Discussion of article "Trading Signals in MetaTrader 5: A Better Alternative to PAMM Accounts!" - page 2
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Here are three arguments that will affect the outflow of clients from PAMM-service:
...
I can go on listing PAMMs' faults, but this is enough for them to die.
I can go on listing PAMMs' faults, but this is enough for them to die.
Most likely, PAMMs will try to survive, but they will have to make a less brazen face and more acceptable conditions for investors.
By the way, yes.
One of our goals is to reduce the cost of services to a mass level and to get rid of horrors like "in fact we charge a commission of 1 pip per transaction through our service". Some companies are really naked in their actual commissions.
I think the signals are kind of like master accounts. Like grand capital. There the manager receives remuneration only from profitable transactions. But in this case, the investor gets the full compensation for all losing transactions. But on PAMM the manager suffers losses together with the investor.
Subscribe to signals from real accounts and then the signal provider will suffer losses together with the investor.
Honourable, you misunderstand. Losses will be incurred by both, of course. Only the profitable ones will have to pay. Such a scheme will not work on multicurrency. To be fair, the compensation to the manager should be paid cumulatively, for the reporting period, and not from the signal.
Everything is clear. But PAMMs and signals are mutually competitive, because they have different degrees of freedom. I.e. a PAMM manager has money from successful management of all capital received in management from an investor, and a provider of signals has no idea when and how much the investor invested, i.e. he has nowhere to go. After all, the investor can easily change the MM level in accordance with his tactics and even if the provider gets a profit, the investor can make a loss, for example, if he overestimated the risk level or increased it during the drawdown period. And vice versa, the provider of signals can make a loss, while the investor, using the same signals, will make a profit with a competent MM.
I.e. if an investor transfers funds to a PAMM manager, the manager disposes of them at his own discretion and the responsibility lies entirely on the manager. In case of signals, the investor has more degrees of freedom, and accordingly, the responsibility for a significant part of the risk lies on the investor, not on the provider of signals.
Honourable, you misunderstand. Losses will be incurred by both, of course. Only the profitable ones will have to pay. Such a scheme will not work on multicurrency. To be fair, the compensation to the manager should be paid cumulatively, for the reporting period, and not from the signal.
Gnawing on roules https://www.mql5.com/en/signals/rules
there it is clearly written in the calculations that payment is made for subscription and not for losing or profitable trades.
For the subscription period (for example, a week) there may be no signal at all (if the TS is so), but the subscription fee will still be charged.
Gnawing on the rudders https://www.mql5.com/en/signals/rules
...
ZY during the subscription period (e.g. a week) there may be no signal at all (if this is the case with TC), but the subscription fee will still be charged.
And if you read even more carefully, it turns out that there is nothing like that:
7. In case of signal broadcasting interruption by the Provider, the Subscribers' reserved funds will not be transferred to the Provider's account.
And if you read even more carefully, it turns out that it is nothing of the sort:
7. In case of signal broadcasting interruption by the Provider, the Subscribers' reserved funds shall not be transferred to the Provider's account.