|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Bob - I discussed the time-resolution issue many times with major tick data
vendors.....
ESignal, Quote.com, ...etc.
I told them I don't want to be swamped with millions of ticks each minute,
just send me OHLC each minute.
Every time the response I got was "huh ?...yeah, right".
Bottomline: If they are successful NOW, you can't tell 'em ANYTHING.....they
KNOW IT ALL.
Doesn't this sound like Tradestation Tech ?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Fulks [mailto:bfulks@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 10:42 AM
> To: Igor Kaplun
> Cc: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: NEW ERA
>
>
> At 2:11 AM -0500 1/6/02, Igor Kaplun wrote:
>
> >There is a lot of companies feel that this is the time to pop up.
> >There will be many new trading programs at the spring, which will grow
> >like mushrooms after the rain.
> >
> >I believe that there is a NEW ERA in trading software developing is
> >comming up.
>
> The market for such software is too small to justify a major product
> development such as a TradeStation replacement would be. Lots of
> smart people have looked at this. You just cannot make enough money
> selling the software to justify the development cost.
>
> The number of serious traders is not that large and the percentage of
> those who can write programs is even smaller. Vendors have tried the
> "drag and drop together signals to make a trading system" approach
> but we all know that never works.
>
> Omega made it by enticing newbies to part with their money with slick
> TV ads and monthly payment plans, figuring that their customers would
> wake up after a year or so and put the software on the shelf and not
> bother them anymore. Unfortunately, the original software was clever
> enough so that some professional traders kept using it and kept
> bothering Omega for support and enhancements. Omega maintained their
> "don't feed them and maybe they will go away" attitude anyway.
>
> There are several good "small" programs such as Ensign, etc., from
> basically one-man companies but they are not in the same class as
> TradeStation.
>
> But there clearly is a vacuum now that Omega has moved on to
> whatever. It is clear that they are now in the "milk the cash cow"
> mode and the cow is getting pretty old... (Perhaps they will wake up
> and come back to their roots.)
>
> I would suspect that the successor will be some tie-in to a service
> such as a data provider.
>
> Data-on-demand is a great concept but it requires more than just
> gluing together old stuff. It is a paradigm shift - a transition in
> the market. I can think of lots of things.
>
> Picture being able to send your stock selection filter to the
> provider and and having them search through thousands of symbols and
> send you only those that meet your criteria.
>
> Picture a system that would give you high-relative strength stocks,
> stocks with analysts upgrades, stocks breaking above their 50-day
> moving average - and all the ratings you can find in Investor's
> Business Daily or any combination or weighting of them.
>
> Maybe they could sell it bundled with data, and a trading system that
> REALLY WORKED. Just add the user and he starts making money. Think
> that would sell? It should be really easy using daily bars and could
> let ma and pa manage their IRA more scientifically. Just thinking of
> all of my retired friends who listened to the brokerage hype and
> watched their retirement money disappear during the recent melt-down
> really distresses me.
>
> If they really want to get fancy they could even include some
> intelligent asset allocation algorithms that would at least give
> the buy/hold investor a fighting chance.
>
> How about historical back-testing with good tick-level continuous
> contract data on demand.
>
> How about a clean consistent symbol naming convention to standardize
> the mess we have today on all the exchanges.
>
> How about some time resolution between one-minute data and tick data.
> One minute seem like an eternity now days but who needs 400 ticks per
> minute on symbols such as QQQ, ES, CSCO. Having 0.1 minute would be
> OK or one-second would be overkill. Come-on guys, this isn't rocket
> science...
>
> I think people would pay a reasonable monthly fee for lots of these
> capabilities.
>
> The software will be the "razor" you get for free but the services
> will be the "blades" where they make all the money.
>
> Ah... We can dream...
>
> Bob Fulks
>
>
|