Slipstream Trader - Any subscribers here?

J

jparrie

Member
I have been a subscriber now for about 6 months, I have to say I am not all that impressed so far. During the same period I have been charting and trading stocks on the Aussie exchange and have consistently managed to find something that has been a reasonable short term trade, whereas this service has done very little.

He likes to short-sell stocks but from what I have gathered, that isn't all that easy and at around a minimum $50k per trade, I would be surprised if many people are actually following that course fo action. Even most of those trades haven't gone quite to plan though.

I realise trading is difficult in these conditions, but I'd be interested in hearing anyone else's opinions on the service. One thing that does puzzle me is how much time is actually being spent in an 8-hour day studying this stuff by Murray?

From what I've gathered there are over 3000 subscribers, so $1.25m per quarter isn't a bad days work. At this stage I just don't feel I'm getting particularly good value for money.

I also subscribe to a service from SK Options, who give US options trades. These guys regularly give good quality analysis of markets and exactly what they are up to in between trades. I can only say I am super-impressed with these guys, and at a price less than 1/4 that of Slipstream Trader, I can't help feel that something isn't quite right.

I had a good laugh this morning when I received an alert to buy a stock that I had already bought (at a cheaper price) two days earlier.
 
I don't own or trade shares, but I am in the process of learning how. This will take me 12 months. I am of the opinion that if you want to invest, you don't pay anyone else to do the thinking for you. If you don't understand the process or the market - then don't get involved.

Your own results and research are living proof of this jparrie. Thanks for sharing. :)))
 
jparrie said:
He likes to short-sell stocks but from what I have gathered, that isn't all that easy and at around a minimum $50k per trade, I would be surprised if many people are actually following that course fo action.
Click to expand...

Use CFD's to short. Easy and cheap (few hundred bucks).

mmm....shiney! said:
I am of the opinion that if you want to invest, you don't pay anyone else to do the thinking for you. If you don't understand the process or the market - then don't get involved.
Click to expand...

^+1 what shiney says. I have always had better results with my own trades. Probably because my own trades are much more considered and suited to my trading methods. You also gain a feel and an understanding of the markets you are trading, rather than going in blind.
 
I couldn't agree more.

I paid up for a month and after my trial period, I asked for my money back. Only joined for the "Spear Trades" but could see they were being manipulated.

By the time you placed your trade, they were up 15-20% already. In other words, the info had got out. Someone had been buying in anticipation.

Same for the other tipper. The one run by Alex Cowie. You put your trade on, but you've lost the first 15-20-30%. After two or three weeks, the price falls below the pre-recommended price.

You can't really win.

The only time you do win is

A: luck - perhaps in the form of a mega-merger or takeover;

B: a rabid bull market for junior resource stocks - haven't been in one of these for 12 months;

C: you get in (somehow?) prior to the price moving up 20-30% and promptly cash out.

While the methodology for buying these stocks might be good (not talking about charts but fundamentals) they are hostage to the macro-environment (Quantitative Easing, Geopolitics & Domestic, Commodity Prices Movements, etc) and or a company either running out of cash, issuing too many shares, or not discovering economic deposits.

Though it could be argued that you could have the same success, or better, throwing a dart at a dart-board, there are so many variables involved that at the end of the day, the only people making money are those selling the product - often extremely compelling and slick.

I can't see myself renewing again ($250 for 12 months) for all the reasons cited.

Good Luck - and stick with your own gut-feeling and research.
 
I tried Slip Stream when he launched the service originally. Watched it for 12 months but was overseas in a different time zone so didnt trade the stocks. Over the first 12 months he did quite well, but I didn't renew the service as I don't have the time to be trading.

Diggers and Drillers - Alex Cowie and Australian Small Cap Investigator - Kris Sayce, I have stuck with and both have been fantastic for me. I highly recommend them both even for just the insight they have on various industries and the economy as a whole.
 
Thanks to all posters on this thread. - I'm still deciding where to go for info before trying shares again; others first hand exp. is always good for that extra bit of info.
 
Interesting comments. I didn't make the post with the intention of bagging anyone, I am sure Murray has his subscribers as his top priority, it wouldn't make any sense not to.

As to alleged manipulation, that is just your perceived opinion, without proof you shouldn't be making allegations like that. Spear trades by their very nature are bound to move quickly, given the nature of the stocks. Having said that, I have only seen one spear trade since I subscribed and that has been a complete dud. My experience of the few trades that have been placed is that within 60 seconds of the alert being sent, the price has changed, sometimes considerably, so unless you are sat waiting for an alert and ready to trade, which I am, you might lose out, although most times the price does come back a bit anyhow.

wrcmad, I wouldn't touch CFDs with a barge pole. Unlimited risk is not my cup of tea (yes I know you can place stops etc, etc). I much prefer options, they are a great tool to slowly build capital gains while effectively managing risk to an acceptable, and more importantly, known amount. The time value of an option is a wonderful thing.

Another service I subscribe to is Aussie Bulls. It is basically a black box type of system concentrating on candlestick patterns. You have very little chance of buying or selling at the prices they quote, because there is always a delay between a "Buy-If" signal and a "Confirmed Buy", but I use it as a way of identifying potential trades, and their weekly signals have proven to be quite profitable and quite good at picking out stocks to look closer at. The service is pretty cheap too, only around $180 per year so nothing outrageous there for something that serves it's purpose very well.

I take the point that some have made about doing your own research, but some people just don't have the time or experience. I trade with my Super in quite large amounts so I like to get input from several different sources before making a trade. The point with Slipstream is that while it charges quite a bit, it isn't living up to expectations when I compare it with other, much cheaper services.
 
Manipulation might be hard to prove, but there's little doubt many of these stocks "run" prior to recommendation. Coincidence? Make up your own mind. The thing you never want to do is to chase a stock - the majority of the time they fall below your entry price (let alone the recommended price). On occasion, if a stock fails to perform (might lose 50%), it gets chopped from the portfolio. If one fails to keep track of these losers, it makes the existing returns, if any, seem superior to what would otherwise be the case. Just a heads-up for the unwary.

As for manipulation in general, there's plenty of evidence of that in spades. Goldman Sachs et al are infamous for it, recommending stock while actually dumping internal stock to an unsuspecting clientele.

Goldman Sachs are master manipulators when it comes to naked shorting (meaning they don't even bother to borrow shares from stockholders before having to buy them back), both front-running and squeezing out and occasionally bankrupting their own clients (e.g. Copper River, a once successful hedge fund).

Morgan Stanley and HSBC play the physical metals and metal stocks (both short and long) like a violin. At pre-determined price points (usually break-out ones), they can dump 50,000 paper contracts or so worth as much as 1/3 of actual mine productiony for a single year in milliseconds - and/or after market hours (when it's really, really quiet):)

Rene Rivkin's newsletter was a massive manipulator (and was proven to be).

Algorithmic bots are a blight on price discovery, do nothing to fuel liquidity (a false claim made by proponents) and have recently been responsible for derailing the BATS initial public offering and making its own exchange look amateurish (its stock went to zero. Manipulation or accident?). What do the exchanges care? It's all money to them. SIDE NOTE: Many hedge funds in New York are now actually renting buildings that have the closest proximity to internet infrastructure where internet access is fastest, as measured in milliseconds. Why? Why the fastest bots can make their programmers (who work for the hedge funds) much more money.

Manipulation is widespread and everywhere.

Playing fields are not equal.

So in the overall scheme of things, where the profit motive is king and morals aren't what they used to be, it's a good idea for people to make up their own minds.:)
 
I tried the subscription for a while but cancelled after a few weeks. I don't have the ability to always be watching the market and get things as he alerts his customers. The ones that he sent out had gone by the time I accessed them so I just thought this isn't going to be worth my while and dropped it.

I concur with others that you are better off developing your own system even if it takes much more time and requires much patience and self-discipline.

In saying that, I subscribe to SMT for $200US a year. I don't follow the model portfolio but find Gary's comments really insightful and in my opinion well worth the money. As well, some of the subscribers are really good too. It's helped me understand the markets much more than I did before.
 
jparrie said:
wrcmad, I wouldn't touch CFDs with a barge pole. Unlimited risk is not my cup of tea (yes I know you can place stops etc, etc). I much prefer options, they are a great tool to slowly build capital gains while effectively managing risk to an acceptable, and more importantly, known amount. The time value of an option is a wonderful thing.
Click to expand...

I seriously question your knowledge and understanding of risk management, given you claim CFD's involve unlimited risk, and options offer acceptable risk (theta is nice, but delta will burn you). :/

If I were you, I'd steer clear of both. Willing to risk quite large chunks of your retirement fund on blind tips given to you by strangers with unknown agendas, then look to leverage into "safer" options trades in perceived "unmanipulated" markets is not my idea of a smart thing to do.

Ask yourself: If you were an expert trader, would you want or need to sell your ideas?
 
wrcmad said:
I seriously question your knowledge and understanding of risk management, given you claim CFD's involve unlimited risk, and options offer acceptable risk (theta is nice, but delta will burn you). :/
Click to expand...

So short selling using a CFD doesn't involve unlimited risk, enlighten me?

Options risk on the other hand is always manageable. Delta can be positive or negative, your friend or foe, it's up to you how you use it, but at least you can manage it.

Ask yourself: If you were an expert trader, would you want or need to sell your ideas?
Click to expand...

If I made an extra $1.25m a quarter, sure.
 
jparrie said:
So short selling using a CFD doesn't involve unlimited risk, enlighten me?
Click to expand...

Simple. Contingent stops.
And if you want, guaranteed contingent stops.

jparrie said:
Options risk on the other hand is always manageable. Delta can be positive or negative, your friend or foe, it's up to you how you use it, but at least you can manage it.
Click to expand...

If you view options risk as always manageable, then you aren't really trading or committing to a position. Your question was asked in the context of taking a position (short or long).
Writing covered calls, or buying puts, straddles, strangles, butterflys or whatever other limited risk trade you wish to discuss, is not (in my mind) trading or committing to a position. You have limited exposure, with limited profit potential. It is merely dipping your toe in. Selling theta or delta is not trading a position either.

Try taking a position, and buying a naked call or put, then see what the risk profile looks like.
 
wrcmad said:
Simple. Contingent stops.
And if you want, guaranteed contingent stops.
Click to expand...

Ok, so what if it gaps? Contingent stops won't help you. Presumably that's the point of the guaranteed stop, although that will obviously cost you extra. CFDs don't suit my risk profile, I won't use them.

jparrie said:
Options risk on the other hand is always manageable. Delta can be positive or negative, your friend or foe, it's up to you how you use it, but at least you can manage it.
Click to expand...

If you view options risk as always manageable, then you aren't really trading or committing to a position. Your question was asked in the context of taking a position (short or long).
Writing covered calls, or buying puts, straddles, strangles, butterflys or whatever other limited risk trade you wish to discuss, is not (in my mind) trading or committing to a position. You have limited exposure, with limited profit potential. It is merely dipping your toe in. Selling theta or delta is not trading a position either.

Try taking a position, and buying a naked call or put, then see what the risk profile looks like.
Click to expand...

I think we're getting off-topic, but anyway...

Selling naked calls (that's what you meant, I'm sure), is a mugs game. Sooner or later you'll get caught. Naked puts aren't so much of an issue, but still have their own associated risks. Selling spreads ensures known risk at the onset of the trade, that's why I mainly use them. Buying puts or calls can be hugely profitable, and again risks are known before the trade is entered. You can't do that with CFDs, contingent stops won't save you in the event of a major event. I'm willing to bet that 99% of CFD trades are placed without guaranteed stops and one day those traders will learn a very hard lesson in risk management.

Of course option spreads constitute "committing to a position". Isn't trading all about risk management? That's what a spread is. To say that I'm not trading because I don't enter a position with no protection is ridiculous.

If at the end of the day I make money, consistently and more often that not beat the markets hands down, I'd call that trading. If it doesn't constitute trading in your mind, so be it. Clearly we have different ways of achieving the (hopefully) same outcome. The difference is I know I can sleep at night, while most CFD traders just think they can.
 
jparrie said:
Of course option spreads constitute "committing to a position". Isn't trading all about risk management? That's what a spread is. To say that I'm not trading because I don't enter a position with no protection is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, spreads are a legitimate trading strategy, but to compare CFD position trading to option spread trading is like comparing apples to oranges. You queried short positions - not structured options strategies. From what I have seen of Slipstream, he doesn't have any spread trading recommendations? Maybe his newsletter is a mismatch for your trading, and that's why you have not been impressed.

And I still disagree with your assessment of risk and CFD's. ;)

jparrie said:
If at the end of the day I make money, consistently and more often that not beat the markets hands down, I'd call that trading. If it doesn't constitute trading in your mind, so be it. Clearly we have different ways of achieving the (hopefully) same outcome.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Agreed. :)

jparrie said:
The difference is I know I can sleep at night, while most CFD traders just think they can.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I am a CFD trader, and I sleep well at night.
 
I don't have the stomach for trading, I cant do it.

I can see short term gains are good if you want to make a career out of it. But the traders I know are really (in my opinion) ethic-less.

reminder these are the volume/frequency/momentum traders i know

I know another guy who plays the spreads on options and futures - i couldn't say he is ethic-less
 
Unfortunately, have been a Slipstream subscriber for ~12 months now.

Very informative weekly updates, but his infrequent tips are more wrong than right.

Save your money and get your tips from somewhere else.

His record in the last few months has been VERY BAD. Seems to be hoping rather than basing tips on sound technical analysis he teaches!

Will be cancelling when my 12 months are up.
 
I too trade CFD's and sleep very well at night. I use Johnathon Fox at Forexschoolonline, for his simple methodical approach to chart analysis. My trading has greatly improved recently due to his schooling.
What i like about CFD's is i can buy exposure to a monster box of USAG for around $75 margin requirement (i run a mini account 200:1 leverage, not a standard) I set my stops, no problem.
:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top