You're absolutely correct in that we as traders will often not take the warnings seriously enough and that could be due to such not being mentioned enough and that there's too much unsubstantiated statements without further warnings about the high risks of trading. Just a reminder, most of the gurus are at forums, stocktwits, twitter, blogs and free chat rooms. Thus, they don't have publishing houses. They just write messages online although I know you're talking about book authors. My point is that if you're going to talk about gurus and regulations...you may as well talk about the biggest group of gurus and they are not book authors. Seriously, many members at this forum is giving "trading advice"...should they be required to discuss risk management every single time they give "trading advice" ? What about the fact that we are anonymous...how does the government regulate that ? Anyone giving advice in this thread...who decides if its criminal, bad or good advice ? Maybe its the responsibility of the forum owner and members themselves to regulate gurus and not government regulators. Seriously, why stop with traders...shouldn't people investing on their own also be included ? Simply, if you're going to start something...go all the way with it and include all those involved.
You're overlooking the fact that there is a spectrum of trust. When someone gives their real name and lists their summa cum laude J.D. degree on their book they are more likely to be trusted when giving day trading advice, therefore they are more likely to effectively manipulate people. Therefore there is and should be a higher onus on them to qualify their advice with a primary focus on risk management and a general transparency of their 3rd-party-verified trades. It seems like that summa cum laude J.D. degree is all these greedy publishing houses care about before giving day trading authors a free pass.
Incorrect, I do not overlook it. In contrast, you pretend this guru problem is isolated to book authors when such is just a minor problem in comparison to the overall guru problem and I only say such because in all the conversations I've had with you about this issue...you have never replied with an acknowledgment about forum/blogs/stocktwits/chat room gurus...not a single reply from you about the biggest group of gurus. Therefore, I don't know why you're ignoring the biggest group of gurus because if you want to regulate book authors that spew trading advice that some say is good while others say is bad...you need to regulate all gurus and not a small group of them called book authors. In fact, there's many at this forum that are consistently named as gurus or accused of having some kind'uv cult like status. Most of them consistently give trading advice and only a small percentage of them actually give any kind of verification. Why would they get a free pass and book authors don't get a free pass considering its the same advice ? Today, here at the forum, I saw three trading advice messages by people that I consider to be gurus or having a large following of believers and there's no focus by them on risk management nor did they mention any disclaimer statements about the high risks of trading. Yet, I've seen similar like advice by book authors about the exact same topic. Therefore, you can not regulate one and not the other when the advice is the same or similar like. Simply, don't underestimate the fact that free advice can be equally damaging if the advice is bad advice and someone then follows (acts) on the advice. In addition, don't be naive in thinking that free info can not be manipulating or more manipulating considering there are too many legal cases involving such that proves that an anonymous user can post messages online under the facade of "helping" or "instructional" for any reader to see and followed the advice. Do you think I'm joking ? You have now stated that name titles or backgrounds can be used to manipulate other traders. There currently are two trading forums that label members with titles like "Elite Member", "Master Trader", "Veteran Trader" and so on along with allowing members to post their academic or trading background in their profiles. Do you think that's manipulating and its all for free. Seriously, would you listen to advice of an anonymous forum member with the title "Master Trader" and his profile states he graduated with a math degree from Northwestern or would you listen to someone giving you advice that has the title "Beginner Trader" and nothing mention in their profile ? Therefore, don't be naive in thinking book authors manipulating. Its something everybody does via their small avatar pictures to them saying "I'm a woman" at a forum or them saying at a forum "I'm a former hedge fund manager" or someone that post live trades at a forum "without" any verification such trades actually were taken. This is why many forums about trading or not related to trading have their own disclaimer statements... They (forum owners) are not liable for what their members post because they know some of the crap members post is problematic. Once again, no argument about book authors needed more regulation but the issue is that you're missing the biggest group of gurus and they aren't book authors. Therefore, if you want regulation, you can't regulate a small group and let the biggest group go unregulated unless your argument isn't really about gurus...its just about a specific type of book author in which you aren't able to take responsibility for your poor judgement and you feel you were manipulated...contrasting others that say the book author is worth it. You also may not realize or maybe don't care...many book authors say they don't trade "any more" and that they're just in the education business. How do you regulate and verify those book authors ? What about book authors like psychologists that works with Wall Street and they themselves are not traders ? This is important because some of the best books I've ever read about the markets did not involve any instructions on how to trade. My point is that you're in fact talking about a specific type of book author...a small percentage of book authors...those that teach how to trade. Some of the best books I've read on that topic (how to trade) are by people that are now dead or retired from trading and those books are still being publish...how do you regulate them...do you call their spouses and ask for broker statements from accounts that are +10 years old or prior to the book being written ? Seriously, its very easy to say this small group of people need to be regulated but you give no clues or suggestions how to regulate them nor do you mention anything about additional tax burden for doing such when you keep using the words "government regulators". That's why people say its your responsibility to do your own due diligence because there will always be someone out there that sees the trading advice as bad while someone else that sees the same trading advice as good. Just go to Amazon and look at the opinions by buyers...some recommend the books as a buy while others say don't waste your time. Besides, many today get around that book author thing via printing their own books or going digital format without the need to go through a publishing company. Just remember this...the OP of this thread gets some advice from stocktwits (e.g. his VRX trade). The trading advice he actually saw on stocktwits was by Jim Chanos that VRX was a "short". Instead, the OP decided to play the "long side" and lost and then failed minimize the loss via using poor trade management due to poor risk management. Is it Jim Chanos fault for not reminding the OP about risk management. Is it Jim Chanos fault for not knowing the OP should not be trading with money from high interest loans. Is it Jim Chanos fault for not knowing he has some readers that are trading from work. Does Jim Chanos even know the backgrounds of those reading his messages on stocktwits. Of course its not Jim Chanos fault. By the way, since you've made a big issue about how titles can be manipulating (actually you've implied it was intentional for the purpose to manipulate). Now check out the profile of Jim Chanos @ http://www.insidermonkey.com/hedge-fund/kynikos/231/ or the bio @ http://www.valuewalk.com/jim-chanos-bio/ or @ http://som.yale.edu/james-chanos I'm now curious, how does his title and profile manipulate you into trusting him ? What happens if he says on stocktwits again that he's Shorting something and you follow what he's doing but you lose money...should he be regulated or should you be given access to his broker statements for verification he actually took those trades so that you can feel better about your loss that he's not a fraud ? Here's another point...Jim Chanos has not written any books that I know of. In contrast, there are many books written by others about him as a Short seller. Should those book authors be require to verify Jim Chanos is the real deal considering those book authors are recommending him along with discussing in detail the how and why behind Jim Chanos trade positions. The other point, gurus (professional and retail) are on stocktwits giving out trading advice.
My definition of a day trading guru is a for-profit person who sells more than one product, mentoring, trading books/guides, trading videos/courses, and daily trading webinars/chatrooms, while having the audacity to claim that day trading is their source of income and showing no evidence of their abilities. My personal definition eliminates most of the people you mention but leaves open some of the bigger names in this potentially criminal and clearly socially irresponsible enterprise known as day trading education. How do you know all of my trading losses are due to my poor judgement? Perhaps it's my good judgement to not lost even more money, maybe day trading is inherently unsustainable as a source of income and governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens from it, just as workplaces have government-enforced standards of safety to protect workers? FINRA has taken some steps to weaken these snake oil salesmen and saleswomen, more needs to be done and more can and will be done based on FINRA's past success.
As a reminder, this thread is not about your problems with a snake oil salesman. You've done this several times in the past about hijacking threads that are not about that topic and turning them into about "your problem". As others have stated to you before and as I am doing now...please stop hijacking conversations when there currently are threads specifically devoted to that topic. Although I do understand this thread location (not in the trade journal section) does open the gate for other conversations. Regardless, the problem is you and you have openly admitted to problems that happen to you a long time ago that's having some kind'uv permanent psychological impact on you. You keep saying they're not verified. If so, why the hell are you still using them and please don't reply to tell me their education background manipulates you into believing they're the real deal. The issue is still you...you do not know how to do your due diligence...its that simple. If you've stop using the problematic person(s)...great. Its time for you to get over it and trade the way you want to trade...your way. You in fact are the one manipulating. You've joined to his forum and stated things like "gurus" are praying upon fatherless families, praying upon at risk families, they are criminal, related it to prostitution, taking advantage of those with psychological problems and then as soon as someone calls you out on that crap... You suddenly (magically) become coherent and start talking about "day trading gurus" that sell just about anything. Do you even realize the owner of this forum is a vendor ? He makes his money off the sponsors that advertises here. There's no money if members stop posting. Thus, you and I help him make money with every post we make. How's that for irony. If you have specific problem with someone in particular, go contact FINRA and give them a name. Its that simple. Yet, that's problematic for you for some reason because those you've specifically mentioned in the past...they're still in business and many highly recommend them. Of course there's a problem in trading education. It has always been that way since the early 1900s long before there was a FINRA and of course they are eventually weeded out long before there was a FINRA. Trading itself including day trading is not design to be a primary source of income until you're old, grey and no longer able to get it up. If you're smart and you have something that works...you exploit the hell out of it until it no longer works. Hopefully, when it stops working, you're able to adapt it to new trading conditions or you find a new edge. For example, some here at ET admits they as scalpers are no longer profitable as the past and they say its due to algorithms by the professional. They've now adapted and are now algorithm traders. Simply, they made the money in scalping and then when it wasn't working any more for them...they adapted and moved into something else that's now making them money. That's how you make trading sustainable...adapting when needed. Lastly, there are ET members here with chat rooms, posting in depth details in threads here at the forum about their trade strategies, posting Youtube videos, helping (mentor like) other ET members while not showing any evidence of their trading...freely doing such and they are not selling anything. Do you seriously believe a lot of the gurus on stocktwits are ONLY doing things on stocktwits. Some give seminars, post educational (instructional) messages at forums, organize meetings (hookups), post videos on Youtube, make .pdf files and so one and they are not selling anything. Its all free. In fact, many ET members consistently say to others...you really do not need to buy anything. All you need is screen time and Google. Do they need to be regulated by government regulators or by the forum owner or do they get a free pass because its free ? P.S. See you in the next thread you hijack (take of topic) and turn it into a thread about your problems with "day trading gurus". P.S.S. What if this thread turns into a big success. The OP becomes highly profitable and then starts another thread in which he educates others about the details of his trade strategy. What if he starts giving trading advice, making real-time trade calls, makes a few Youtube videos but there's no verification that trades are taken (this thread is already seen by a few as being a fake). Should he be regulated ? P.S.S.S. Many vendors have a disclaimer statement including two specific vendors you've complained about in other threads. Their disclaimer statement specifically mentions that all trades shown or discussed are to be "consider hypothetical...selected after the fact". Yet, you've complained the those individuals should be verified and criminal along with manipulating you. Going forward, when you read disclaimer statements like that...they do not need to send you any verification information...its all hypothetical. In contrast, those other users that say "it works"...they are the ones that you should be asking to prove it.
So what was the plan for this trade? In the above big winner in VRX you mentioned your risk was a 1% loss and you we're out? Why was this one different? If you still liked the setup, your trading plan could account for multiple entries? Perhaps a 1% loss on the initial entry would be alright and when your wrong, get out and perhaps look for another entry later. When you think it can't go any lower, it can go lower, if you think it can't go any higher, it can go higher. Price and what the market wants to pay is the only thing that matters. Make some rules and a plan, backtest with programming, manual backtest, figure out if you have an edge and some sort of money management rules to allow you to stay in the game for the long haul. http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/vrx/institutional-holdings This is not my forte as I just trade charts but VRX has kind of interested me in the fact that it has a 92% institutional ownership. I keep wondering where this sell off is coming from since I can't see these funds allowing their positions to take such a beating. Surely their capable with enough cash to manipulate price but I don't know where they'd dump them too. Wonder how regulated institutions are since in my mind Ackman could go on CNBC and praise the company while he's got his team trying to dump part of his position onto the public? Also your asking of NASDAQ, I'm assuming that's just the NASDAQ 100 composite which is just a weighted index based off market cap. Funny part about NASDAQ 100 is that I couldn't find any information on current weightings but remember seeing the top 10 last year and their weights, and the top 10 weightings accounted for about 45% of the index. For instance AAPL was around 15% of the NASDAQ 100. It's also heavily tech based so when tech sector gets hit it goes down with it.
No, one disclaimer statement does not provide a guru with a free pass to say whatever they want about trades. Some gurus SPEAK their disclaimer statements at the start of all videos and as their signature on all of their posts and focus more on said hypothetical after the fact observations. Others are more subtle with their written disclaimer statements, often contradicting their statements in their marketing products and may be open to litigation and prosecution. On the subject of hijacking, why don't you share with us how you manage risk on trades like the OP's VRX trade, it seems like you get more pleasure out of being a d*ck arguing with me and blaming people for their understandable mistakes in an inherently dangerous game.
If I understand you correctly... Without mentioning any names other than saying one particular guru you've slammed repeatedly at this forum and he has a disclaimer that specifically states for you (readers) to consider all trade discussions as hypothetical...that type of disclaimer statement is not important to you considering recently you've slammed him again about not informing you about certain aspects of trading. In addition, you showed up in this thread and changed the topic as you've done in many other threads...now who's behaving like a d*ck at this forum (I doubt you will stop) ? I do know one logical thing. If someone puts on their website that the trades he's talking about are hypothetical...I'm smart enough to know it doesn't make sense to demand broker statements or some 3rd party verification from that person...makes sense to me but apparently not to you. As for my risk management for the OP. Its already given. Can you read or not read ? Thus, be mature because there's no need to play those childish games via replying to request me to show him how to manage his risk in trading when you already know I've specifically stated several times that the OP should not be trading with those high risk loans as his trading capital, should not be trading while at work and should not be trading until he has something in place that will not allow him to violate his risk management rules because "sticky notes on the monitor" is not a solution to prevent poor risk management or poor discipline. In contrast, what if brokers had a protocol that stopped your trading when you exceeded 10% of your trading capital in losses and then require you to be re-educated each time about risk management, trade management whenever you exceed 10% in losses and then you must pass some test to prove you really understand. Please explain why that couldn't work besides saying it may put the brokers out of business ? Seriously, why do you think I keep ranting about brokers should give retail traders tests to determine if they are suitable for trading. Why do you think I rant about credit checks to weed out people like the OP of this thread. Why do you think I rant about data vendors and brokers should mail disclaimer statements that traders must sign with their John Henry to say they understand risk management and high risks involve in trading along with making retail traders take an online class about risk management and then they take a test about such that they must pass... All prior to being allowed to open an account with a broker or data vendor. Why not the above considering trading can be dangerous to one's financial being and their mental health. Heck, to drive a car we must take a class for a month or so, take a written test and then take a real driving test prior to being allowed to drive on the road by our self. We even have laws that require "remedial driving training" for those with excessive speeding convictions or DUI. Now imagine such being a requirement (remedial class and test involving risk managment) for retail traders that suffer 10% or more in losses of their trading capital in one day. I'm serious...I think it could work. There's a problem in the industry of retail trading...most (arguable around 90%) are losing and they think they'll figure it out eventually via trial n error. As congressional meetings stated...that's an alarming rate although their investigations put the blame on different reasons for such (e.g. brokers not educating traders about leverage and risk management, lack of protocols to identify those not suitable for trading). That's congress...I'm sure they have access to more information in their investigations of our industry called retail trading than you or I and they never used the words "day trading guru". In addition, they put the blame on advertising tactics and referred to it as "grossly deceiving" by the brokerage industry and data vendor industry. Yet, here we are today and you're still unable to accept responsibility for your own poor due diligence. Wake up, too many traders are losing money and it has very little to do with "day trading gurus" considering most of those losing money aren't using the type of gurus you mention except for paying attention to as much free info they can get their hands on. If you doubt me...use Elitetrader.com and go into all the trade journals at this forum (most are losing) and ask traders if they are taking advice or learning from a "day trading guru". Even more so because I see more traders shifting into mechanical trading, automation trading, systems designing and algorithm trading. Take a look at this thread, do you think the OP is on stocktwits to give trading advice or to receive it or do you consider some "day trading guru" is out there teaching him how to trade considering it was you (not me) that showed up in this thread to complain about "day trading gurus ? If they say its hypothetical...you should be congratulating them for being honest. P.S. I get a lot of pleasure in discussing the psychological aspects of trading especially behavior finance because I think its one of the keys to success and longevity in trading. You're welcome to disagree.
That is a BAD idea. First, without those people willing (although unintentionally) to buy the highs and sell the lows the market would be much less liquid and harder for us to make money. Second, what if the person is opening an account for INVESTING, not trading? That is a COMPLETELY different mind set. Third, what if their credit rating is bad but ONLY because of medical debt from an ailing family member? Should they be "weeded out"? Fourth, I am getting sick of the government trying to pass laws restricting everyone in a misguided attempt to regulate stupidity in order to save the chronically stupid from themselves. It will never work, they will just find a new way to self destruct and everyone else ends up with less freedom. Yep, that is Congress, the group of ignorant imbeciles who ask the wrong people for advice (usually "experts" hired by lobbyists to get certain laws passed), then pass laws that hurt more people than it helps. The group who have all but destroyed our economy and pushed our debt to the brink of ruin. The group that when something bad happens, prefers to pass knee jerk reaction laws just to appear like they are "doing something" rather than determine root cause and an intelligent solution. It's these guys that you want determining who is and is not fit to trade? I doubt even 10% of them would even be able to pass the test.
Maybe its a bad idea because we wouldn't know how to manage such ? I don't know and its something I believe in but I have no solutions about how to manage such properly. As for credit checks, they know what your debts are for...they know if its a home foreclosure or if you just took out a high risk loan for 100k and then deposited 100k into the brokerage account for trading. Heck, many brokers do criminal background checks. How they do such, I don't know...surely they aren't contacting the FBI via sending in social security numbers. Regulation of stupidity is needed when stupidity don't realize its them (traders, ve. Yet, something needs to be done because +90% failure rate is not only too large...its impacting the lives of many that ignore the fact or pretend someone should have educated them that trading involves high risk and that you could lose all of your capital or most of it. This is not a knee jerk reaction considering I first read about these research/investigations beginning late 1990s. The only thing that came out of it that was an eye opener was a congress fellow name Bernie Sanders (part of those investigations) that then propose a tax on trading and he puts the blame on hft and day traders for the chaos in the markets (not exactly his words but that's what I took away from it). Yeah, maybe they should be using an unbias research company to determine the root cause and come up with intelligent solutions. Yet, it just makes sense for brokers to have in place some sort'uv risk management protocol when risk management rules are violated because like you said...some folks are stupid. P.S. I have a friend that lost 75% of his trading capital in one day a few years back while trading stocks. He got a phone call from his broker at the end of the day (no calls during the day while he was approaching 75% in losses) and ask him if things were OK.