But reading the reviews from the link above seems to indicate that the returns are not "real", but instead are manipulated after the fact.
That's simply not true.
I was an investor and can attest that the returns you see on a trader are correct - these are returns that they earn.
They are probably referencing the glowing advertisement on the front page "here's how our trade leaders have done against CTAs, gold, S&P 500". That figure is a straight average of leader performance and doens't account for leaders who have been removed. This is where the reviews probably come from. I'd straight up ignore those figures (since it's window dressing/hindsight bias) and focus instead on individual trade leaders if you are actually interested in the company.
Anyway, I'm not a spokesman for the firm so that's all I'll say. Also, this isn't the point of the thread, so I'm not going to argue the merits of the firm any further - let the buyer beware. I'm not a financial advisor, do your own due diligence.
Best of luck
Ah, Excellent! Thanks for getting back to me. Maybe if you can just add a reasonable bid-ask loss, we'll be set then.
Certainly, there's no doubt that Moving Averages work and can definitely proven in the Forex arena. My concern, however, is the high costs involved. Look at your most recent results:
Gross Revenue: 2,437%
Net Revenue: 484% (minus bid/ask)
Commission Loss: 1,953%
What that means to me (correct me if I'm wrong) is that if instead of 2,437% you "only" earned 1800% you would've been looking at:
Gross Revenue: 1,800%
Commission Loss: 1,953%
Net Revenue: -153%
Meaning that you're done: 0 BTC - game over.
This also concerns me because the data involves a period where Bitcoin was gaining public knowledge and gaining rapid value increase and big swings likely resulting in larger gains. Now that Bitcoin is (hopefully) heading towards a more stable price, I'm wondering (out loud) if that means that larger net losses are likely once its tougher to get larger swings.
Again: thinking out loud, please correct me
