From 56ec0b4a81de6462a2191130060dd4e3bdd839e5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dominik Roth Date: Tue, 26 May 2026 18:03:09 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] docs: linkify insidercopytrading.com, fix punctuation, add compliment Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 --- README.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 05f8b9b..19dfb0b 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ Their website shows backtested returns that significantly outperform the market. Under realistic assumptions with a 1-day entry delay and real bid-ask costs on Alpaca, our simulation shows the strategy **underperforms SPY across all tested holding periods and produces negative absolute returns for any round-trip cost above ~0.5%**. For the small and mid-cap stocks that dominate insider buying signals, you are not reaching 0.5%. -This is not a unique failure of this implementation. It is a fundamental property of the strategy: the edge (~0.7% per 7-day trade) is smaller than the friction of executing it in real markets. insidercopytrading.com either does not know this or does not want you to know it -- either way, they are charging a subscription for backtested numbers that cannot be reproduced with real money. +This is not a unique failure of this implementation. It is a fundamental property of the strategy: the edge (~0.7% per 7-day trade) is smaller than the friction of executing it in real markets. [insidercopytrading.com](https://insidercopytrading.com) either does not know this or does not want you to know it. Either way, they are charging a subscription for backtested numbers that cannot be reproduced with real money. Their website is rather pretty though. Alpaca integration exists in the codebase (`broker/alpaca_client.py`) but is not fully implemented or tested, for the above reason. Wiring up live execution to a strategy that burns money seemed like a bad idea.