|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Hello Kevin,
We have the business of trading and the business of writing software for traders.
Sometimes they are misunderstood as being part of one business. Then
again, perhaps they are in fact part of one.
Traders need tools, but to have an edge, they need to make their own tools.
This has never changed. Back in the days of SystemWriter, there were
only a few tools on the public market, and it was more difficult to
make your own tools.
Today, this gap has been narrowed, with many programs available and more
sophisticated and powerful "programming languages for dummies" like
VB.NET.
The issue here is how should a trader spend the time? Shop for tools
or make his own?
Quantstudio is interesting. But as a VB.NET for dummies programmer, I can only
wonder why I'm not in the business of selling software. But of
course, why would I want to tell my competitors what I know, unless
I think what I have has no edge in the business of trading...
-F
Friday, February 27, 2004, 5:48:40 PM, you wrote:
KSB> RB,
KSB> I think the auto analogy is a poor one, unless you're willing to admit that
KSB> instead a car, you're riding a bicycle.
KSB> There is a market for traders and firms that demand much more than offered
KSB> by TradeStation (the GM equivalent). Where is the interchangeable,
KSB> integrated portfolio management? Where is the interchangeable, integrated
KSB> position sizing? Where is the interchangeable, integrated, cross-portfolio
KSB> risk management? Can I do deep, multi-market quantitative analysis? Can I
KSB> intermix multiple, dissimilar data sources and vendors? Does it route my
KSB> trades into an accounting system? Does it do trade aggregation and
KSB> separation for unitized accounting? Can I automatically route orders to the
KSB> broker of my choice? And on, and on, and on ...
KSB> While there are a number of after-market bolt-ons for TradeStation, the
KSB> level of integration is often clumsy. The whole PushPop or global-access
KSB> DLL route is an example of trying to work around platform limitations. At a
KSB> certain point, it makes sense to examine alternatives.
KSB> Excellent traders wield an edge. There is a whole market catering to
KSB> traders who seek and create an edge using advanced tools. There are also
KSB> trading firms that demand more out of a trading engine. For all these
KSB> traders, most of the popular trading packages just don't cut it.
KSB> Actually, I'm very encouraged by the recent direction in trading platforms.
KSB> WealthLab starts to incorporate many of the items I mentioned above, and
KSB> VeriTrader 2.0 looks to be a very exciting product as well.
KSB> Still, there's nothing like having a custom tool set that can actually do
KSB> what I need :-)
KSB> Cheers,
KSB> Kevin
KSB> ps. This is NOT an endorsement for QuantStudio, only a consideration for
KSB> QS-like tools.
KSB> 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.
|