|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Kevin,
You are probably right about the ones you are talking about. I was mainly
talking about traders. It really doesn't matter what software a good
trader uses. They can use pencil and paper and do OK. For myself and most
traders that I personaly know, they have there system, methods etc. and
could use any (easy to use trading software ;-) and trade.
Most good traders can even do OK with the simple web charts on the net. I
myself use TradeStation 2000i and basicly use the same method I used over 15
years ago.
I am sure I could just as easily use metastock, or many of the others, but I
will probably never change, because what I have now handles my stuff just
fine so there is no need to learn new software to use and old method. :)
I don't really know or use the full capacity of TradeStation.
Don't get me wrong. We need new ideas, new software etc. And I would even
possibly try some new software if I could use my easy language stuff with
it. Not that easy language is greatest or that TradeStation is the greatest.
It is because that is what I have and use. :)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Sven Berg" <ksberg@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 5:48 PM
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.
|