I think the OP brought up a valid hypothetical question. "It occurred to me that if one is consistently profitable (or losing) trading, one can use that to transfer capital by doing simultaneous opposite operations on at least two accounts. Has anyone ever done that, intentionally, purposefully? Any thoughts? " One reason I can think of is to access the funds in a locked in retirement account. Retirement trading accounts with no cash withdraws before a certain age do exist.
and he is obviously a loonie, because he thinks if you dare mention the name Hillary, that somehow you are talking about politics instead of the math of a mirror account
I know my question could be a silly one but I still would like to ask. Why don't both of you/partner use the consistently profitable trading system to make unlimited money legally? I am just curious!
Hypothetical Involving or based on a suggested idea or theory Imagined as an example involving or based on a hypothesis. An idea.
If you're taking both sides of the same trade it's not hard to trade inefficiently in a way that makes one leg consistently more likely to lose and the other leg consistently more likely to win without having any edge on the market that could help you in regular trading. I'll leave it to the more clever members of the forum to figure out how that could be done in hopes it keeps those who might not see the wisdom of not doing this for real from learning how to do it. I'm guessing that the OP figured this out, but there's really not enough info in his post to determine for sure if he is indeed a "loonie" or more clever than you. Your post, on the other hand, gives us all the information we need.
you are preaching to the choir, I am strictly a spread trader. Loonie is a respectful term for the Canadian Dollar.
Sig, If you are spread trader it is very difficult to guess before hand which leg will be more profitable. The spread keeps you alive when you guess wrong. Guessing right makes you money.
Well said on the Canadian Dollar! Think spreads with a wide spread and you're taking both sides of the exact same trade.
The topic is: using trading to transfer capital between different accounts, controlled by the same person (maybe I should have specified that, but most have gotten it. It's not about allocating outcomes to accounts). Here's an example and a twist. It is a recurrent theme, related by anecdotes and brokers originating stories, of accounts growing steadily over time and then lost in a rapid succession of wrong operations purpotedly due to loss of focus or changing market conditions. Could some of those instances hide an intent to elude taxation by transferring capital from an original account to one offshore, created ad hoc? Drawing money from original account, into mirror account, could be quicker than the build-up phase and could do without its typical cautions. Why not trade directly from an offshore account? You may ask. Quite possibly it would feature higher commissions (in exchange for the tax benefits); it could well feature lower capital insurance; it certainly has set up and running costs which may not become justified until the capital gain has actually been realized. And here's the twist. In general, consistently making or losing money trading is not absolutely necessary in order to surreptitiously transfer money from one, determined, account to another. Given a sufficient sample, the desired transfer will occur by chance, as long as the destination account is not depleted. Or at least, the statistical edge need not be so stringent (extreme) as required for accumulating profits. To loosen the trading advantage requirement, one would need more capital in the destination account. The procedure could make use of higher risk operations without actually increasing the risk of losing money. Just thinking out aloud. I'm an INTJ http://www.humanmetrics.com/personality/intj