No. We are not a Registered Investment Advisor (RIA), and all the information we provide in for informational purposes only. Clients that choose to join our services and follow the information we provide do so on their own. We advise that clients and potential clients consult with an RIA prior to joining our services and risking any capital.

No, our clients maintain full possession of their own funds in their brokerage account. However, with auto trade our clients can 'follow' our trades to the tee and even scale up larger in size if they choose to do so.

A common question and understandable. - Why do Hedge Fund Managers run funds instead of just their own money? - Why did/does Michael Jordan sell basketball shoes? - etc. It's pretty simple for us. For one, we have strategies that we do not offer to the public that are rather robust and do well but they have capacity constraints and sizing limits to ensure effectiveness. Secondly, trading for for the public, and dare I say with some public scrutiny, keeps us sharp and accountable. Keeping your edge in trading, both system and psychological, is challenging and each trader or investor must find what things work for them. This is one of them. Oh, and we actually enjoy helping others succeed. You're welcome!

Simple. Because some of our trades may be capacity constrained due to potential liquidity issues, and appearing too large for the given instruments being traded. Generally with Index ETF options this is not much of an issue, but with some stock options it could be, specifically when exiting trades and we want to avoid slippage if possible.

This will vary by strategy, but the onboarding process, specifically for Pure Alpha and Hedge Fusion - since they offer auto trade - will likely be capped at 10 and 25 clients respectively, with each client we onboard having the opportunity to scale to 10x trade sizing. For Futures Focus and Timing Leader strategies we will assess this as we go, but our projections indicate up to 25 spots for Futures Focus and at least several hundred for Timing Leader.

There is nothing set hard and fast, but after review of the onboarding questionnaire it is usually rather obvious to us if someone will be a good fit for what we offer. Examples of things we are NOT looking for in a client: - "I want to make $100,000+ a year and my Risk Budget is $2,000" - "I want to make $100,000+ a year and I am willing to pay $1,000 in Dynamic Value Fees but no more" Obviously these are extremes, but this is more than just a 'signal service' where we shill a bunch of trades, post-date winning trades or make outlandish claims and fake information. Our services are not a good fit for some, possibly many out there, and that's okay, it's designed to be that way.

This is simply the amount of loss or drawdown that a client defines when they start trading a strategy that allows them to define a set risk amount they are willing to take on in order to achieve the returns they desire, generally on an annual basis. An example of this would be a client is seeking to make $50,000 a year in gains, they may choose a $20,000 Risk Budget to achieve this. While it is not required, we encourage our clients, and all traders and investors for that matter, to define their own risk at the outset of committing any capital to a strategy or investment endeavor. Just don't lie to yourself....

Generally, no for options but yes for futures. The reason for this is simple - we mostly trade front-week options that have 5 days or less until expiration. Due to the rapid movements that can occur with this (both up and down) on even a modest move on the underlying stock or index, stop losses are no good on these types of trades. The concept around this is simple. We always assume that anything and everything can happen with any single trade or series of trades taken and we size trades accordingly. Whether that be a news event against a position, or the signal just not moving in the direction or magnitude we expect, it is not uncommon for some options positions to expire worthless. This is a mindset for those looking to harness the power of short-dated options must adopt. However, we do not endorse or trade the 'lotto trade' concept, as overall this is foolish and amateurish. With that, conversely to some positions expiring worthless, a good portion will do 3-10x of the premium spent in terms of the return for that trade. The philosophy boils down to sizing properly and assuming that any position can go to zero.

Of course a client can do so. We cannot give specific advice to individual clients and ultimately YOU are responsible for your own risk. With this, the strategies are designed to start at what is a modest size per trade and scale up, as ideally the account size grows. Sizing smaller than the minimum 1x size may produce adverse results. The reason for this is when we send a trade to Global Auto Trading and they execute the number of contracts we specify (assuming the client has 'mirrored' our sizing) Why does this matter? Here are a few examples that could have an adverse effect: A client sizes at half size (0.5x). We issue a trade for 7 contracts, they are half size so they get into 4 contracts (auto trading rounds up). The trade is winning and we close 3 of the 7 contracts (43%). Auto trade closes 43% also, which would round up to 50% of the client's 4 contracts, leaving 2 contracts. From there we close our remaining 4 contracts in 1 contract (25%) increments. However, each time we close a contract the client account would also, but they only have two remaining contracts. If our last two contracts continue to moderately or drastically increase in value, the client misses out on those gains. We are taking a multi-leg trade in QQQ options. We buy 1 call at a cost of $500, and 2 puts at a cost of $250 per contract for a total of $500. A client trading at half size would only get 1 contract of each and this would completely remove the integrity and structure of that trade. Could the results work in the client's favor for that trade pairing? Yes, it could. However, over time it would likely have an adverse effect on performance. Global Auto Trading configuration has the choices for trade sizing to match 'Unit' size, which is what is ideal to trade our strategies. They also have a set dollar amount per trade and set contract sizing. Based on how we structure trades we DO NOT RECOMMEND trading our strategies with these last two choices. When scaling up, as long as a full unit is scaled up (e.g. 1x to 2x, 3x, etc.) there are no issues, but scaling up half units will cause some of the same issues mentioned above. A simple way to look at it is the strategies are designed to scale basically each time the initial risk budget doubles in increases by 1x. So a client starts with a 25k Risk Budget/Account Size, after fees and expenses they would consider scaling to 2x when it hits a 50k value. Scale to 3x when it hits a 75k value, etc.

In short - No. This is covered in our legal terms. The reason for this is we have over a dozen systems/strategies that have been developed and are viable for trading - not all of which are deployed for public use (this website). At times, and depending on what other positions we have open, we may opt to take the signals issued or not. Or even take them in a different context or trade structure overall.

This is a common question, but has a simple answer. It is really up to the client to determine this, but in most cases an account of OVER $10,000 is needed to properly execute all of the trades for a strategy at any given time. With that said, some clients have started with an account value of $5,000 and been able to successfully participate in a strategy we offer. However, smaller account sizes require the strategy to perform better upfront.

Auto Trading is simply where a client can link their brokerage account to a newsletter or signal service's trade signals to be executed in their account. Ours is structured that we run our trades through Global Auto Trading Basically they are a third-party that a client grants limited permission over their brokerage account to execute trade signals (electronically) from a service like ours. With this, a client must also have their actual brokerage account at one of the following brokerage houses Tradier Auto Shares Interactive Brokers We do not recommend one broker over another. However, from a cost perspective Tradier is the best due to the fact they offer no commission trading for a flat $10 a month. However, they do sell 'order flow' with this, but as of this writing there is no noticeable difference is fill prices versus the other two over time. If in the future we notice this emerge we will advise our clients, existing and any new ones accordingly.

We use a proprietary method of calculation for this that is based on the 'Value' a given strategy provides. Clients should keep in mind that fees are sent via invoice on PayPal and not billed automatically. Also, when fees are assessed clients are only required to pay those fees if they wish to continue as a client, making fees 'optional' to pay. However, given the initial screening, as long as a client provided answers that they will abide by, we do not foresee any issues with willingness to pay the fees.

Dynamic Value Fees are invoiced (via Paypal) and clients can pay them with one of the following methods and a PayPal Account is not required except if using Paypal itself to pay the fee: - Debit/Credit Card - PayPal Account - Zelle - Wire or ACH transfer if they choose this option Any Monthly or Recurring Fees are automatically billed through the Payment Processor Stripe. However, these fees are 'paused' and not billed for and entire calendar month for each user/client that we do not deliver measurable value and resume once previous value levels have been exceeded.

In some cases, yes, they MAY be. They can be counted as an investment expense, depending on how your accounts are structured. However, clients should consult with their tax advisor about this. This article may be helpful: https://dwcadvisors.com/can-investors-who-manage-their-own-portfolios-deduct-related-expenses/

There are a few answers that apply and they are listed in order of importance: We do not want to charge any fees if we do not deliver value. Period. This sets us apart from the rest. The way our fees are structured ensures we are properly compensated if we deliver value to our clients. This is important as hundreds of thousands of dollars in capital and time has been outlaid on developing these systems and strategies. This is not a '$299 a month' win, lose or draw operation where we hope to attract as many clients as possible and make a our compensation on fee volume, but with a high client turnover rate. Fee structure like this is for clients who understand and appreciate value, not tire kickers. Generally these are clients that are clear on their goals AND their real risk, not pikers.

There is not distinct answer for this and our fees are NOT Performance Fees by definition. However, we can say that there are no fees if the strategy is losing or is not positive since the last fee was charged. On a dollar for dollar basis, minus not having a Management Fee like Hedge Funds, at least on paper and over time fees may appear comparable to what a structure as such often has. Some factors we consider are also the demand for our strategies based on current client base size, since we are limiting the total number of clients for each. This also benefits our clients. At the end of the day, and we highly doubt this would ever been an issue based on the upfront screening, but if a fee were to get invoiced that a client does not agree with, they are under no obligation to pay it and we simply part ways at that point.

For the auto traded strategies we use the actual client fills for the results. Any other results, such as for Futures Focus, the prices at the time an entry or exit signal is sent is used.

Profit Factor is simply the sum of all wins divided by the sum of all losses. A value of less than 1.0 means the system or strategy is not profitable. Anything 1.1 or greater means it is. Ideally a system has a Profit Factor of 2.0 or greater. The higher this number, the better. Profit Factor allows for traders and potential investors of a strategy or system to assess the quality of it without solely looking at win rate % - a metric which can be deceiving. While on the surface win rate % does matter, a system with a win rate of a mere 50% but a profit factor of 3.0 is far better than a system with a win rate of 70% and a profit factor of 1.8. Other key metrics to consider are the return of system versus the maximum drawdown. Ideally, at least by our standards, a system has a return in capital that is > 5 times that of the maximum drawdown each year. A system that is cooking will have a return > 10 times that of the max drawdown for a given or each year. Be wary of 'newsletters' or 'signal services' that do not publish results at all or only tout winners. Wins and losses should be readily available for viewing and for one to assess before they commit any risk capital.

Well, you don't. Until you do. However, unlike the rest of services (100% of them as of this writing) we are not asking for fees upfront so that should tell you everything you need to know. It literally costs a client $0 (to us) to get setup and find out for themselves. Now the expenses you will see up front are to Global Auto Trading (about$70) to auto trade a strategy. While they are great to partner with in order to execute our trades and get us great fills for our clients, we are not legally partners with them and receive noting of these fees they charge. Oh, and you will be risking your capital initially, but ideally if profitable out of the gate you are then working with 'House Money' to absorb any losses or periods of drawdown if they occur. So that is a potential 'cost' that may be incurred if the first few trades you are in happen to lose (it can and does happen at times). So, we have done our part as a act of good faith, now you must decide if you want the other risks (auto trade fee and initial capital risk). If so, we welcome you. If not, that is fine too and we wish everyone the best.

This is simple. While the data indicates over time that our models and algos used for the strategies will have a respectable winning %, the real alpha lies in the profit factor. We prefer profit factor as the primary means to measure performance than win rate. Why? Because you can have 10 trades on, lose 7 of them and still make money. Which is the main objective in trading. Options offer leverage and in the scenario above if the 3 winners make 300-400% each it doesn't matter what the losses do, you will produce a net gain. This can and does happen in certain week's, but if they net result, based on trade sizing, trade outcome, and overall risk management is positive, presenting the data in this manner provides a clearer picture of how a strategy is performing. Also, since the majority of trades are opened and closed during the same week, unrealized P&L from one week into another in negligible. We do publish the results of individual trades as well for review.

Simple, it is ultimately up to the users to determine where they want to take profits. Unlike the strategies we offer for auto trade, Pure Alpha and Hedge Fusion, or even with Futures Focus where we give the exact level we enter and exit at in real-time, this strategy is slightly different, but still very powerful and with a ton of potential alpha, even for a trader with moderate experience. Index Grid Premium does offer clients more specific signal guidance on entry and potentially good strikes to play, as well as exit ideas based on where the signal is in the expiration lifecycle, key profit levels being reached and ideas for where to possibly incrementally take some profits. It also accounts for the broader strategy as a whole and overall positions and risk on. Whereas Index Grid Basic simply gives whether the tickers are trading calls or puts and generic strike and hedge ideas.