for only r2g subscribing).
Why should I not Support that opportunity and take Advantage?
One question I really had is, how Georg is attracting that amount of subs (obviously his models are great and 10 times better than mine, but still).
Well I guess he will not tell me (which is totally fine!) so I still second to streamlining of the subscription process and free Membership, because it will attract more subs for p123 and r2gs.
Nevertheless: To put users of p123 and r2gs providers (and subs) in opposite directions is not a good idea.
Finding Win-Win situations creates success! The cake is never too small!
I want p123 be successful forever, so I like everything that puts money into the pockets of p123!

123

Steve, I think have understand your worries of naming in-sample data “performance”. What is better, to forbid or to educate? I think “forbidding” will just do complicate things. In my point of view it is better to educate investors in every possible way. For example not just put disclaimer into model description, but explain why in-sample performance, while still performance, should not be relied on evaluating model quality. Here goes all the simulation context and variables differences from the real experience.

My next question: if you can’t rely on in-sample performance and there is some uncertainty in the OOS data as well (there are still some assumptions made in OOS and markets constantly changes)… what would you propose to investors evaluate models with? You saying this is not designer decision how to present models on P123. I do agree. But let’s imagine P123 have removed any in-sample and OOS data, what should be presented? Even for OOS we do have now 2-2.5 years of bull market with low rates. Do you think this is reliable data to predict the future?

Steve, why do you worry about “the results for one of my models was negatively impacted according to my simulations”? This is just in-sample and underlying changes was for good. This is just simulation. Who cares? Investors should not be interested. You do not objecting to changes made and you know the background. So why?

Andreas, this is very good idea! The problem is in timing. Some homework should be done before you get to the real job. Here we get to the point. Guess, who did not done his homework? Is it P123?[quote]
…One question I really had is, how Georg is attracting that amount of subs. … Well I guess he will not tell me (which is totally fine!) so I still second to streamlining of the subscription process and free Membership…
[/quote] This is what I am objecting to. To know it is possible, so… ignore this.

We don’t know the future, but I will try to predict. There will be no sustainable positive results from free membership and then will go: separate web site, pretty design, advertising and… yes, there could be positive result finally. The question is it wise, optimal and who will pay?

No matter if to call in-sample “performance” or not, if it is good idea to introduce free membership or not my point is we are not ready to go into wider market. But if this is the only way to get this to designers, let it be, let designers face the market.

P.S. Steve, thank you for understanding.

124

Konstantin -

“For example not just put disclaimer into model description, but explain why in-sample performance, while still performance…”

You aren’t getting it. In-sample data is generated at the click of a mouse button. You don’t like it? Simply change a parameter and click again. There is nothing performance related about this. It seems we need to start with educating you.

“the results for one of my models was negatively impacted according to my simulations”

As the designer of the model, knowing the context of the backtest (i.e. what, why, how, etc), I can scrutinize the simulation. A potential subscriber cannot as he/she doesn’t have the background for the development of the model. Also, the model has been lackluster ever since the change. So is it a question of the model “as designed” being lackluster, or “as modified by P123”? I can’t tell because I don’t have access to the original industry factors.

“if you can’t rely on in-sample performance and there is some uncertainty in the OOS data as well… what would you propose to investors evaluate models with?”

There is no uncertainty in OOS results. That is the designer’s track record and needs to be displayed. Would you invest in a model without knowing a designer’s track record? Would you be comfortable knowing people are investing in models with the belief that in-sample is a track record? This is an entirely different issue than predicting future performance. As I said before, one should evaluate based on the strategy as outlined by the designer, the designer’s entire track record (not just the particular model of interest), and what you know about the designer.

“We don’t know the future, but I will try to predict. There will be no sustainable positive results from free membership and then will go: separate web site, pretty design, advertising and… yes, there could be positive result finally. The question is it wise, optimal and who will pay?”

I’m sure that P123 can figure out their business strategy. I can tell you that it takes a good year for most people to warm up to P123, myself included. So if we can get people to sign up for one R2G model and keep them subscribed for a year then it is quite possible they will ugrade for more features.

Steve

125

As partly our discussion have moved to another thread I will not repeat my arguments about performance (we already agreed to disagree on this) and getting deep into simulation.

[quote]
There is no uncertainty in OOS results. That is the designer’s track record and needs to be displayed. Would you invest in a model without knowing a designer’s track record?
[/quote] Maybe there is no uncertainty in OSS results for designer. There are a lot for investor. At least due to financial market inconsistency in time, not to speak about too short OSS record for P123. You can display it or not, but this is far away from the designer track record you can rely on. So still, for a different reason, but not too much difference between in-sample and OOS performance on P123 at the moment. So comparable and not enough supply present on P123 now.

[quote]
I’m sure that P123 can figure out their business strategy. I can tell you that it takes a good year for most people to warm up to P123, myself included. So if we can get people to sign up for one R2G model and keep them subscribed for a year then it is quite possible they will ugrade for more features.
[/quote] While this could be true, there will be very little number of those who will upgrade, mostly advanced investors willing to DIY with no reasonable supply from P123 community. I am a little bit puzzled why we are talking about this? Are we targeting for designers community growth?

I will add sustainability factor to my questioning on free subscription introduction timing: is it wise, optimal and who will pay after?

126

"Maybe there is no uncertainty in OSS results for designer. "

There is no uncertainty for anyone, within the bounds of simulated performance. So yes there can be some variance due to liquidity/slippage. But in-sample is not performance as previously discussed.

I don’t understand the second part of your question. If the R2G model offered turns out to be “good” and P123 provides good service, the subscriber may stick around. The longer the subscriber sticks around, the greater chance they will upgrade to full P123 membership. This is about statistics.

Steve

127

As for OOS, you answer to me[quote]
"Maybe there is no uncertainty in OSS results for designer. "

There is no uncertainty for anyone, within the bounds of simulated performance. So yes there can be some variance due to liquidity/slippage. But in-sample is not performance as previously discussed.
[/quote] and then to Marc [quote]
“I have noticed another disturbing trend: out-of-sample results are being elevated to gospel. This is just not so. Out-of-sample results, just like simulations, are nothing more than possible outcomes of a strategy.”

So while out of sample results are not “gospel”, they are what designers’ reputations live and die by.
[/quote] So while I do understand your feeling and designers panic do you understand that what is good for designer is much different for investor?

And I see support from Marco on in-sample vs. OOS [quote]
This is just not so. Out-of-sample results, just like simulations, are nothing more than possible outcomes of a strategy.
[/quote] I still think my argument on OOS vs. sim underperformance is reasonably compelling.

And still as I have outlined [quote]
7 R2Gs are free, have on average 17,06% Annualized Combined vs. 18,38% Annualized Launch outperforming by 7.7% with total 583 subscribers
[/quote] no matter how much PIT mess is in the data and how the calculation algos have changed! This is that I call robust.

As for free membership leads [quote]
I don’t understand the second part of your question. If the R2G model offered turns out to be “good” and P123 provides good service, the subscriber may stick around. The longer the subscriber sticks around, the greater chance they will upgrade to full P123 membership. This is about statistics.
[/quote] There most probably will be no upgrades from free “investor” membership to payed Investor membership. What is the reason? To became a designer? This is exactly what I am asking about [quote]
Are we targeting for designers community growth?
[/quote] Most probably there will be downgrades [quote]
I am only using R2G. Would I be able to downgrade to the free version and still keep the R2G’s I currently am subscribing to?
[/quote] And most probably the flow from free membership will be out for another shop due to the models quality and pricing policy as outlined above in the thread and much earlier by designers .

Steve, it is getting a bit fun as I just can answer to your arguments with your own another arguments. Please, note, I think this is unethical and I don’t want to do this “public stoning” on a constant basis and will not. The worst is that this is have nothing to do with a themes we are trying to discuss. In my understanding this is because there are too much of just black and white in your argumentation. I do believe this was the point Marc was trying to pass to you:

[quote]
You’re so committed to trying to wage verbal battle…
[/quote][quote]
Steve, check back to me when your mind is open.
[/quote] I really do not want to have an enemies here, especially peoples like you. There is just no reason for this apart our discussion style. While we can make it rough (I am from steel manufacturing ind., I can handle this) let’s not miss the point. I think there is NOTHING certain about investment and an economy in general. Please, try to put more “gray” into you argumentation, do not make apocalyptic scenarios. There are a lot of true and experience in your words but this black&white style just keeps you and people fixed on the minor things, not the main point.

128

Konstantin my friend - I have never had anyone follow my words so intently before. I guess I’m going to count you as my first “groupie”. I don’t believe that there is inconsistency in any of my arguments. And you probably shouldn’t be quoting people from P123 as “gospel”, they are no more experts than you or I.

Steve

129

OH NO! HERE WE GO AGAIN!

Ever since Steve and Konstantin started arguing with each other in the middle of page 7 of this thread it has been difficult to find any meaningful or useful info on the subject. And we have had to read through long and drawn out dribble just to find out there isn’t anything worthwhile there. The 2 of them have posted 45 times since they started aguring adding very little to the original message of the thread. This while there have been only 18 posts from other members trying to get back on subject.

Steve & Konstantin, PLESE take your arguments to private emails, and leave the thread for discussions of the original subject. The argument between the 2 of you has become very annoying to the rest of us.

130

Steve, could this be because no one ever really listen to you and not trying to understand? Believe it or not this is your own words quoted. If not quoted, how do I PRESENT you inconsistent PERFORMANCE of your argumentation?

Denny, I am trying to get back to the main point in every of my last posts with no success, so you are probably right. I am finished.

131

When is the free membership Being launched?

132

Jonas,

Marco implied that it would be in September.

133

It’s live now. You can now subscribe only to R2G’s if you like. You can view and cancel any subscriptions under My Account->My Subscriptions. At the moment there are only two: your p123 sub + your r2g subs. We’ll have more a-la-carte subs soon. For example “additional books”, “additional ports” , “additional TRADE accounts”, etc.

Hopefully whatever business we loose from P123 subs cancelling , we’ll make it back from users that left because they only wanted r2g, or with a-la-carte biz.

We’ll do a proper announcement soon with emails to all ex-users, etc. Designers feel free to let your subs & leads know. Thanks

134

Quick Question, Will I have a free membership to subscribe to Smart Alpha after my trial runs out? There is no option to sign up for the free membership that I can find.

TY.

135

Hi, I could not test the sign up and booking of a smart Alpha at the same time (streamlined), the button Sign ups seems not to work…

136

jk8699, yes, even after your free trial is over you’ll still be able to subscribe to Smart Alpha models.

judgetrade - can’t follow that sentance. Streamlined? The button Sign ups? I’m not sure where the issue is here.

ted

137

In order to test this you Need to be logged out.

Go to Browse Modells
Choose a model

Click on the button sign up
“working” and then it stucks…

“https://www.portfolio123.com/app/signup/start”

…does not Show…

Also, there should be a possiblity to subscribe directly to the model and (getting a Trial member could be
an Option box in this process)

Regards

Andreas

P.S.
As Long this is not working, Advertising via Google does not make any sense, since p123 gets 20% of any r2g turnover, there should be some fokus on this…

138

pop to the top

139

I would like to second the following comments by iAvanti:

It makes perfect sense from a business perspective,

As a non R2G designer or user, I feel it is a shame that R2G is draining so much development attention, away from more P123 capabilities.

I would like to see movement in the direction of making P123 a viable, slimmed-down alternative to ClariFI or elements of FactSet. For instance, more fundamental data points. International data (tomorrow, please). Thorough and complete documentation. The ability to run, e.g., an iPython Notebook against the data (or any other interface that is flexible and powerful and consistently applied). The ability to load additional data to enhance my data set. Fully customisable panels (including the use of custom formulas) for portfolio name monitoring, watch list creation, etc., etc., etc.

140

D and All:

   I don't think its makes sense from a business perspective.  Bloodhound  is now offering multifactor ranking systems along with a TradeStation like user interface. (Something I've long advocated.)  Marco risks losing his core membership if other sites can deliver a better P123.  In general,  Marco has mostly ignored his core members in favor of some new members and R2G's.  Shame.

Bill