Some trading groups have a trader success rate of 40-50% or better. This shows that the Bright model is not the best one in the industry. It all boils down to a firm's ability to pre-screen aspiring traders and the quality of training and on-going support it can provide.
Well, if you want to piss away money like that, then more power to you. Heck, what's $4,800 a year among friends! I've got a slightly used Brooklyn Bridge for sale if you're interested! Sucka...
I certainly am not telling someone that they should not try. I would though, ask any newbie why they think they can and will beat the odds that are so heavily stacked against them in taking on the challenge of trading professionally. With most schools that provide an education or training for a career, you have to pass entrance exams and they have qualification processes to weed out those who really have a low probability for success. I mentioned it to Don once in a post that firms like his should have entrance exams and psychological testing to see if an applicant is really of the right mental and emotional development to take on the task of becoming a professional day trader. He agreed it would be a good idea in theory. Has this testing been put to into practice? My guess is that nothing has or will be done in this area as long as firms like Don's can continue to make money the way they are. If only 10% of those who try to trade professionally at firms who offer training have success, don't you think there is something lacking in their training programs, or am I missing something here? The failure rates at med school, law school, etc. are not that high.... You have to pass exams in order to be licensed to practice medicine, law, as a CPA, etc. Why aren't there exams to qualify traders before they begin trading (beyond a series 7, which has nothing to do with one's ability to trade)? Some will say that there are not exams that can pre-screen traders, but I don't think that is true. Air traffic control workers are tested thoroughly before they are allowed to direct real air traffic, and the tests they take include measuring their ability to make very difficult and impactful decisions under stressful situations. Sure, there is a big difference between a simulator and the real thing, but if someone can't pass the simulator test to a high enough level, they are not allowed to proceed to the next step. Let me ask you this question: If Don were putting up his own money for the training expenses and providing the seed money for trading out of his own pocket, entrusting his own money to the results of those he recruits and trains, do you think he would be more careful in the selection and training process, and test them thoroughly before letting them trade? Of course he would, as he would have his own money at risk. Since he is not risking his or the firms own money, the results are not as impactful where it matters...i.e. his own pocket. Bright can be a schlock shop like all the rest, make money on the constant flow of dreamers, and tell us he sleeps well at night as he is of a "higher moral" character than the others. The bottom line is, even if he is a better crook than the other crooks, he is still a crook in the sense that he does not tell the whole story or provide all the facts about the business. When someone comes along who revolutionizes the industry, who can show a success rate for training traders at a significantly higher clip than Bright's training provides....then I will value these types of firms at a higher level of esteem. I firmly believe you could take a bunch of monkeys trading randomly and likely get as good or better results as these firms demonstrate from their "boot camps" and training programs through the first 6 to 12 months of trading by people who have not really had the level of professional training it takes to succeed in this business. Hell, a flip of the coin would likely do better than the 90%failure rates....and monkeys wouldn't suffer the stress of knowing that they are losing their money.
Sucka?? I don't think so... cause I've never paid it. Do some volume you lightweight. Another advocate of the sheep...tend your own farm... like I said (I think) we are all adults here.
Most professions or schools like med or law have entrance exams because there are limited spots. In daytrading, anybody who wants in with money will be accepted. That's the difference! Everyone is in it to make a quick buck. Don't you think the failure rate at Harvard Law School would be much higher if every schmuck was accepted at will? And I bet you that over 90% would fail!
You DID pay for it, because the volume rebates should be going into YOUR pocket, not Don's. Besides, volume doesn't pay the bills, profits do!
Thanks for clearing this up. First off, the $1000 (lifetime fee) is not a requirement, and second of all it does not end up in my pocket. This is simply the best way to get traders started in the right direction. So many have wished they came here before losing much bigger sums due to their ego's and other 'penny wise" thought processes. Don
Come on guys, this is getting pretty silly again... To 777: I could specify names and incidents to support what I say about what goes on in this industry (holding money, lawsuits, illegal recruiting practices, and the like), but then I feel that I would come off more like "sour grapes"....the firms I characterize are well known on this board and the industry. As far as "statistics" go, I've never said that there is not a big failure rate in this business, it is not easy (simple, but not easy)....and since 90+% of all businesses fail, our success rate (documented several times at 70% of traders who make it the first year) (and, yes, about 50% don't make it the first year), so that is still 35%....a pretty good number (as reported to regulators). I have never, ever, seen any firm attempt to document anything better than that.....so let me put the onus on you....can you prove to me that any other firm does a better job in this business?? Of course you can't, but it doesn't really matter since this is such an "individual sport"....all the success of others cannot help those who won't try....or don't want to try. I would love to have an actual debate with you about the "advocacy" of the trader....live, verbal, and let everyone listen in. You'll find that we are in agreement much more than we differ in our opinions. Your perception of me may or may not be true, but we could try to get legitimate points across....and heck, it might be fun!!! Thanks to those who have some facts to support the statements made, and for your comments. Now get back to trading and enjoy yourselves.... Don
Very non-specific comments, about what I thought I would get from you. Sour Grapes? You were not hesitant to call the competition a bunch of names last week. What is sour grapes about revealing the truth? Gloss over the details, that is what sales and marketing is all about, right? Avoid the fine print is the motto of a closer. "Advocacy of a trader?" That is a laugh. If there was better preparation, training and qualification procedures before people were "allowed" to trade, there would be a higher success ratio. You feed such a load of crap to people. You come on like some Mother Theresa, but you are just a businessman like all the rest, bottom line is profits for Bright. Nothing wrong with that, but be honest. Nothing is worse than a salesman who pretends to be your buddy, pretending to be a "good guy" when the bottom line is his commish check. So come off the social worker angle, ok? One simple question: DO YOU GET PAID A FLAT SALARY, OR DO YOU GET A COMMISSION AND BONUS BASED ON NEW RECRUITS, COMMISSIONS GENERATED VIA TRADERS TRADING, ETC.?
Don, I thought your answer was quite specific. As for Don's compensation package / ownership stake, its very personal and nobody business. I think is obvious to all that a guyed named Don "Bright" who works for a company called "Bright" will make money if the company takes in more money.