SPA3 - Can it be that easy?

[pennywise75]

Hey there

I work full time, have 2 small kids and a wife. (guess which one takes up most of my time)

so trading to me is a bit of a conundrum, I know I can make trading work for me which will save me time, but i dont have the time to set up my trading strategy.

So, do a "sharefinder" type of system work? If not SPA3 could anyone sugguest a good one.

Thanks for your time

 

[Look Left]

Hi PennyWise75,
You might want to read the following thread in its entirety. It should give you some more information: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7609&highlight=spa3
(The forum admin may even move your post??)

There isn't many ShareFinder SPA3 type systems out there. ***************** Does anyone else? There is some good education available but education alone will never make you a profitable trader. It's very valuable but just part of the puzzle.

Is it that easy? No, a trading strategy by itself will not make you successful.
Is SPA3 easy? ****************

IMHO, SPA3 will give you a great start in trading. From there you can expand your knowledge as your kids permit.

Cheers!

 

[Trembling Hand]

Hmmmm..... This tastes a little like

 

[Timmy]

Hmmmm..... This tastes a little like

Not so much any more.

Claims made about these types of products need to be either verified or verifiable.
Potential purchasers of the product, please see the thread Look Left refers too for more discussion, but also do your own research.

 

[pennywise75]

Hmmmm..... This tastes a little like

Mate honestly this isnt a spam, reading back through my post i can see how someone would think that

I have been trading CFDs for around 6 months, I havent done aswell as i would like, broke even. Like i was saying I dont have alot of time on my hands, so a program that helps "pick" my trades would be helpful.

Its just a lot to pay out for a program, so I wanted to hear from people who have used it.

Is there any other type of system out there for us time poor ppl?

I did read the other thread and must thank you for pointing it out to me,
one question from it, does SPA do a CFD program now? .. hope that doesnt sound "spamish"

Thanks for your help

 

[Trembling Hand]

Not so much any more.

Claims made about these types of products need to be either verified or verifiable.
Potential purchasers of the product, please see the thread Look Left refers too for more discussion, but also do your own research.

Does that now mean that System sprukers have to prove their return claims with REAL accounts or real time calls.

If not I reckon that may be a good policy to adopt. That is any claim of a system that is being sold to the public MUST show it works or its pulled.
Come on how about it?

 

[Trembling Hand]

Is there any other type of system out there for us time poor ppl?

Not one that works.

 

[Look Left]

TremblingHandTrader,
I agree that some form of general verification should be provided when mentioning products. But I also think that statements like "Not one that works" should be equally validated or pulled. It is an armchair comment with no proof or sign of research . In general it doesn't help PennyWise at all. How about being constructive?

PennyWise,
Timmy is correct, you should investigate any claims anyone makes through your own research. I understand this forum thread is part of it. If you want some 100% independent proof that the system works try this:

* ShareFinder runs public portfolios for most of it's products. The SPA3 portfolio has been running since 2001!!! The 06/07 period was audited by Deloitte for accuracy. See: http://www.sharefinder.com.au/deloitte.php

* Also, have you done a general internet search on ShareFinder? I do this for any product that comes along and most of the time you can find out that the directors are linked to a previous dodgy product or customers have had serious complaints. The strange things is, I can't find any bad press for ShareFinder, it's pretty much all good. Gary Stone and ShareFinder have been around for a long time and IMHO proved themselves, equally as much as Nick Radge has for education.

Re CFDs, The website says they have released SPA3CFD. Same thing applies, check it out yourself.

Good Luck!

 

[IFocus]

Cannot comment on SPA but Gary Stone dose have some credibility

 

[Trembling Hand]

TremblingHandTrader,
I agree that some form of general verification should be provided when mentioning products. But I also think that statements like "Not one that works" should be equally validated or pulled. It is an armchair comment with no proof or sign of research . In general it doesn't help PennyWise at all. How about being constructive?

Actually I know 2 people that forked out for Sharefinder and lost out.

* ShareFinder runs public portfolios for most of it's products. The SPA3 portfolio has been running since 2001!!! The 06/07 period was audited by Deloitte for accuracy. See: http://www.sharefinder.com.au/deloitte.php

These bogus audits just make me more confident that the systems are not worth it. They are not real trades taken from REAL people who use these systems. Its a trick that they do to make a dubious business look creditable.

This is how you do it. You pay a big accounting firm to check that your system signals did occur in a selected amount of picks. What you especially pay them for is to not mention that these signals do not represented ALL signals from the system and that it also would be impossible to take all signals. What they do not do and would shut people like me down is "audit" real people that HAVE traded it, broker statements. That audit is nothing more than a back fit.

As far as my credibility goes to question such systems I make $$ every day have for years out of what this claims to do. If you would like me to prove my claims PM me and I will forward you broker statements of 1000s of trades. Of course you will be able to do the same??

 

[Trembling Hand]

look left can you speculate , as you have no connection with SF, as to why they don't just show broker statements? surely if the system works SOMEONE at the company will be trading it and therefore could easily show statements.

That would shut me in an instant.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Hmmmm..... This tastes a little like

I got my dog garpaldog to sniff this thread about 10 minutes ago and he's still running around in circles.

Bugger off.

gg

 

[Look Left]

Trembling hand,
Sorry if you thought I was trying to question your credibility. I've read quite a few of your own blogs and they are generally well constructed. Your previous quip was not of that calibre. I was actually questioning the balance between pulling positive comments and negative comments about a product. For instance...

Actually I know 2 people that forked out for Sharefinder and lost out.

Why is this allowed with no evidence but when I said the opposite, Timmy pulled it. The forum should be a forum, with balanced and supported statements. Wouldn't you agree? Timmy, your view?

I am a bit perplexed over one of your comments regarding the audit.

What you especially pay them for is to not mention that these signals do not represented ALL signals from the system and that it also would be impossible to take all signals.

I do agree that it is only a subset of the signals. This fact is clearly mentioned and explained in the other thread. I'm sure your own trading methods don't have you taking every trade available. Further, if a subset of trades is not enough then broker statements, which are the same thing, are no better in your eyes.

I know Gary Stone trades the system along with a few other staff members. I'll ask about making the broker records public. But it would only make sense if he could prove the trades were done with SPA3 signals. Which would mean getting it audited and now we're back to the same issue. So how much proof would you need? (Honest question). How did you prove your method to yourself?

 

[professor_frink]

Why is this allowed with no evidence but when I said the opposite, Timmy pulled it. The forum should be a forum, with balanced and supported statements. Wouldn't you agree? Timmy, your view?

Sorry Timmy isn't online right now so I'll speak on his behalf, and if I'm speaking out of turn, he can delete my post later on when he's online and respond to you personally.

SPAM is a massive problem for the site. We have had people associated with companies sign up to praise products/services before, and on other occasions we have people that make negative comments about a product they've purchased only to find we are threatened with legal action shortly after when the people responsible find out that they aren't receiving a favourable review of their product. So you'll have to excuse us folk that try and keep the site running for having a slightly negative opinion of pretty well every "service" that is offered in this industry. The only time we see any of them is when they are trying to scam free advertising, or a trying to force the site into pulling anything that resembles an opinion on them that doesn't involve our member's engaging in a round of

Sorry if this post also seems to be lacking in the balance, or tact department, but it's not like the trading industry has really shown itself to be very balanced in the way it tries to exploit sites like this.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Trembling hand,
Sorry if you thought I was trying to question your credibility. I've read quite a few of your own blogs and they are generally well constructed. Your previous quip was not of that calibre. I was actually questioning the balance between pulling positive comments and negative comments about a product. For instance...
Why is this allowed with no evidence but when I said the opposite, Timmy pulled it. The forum should be a forum, with balanced and supported statements. Wouldn't you agree? Timmy, your view?

I am a bit perplexed over one of your comments regarding the audit.
I do agree that it is only a subset of the signals. This fact is clearly mentioned and explained in the other thread. I'm sure your own trading methods don't have you taking every trade available. Further, if a subset of trades is not enough then broker statements, which are the same thing, are no better in your eyes.

I know Gary Stone trades the system along with a few other staff members. I'll ask about making the broker records public. But it would only make sense if he could prove the trades were done with SPA3 signals. Which would mean getting it audited and now we're back to the same issue. So how much proof would you need? (Honest question). How did you prove your method to yourself?

Mate , my dog garpaldog has bitten David Bowden and has a certificate to prove it. I wouldn't let garpaldog trade for me however, or David Bowden or sfa anyone else.

gg

 

[Timmy]

Thanks Prof - nothing really to add except to say I want to steer well clear of Garpal's dog.

 

[pennywise75]

Guys all I wanted was to hear ppls experence with using this software, sorry for opening a can of worms.

Just on the sharefinder web site, the audit link you sent me. I am a little does the balance at the end say -97K ???

And just one more question to everyone who has replied, If someone cant give an honest answer to a question, due to fears from legal action. What is the point in having a forum?

 

[Look Left]

PennyWise,
You had me worried for a moment but all is ok. The -$97k figure shows you how much is currently invested from your account, not your portfolio value. It's using accounting terminology. You can see that for a Buy it goes down and for a Sell it goes up. The blurb says this audit is trying to show the sequence of transactions, the brokerage costs, true price paid and to make sure there was enough money in the account at the time.

If you want to see the latest market value portfolio curve for this portfolio, I've attached it, as i did in the other thread. It's available to all customers and sometimes shown publicly, so I hope this is seen as partial evidence and not spam.

You're doing the right thing in asking questions and seeking opinions. I'll try and answer the questions without too much bias.
Cheers!

 

[Trembling Hand]

I'm sure your own trading methods don't have you taking every trade available. Further, if a subset of trades is not enough then broker statements, which are the same thing, are no better in your eyes.

This is just rubbish. The point is selectively picking a subset of signals a year after they happened is a scam. But showing broker statements of signals triggered real time and acted on and executed with real money into the market show if the product has been successful implemented.

I know Gary Stone trades the system along with a few other staff members. I'll ask about making the broker records public. But it would only make sense if he could prove the trades were done with SPA3 signals. Which would mean getting it audited and now we're back to the same issue.

No not at all. If you/they carn't dig up proof of someone implementing the system in REAL life then why should anyone pay for it ?????????????????????????????????

Thats what is wrong with these things they look good in hind site but impossible to implement in real time. Because of the number of signals they trigger.

So how much proof would you need? (Honest question). How did you prove your method to yourself?

Because each month there is more money in my BROKERS account than at the start. Which is what I'm asking you for.

 

[professor_frink]

Guys all I wanted was to hear ppls experence with using this software, sorry for opening a can of worms.

Just on the sharefinder web site, the audit link you sent me. I am a little does the balance at the end say -97K ???

And just one more question to everyone who has replied, If someone cant give an honest answer to a question, due to fears from legal action. What is the point in having a forum?

There is a lot more discussed here than what tipsheets/software programs are being offered. Feel free to poke around and have a look You'll find months and months of educational material posted here. And the odd argument or 50, combined with a few drunken rants every now and then. And quite a bit of pointless chatter about things that have nothing to do with the stockmarket.