|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Kevin,
You missed the point completey. As RB said..traders like to trade, not
spend an eternity trying to get their software to the point it can
actually test something. I'm sure a great tinkering programmer type who
hopes one day to have a great system would love QuantStudio...but for
the rest of the population it has a long way to go. Just as many other
competitors do...and their heading in the right direction. Tradestation
isn't even relevant here. It does what it does, and does it fairly
well...and that's it. There are many software applications out there
that are incredibly powerful. Most require an extreme level of
specialised skill to extract that power. The real power of software is
its ability to be powerful to the masses. That takes a lot of time and
effort, a lot of help from users, and some damn good programming. Very
few software programmes fall into this category.
Adrian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Sven Berg [mailto:ksberg@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, 28 February 2004 12:49 PM
> To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: QuantStudio
>
>
> RB,
>
> I think the auto analogy is a poor one, unless you're willing
> to admit that
> instead a car, you're riding a bicycle.
>
> There is a market for traders and firms that demand much more
> than offered
> by TradeStation (the GM equivalent). Where is the interchangeable,
> integrated portfolio management? Where is the
> interchangeable, integrated
> position sizing? Where is the interchangeable, integrated,
> cross-portfolio
> risk management? Can I do deep, multi-market quantitative
> analysis? Can I
> intermix multiple, dissimilar data sources and vendors? Does
> it route my
> trades into an accounting system? Does it do trade aggregation and
> separation for unitized accounting? Can I automatically route
> orders to the
> broker of my choice? And on, and on, and on ...
>
> While there are a number of after-market bolt-ons for
> TradeStation, the
> level of integration is often clumsy. The whole PushPop or
> global-access
> DLL route is an example of trying to work around platform
> limitations. At a
> certain point, it makes sense to examine alternatives.
>
> Excellent traders wield an edge. There is a whole market catering to
> traders who seek and create an edge using advanced tools.
> There are also
> trading firms that demand more out of a trading engine. For all these
> traders, most of the popular trading packages just don't cut it.
>
> Actually, I'm very encouraged by the recent direction in
> trading platforms.
> WealthLab starts to incorporate many of the items I mentioned
> above, and
> VeriTrader 2.0 looks to be a very exciting product as well.
>
> Still, there's nothing like having a custom tool set that can
> actually do
> what I need :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kevin
>
> ps. This is NOT an endorsement for QuantStudio, only a
> consideration for
> QS-like tools.
>
>
> At 03:37 PM 2/27/2004 -0800, you wrote:
> >Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:34:35 -0800
> >From: "RB" <rhodes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >Subject: Re: Re[5]: QuantStudio demo available
> >Message-ID: <009701c3fda3$6955c0b0$482d730a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset="iso-8859-1"
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> > Why put a company in that position?
> > Nobody would build a car that they use everyday from parts!
> >Everybody will buy a car ready to go.
> > Having and selling parts is big bussiness if you have parts to fit
> >Fords, GM, Dodge, Toyota, Honda etc. But having and selling
> parts to
> >fit nothing, or something you have to build in the first
> place, seems
> >to be a very poor bussiness model.
> > If a company wants to sell trading parts? Why not sell parts that
> >fut and go with all the trading software that is now
> available and used everyday?
> > Why sell parts for something, that you have to build
> yourself? May be OK
> >and you may end up with a great trading package that everyone will
> >want. It just seems that it is the wrong model and way to
> get things
> >that most traders will want and use.
> > In other words. I ain't going to build no car from nothing with
> >parts. And if you look around, you won't find many cars
> built that way.
> > Maybe, you were explaining your trading software wrong with the
> >building it with parts email. At least I hope so.
>
|