|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
At 10:42 PM 6/7/98 -0400, Michael Mermer wrote:
>Now that we all have had a chance to meet, I am the developer of ETS.
Nothing to pound your chest over.
>Those of you who want guarantees in this business will find it hard >to
be successful traders—it doesn’t fit well with proper trading
>mentality.
Is that why you include them on your promotion material?
>In this business, tire kickers are a dime a dozen.
Unfortunately so are double talking system vendors.
>We look to do business with serious traders only.
That's a great line, might work on NEWCOMERS, but what about the rest of
THE LIST?
>Put up $200 and get a month’s worth of the advisory signals to see for
>yourself if it is worthwhile. (This is not an offer to buy or sell
>commodities etc.).
Why bother when the public record is so ordinary?
>Those of you who were too lazy to check our entire web site neglected
to
>see our AUDITED performance records which were prepared by an outside
firm
>based on real trades.
Yes and we will be asking the CFTC to check the ENTIRE SITE AND ALL THE
OTHER RECORDS before December 1997 because now that you mention it you
seem to be posting only part of the record. The public record shows
mixed performance at best before that and since you are threatening
legal action maybe the CFTC AND NFA should review the accuracy of your
public claims and check its policy on that misleading informational CTA
status you so are hiding behind.
>We have been consistently profitable on the S&P day trading up around
100% per >contract on a $25,000 account since December.
Let's see the software has been out for over one and a half years and
you are publishing audit stetement for only 4 to 5 months. Why is that
Michael Mermer? What about the period before December. Maybe we should
just let the regulators look at the records. The CFTC likes actual
trading records for the whole period the system has been offered to the
public. Not just the period you choose to show for sales purposes. As a
lawyer you should have thought of that.
>These are real numbers, not just the TradeStation Performance Summaries
so
>many of you rely on.
Who are you trying to kid the public or the CFTC ?
>I wish I could say for sure that it will continue to
>make this type of money in the future, but no one knows the outcome of
>future trades for sure and this is why we have to say that Past
Performance
>Cannot Guarantee Future Results.
You have to say that because the CFTC regulations force you to. Try not
to speak with forked tongue.
>Our advisory also teaches discipline which is just as important as the
>technicals. If you don’t have the stomach to take the trades, you
cannot
>system trade and make money trading any system.
Is that why you are a saleman instead of a trader or lawyer?
The real reason you came on this list to threaten people is because if
this list saw what was really in your code you'd be out of business.
It's easy to mark up a screen with a long trade when a series of
indicators and show me that are as simple as placing a bar on time,
paint these bars if c>c[1] and c[1]>c[2] and c[2]>c[3].... etc.
Nobody needs to see your code. All they need to look at is the public
record of the system.
Al Went
|