A lot of vendors are professional traders "made it" at some point of their career. Some just left for greener pastures while the going was good. If you can't bring in the AUM or can't find a new edge...time to become a vendor.
Being a vendor does seem like easy money if you are a talker and have good sales skills. You don't have to show any results, only have to point out what already happened or make vague comments about what might happen in the future. In that last Charlie video he goes into some talk on the Nasdaq at the end saying something about how it looks like it could bounce, and if it does bounce then it could possibly get up to such and such level........ I mean it's all hypothetical musings with no meat to it. Anyone can do that. hahaha..... Not saying if he is a BS-er (he claims to trade OPM and seems to have contacts in the industry) so he *might* be a legit trader despite the cheesey site name. speaking of vendors....... I read a comment on a blog by a guy who said the trading education marketplace is broken because of the skammers making crazy claims. He said you can't sell anything to anyone nowadays unless you are telling them what they want to hear............ and people want to hear they can double their acct every month. He said you can be honest and sincere but it won't mean a thing because no one will want to listen to you. So take that as advice for aspiring vendors when you craft your marketing approach............... hahahaaa
No they are bad rules made by the brokers to get you to trade more. Facts are stops degrade the performance of every system. In trading you are against the best minds in the world who have figured out ways to make you keep giving them your money--- what could be a better way than to make you "think" you are saving money by preventing losses???? BRILLIANT!!! There are multiple studies that have proven this, here is the first one on my computer[[ http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1086&context=infotech_pubs
Good points! The folks who are attracted to vendors are by definition looking for easy money. They WANT to be deceived. Sad but true.
The following moving average crossover system is used as the benchmark in that paper: a) buy when price closes above a 50 day EMA and stock was a constituent of the ASX200 b) sell when price closes below a 50 day EMA c) transaction costs $20 each way Dr. Bruce Vanstone's conclusion is based on this naive system.
here's the kicker: If a trading strategy has a positive expectation, then the use of initial stops will only serve to degrade performance.
I pay no attention to that side of the business. When I mean vendor, I am talking about legitimate representatives in the business who add value. ie Software Vendors, Relationship Managers, and even Tech Support. CQG has ex-floor traders who went "upstairs", but eventually stopped trading. Surf, A surprising under performance of ATR to % based. Can somebody post opposing research?
I agree about the ATR. I've used it before and got good results. I use S/R now but still have ATR on my spreadsheets to gauge how far away my stop is.
There are multiple published studies that reach the same conclusions. Go with the research or don't. I prefer study and science over feelings and anecdotal claims, but thats just me. Peace. surf