10 yrs experience and capable of average 1% - 2% monthly but country has been blacklisted due to AML policy so can’t participate.
Welcome to the Darwinex Forum @IcebergTrader.
I myself am not looking for a good trader, but before an interested person comes around:
Do you have any reliable materials to share which can prove your statement?
They will surely want to see it
Something like 3 years of trackrecord on myfxbook…
i remember you guys from way back and noticed that there have been quite a bit of improvements on the platform…I do have a live account linked to myfxbook running from Dec 2019 currently at about 2% profit so far but no significant long term track record. No motivation to run an account with low capital to reap only peanuts Exactly the reason why i found myself here in the first place
Granted both DARWINS stated above were closed at a loss…The main issue remains being “undercapitalized”.
I can recall requesting for implementation of management fee for traders…did administration ever look into that?
No Management fees (yet). Only 20% Performance fees which are more fair, seeing as how Darwinex does all the “managing” and the traders only need to concern themselves with trading profitably
Premise, I made much more money as provider than as trader and investor.
The only reason for a provider to ask for management fees is because you dont’ think to be able to make new highs.
As investor I don’t want to pay someone to rollercoast my money.
So I suppose that a period of drawdown shouldn’t be catered for?
Let’s be realistic…a 3 - 4 month losing streak can be expected (where performance fees would not be paid) and the aspiring full time fund manager/trader with a small office would have monthly expenses to settle so how do you propose the way forward.
At the time it was a major concern for me…I mean a management fee 1% per annum could be split between Darwinex and trader. In my opinion I see no issue (industry standard is 2%)
Or perish and die within an extended drawdown as there would be no income within that period
That statement may be correct but I would not say it’s the ONLY reason
I think that would be a beneficial solution
It is not true, if an investor enters now on my darwin at -30% and I recover to -20% in 3 months the investor makes money and I make fees.
The industry standard is 2% but also more than 5 years of trackrecord.
I would agree to pay a management fee to the few darwins with that kind of trackrecord.
Length of track record just plays on survival bias which in my opinion is old adage for gauging fund performance…
Darwinex on the other hand is in the forefront and one of the more sophisticated in terms of metrics and statistical data which I believe is the “crystal ball” at our disposal
I’m not saying at least some trade data is needed to populate and measure performance but I would limit that to “number of trades” instead of using time period to be more efficient.
DARWIN A with 3 - 6 months track record with rating of 75 with average return of 5% per month and all other variants remaining constant (without getting into all the nitty gritty)
DARWIN B with 3 - 6 year track record with rating of 75 with average return of 2.5% per month and all other variants remaining constant (without getting into all the nitty gritty)
So you’re saying you would wait for DARWIN A to accumulate at least 3 yr track record before touching it?
Exact I would go for darwin B , past return is 99% of times due to luck, a long trackrecord could also be luck but it is the only way to prove robustness.
I can’t support any management fees from the view of an investor as there is no reason to sponsor a loser.
To make money as an investor is hard enough with most Darwin’s here, it’s harder if you are looking for buy and hold Darwins.
Will be linking my new live account with 3 weeks track record as soon as server list is updated
So I assume you would rather a good performing DARWIN to possibly close up shop on a few negative months which is inevitable…But I am assuming that there would be mutual respect for the both traders/investors…For investors whom are placing funds and trust in the hands of trader talent and vice versa
So you want to cut investor fees to 10 or 15 % and pay 2 or 1 % p.a. as management fee?
Do you think that makes better traders and better Darwins?
Would you go for sales (performance) commission ONLY vs base salary + sales (performance) commission career? Most people would gravitate towards the latter option…
As for the management fees making better traders…I think we should let the results speak for itself
Also if you going down that road of strictly performance fee for positive gains and no performance fee for negative months…
Optimally like @CavaliereVerde said:
But is there any further incremental incentive to compensate for consecutive winning months?
My idea was that Darwinex could offer 3 models for paying traders:
20 % fee on the net profit + 0 % management fee p.a. on the investment (which is the current model)
15 % fee on the net profit + 1 % management fee p.a. on the investment
10 % fee on the net profit + 2 % management fee p.a. on the investment
The trader has to choose the model how he wants to be paid
That must be transparent to investors and the investor makes the final decision by investing in a Darwin or not
Edit: to switch between the models should not be possible for the trader more than once per year
Totally…There can be more options available
I will reiterate that the platform and users have the power to create policy and condition to bring forth optimal DARWINs.
In a nutshell:
Investors want lower risk vs higher return and consistency
Traders want compensation for generating positive gain for investors and the ability to grow AUM