777, my take on this is that it is to bright's advantage to have succesful traders since they will generate more commissions. a very active succesful trader will make more for bright than someone who blows out. doesn't it make sense that don would want his traders to be succesful ?? best, surfer
Not saying he wants his traders to fail, but that is different than screening out those who will likely fail, and making money in the process on people who never had any business, or psychological/mental/work ethic developed to become successful traders. Think about how may traders are underfunded, thus creating undue stress. Is taking on a trader, who the odds are against due to underfunding, either monetarily or emotionally/mentally, really in the best interest of the trader, or in the best interest of he firm generating commissions. Heck, if by some chance the trader beats the averages, fine. But, does Bright have a moral or fiduciary responsibility to screen applicants with whatever testing measures that could be used to weed out the weak?
unfortunately, the only available test is the market herself. trading is the only way one can tell if they have the "right stuff". what i am saying is one should only use risk capital and never use educational funds for the test. best, surfer
Well, the proof is in the pudding. However, if you were a prop firm that hired people and bankrolled them, would you have hired Aphie and that 40 year old guy based on the little you knew of them from their volumes of ideas about trading with little or no experience trading? Wouldn't you at the very least want them to trade on simulation for a while before you bankrolled them, and see how they deal with pressure? Bright offers anyone a chance to gamble as long as the meet some simple entrance requirements: money and a series 7. If Bright were risking their own money, I assure you they would be much more careful about the hiring practices. After a while of dealing with traders for years and years, don't you think you could tell pretty quickly whether or not someone had the right stuff?
All of what you mentioned has to be overcome by all traders weather there profile is one way or another, this is what makes a trader great. I think dons offer is a good opportunity. It is a hard buisness to get started in. And for those willing it is a good start.
My knock is not on the business of trading. My suggestion is that there are many who are not qualified emotionally, financially, or psychologically to try. We have qualification processes for nearly every other profession, periods of learning and examination, but to work for Don you only need enough money to get started and pass a series 7. That hardly seems professional to me. You may want to address the moral issue of whether or now firms should pre-qualify, but that is a different issue. We have rules that prevent minors from gambling, as we don't think they are qualified to make the decision to engage in that type of risk. Society deems them to be incapable of making an intelligent decision on how to spend their money. We have drivers licenses, that require an examination and passing standards before one can drive a car. Why not have rules that prevent people from trading at prop firms unless they demonstrate before hand that they have the requisite skills to succeed. Of course, if no one knows why people succeed or fail at trading, or how to see that before hand that is an issue. However, I seriously doubt that over the course of time you couldn't analyze all the failures and find repeating patterns in the failures, and then take this data to use as entrance requirement or testing before someone is allowed to blow their money up in commissions to prop firms.
I guess no one should ever go into any business, join a stock exchange, attempt to ride a horse, or anything else unless they first verify that they can succeed at it. Please continue to do nothing, then you won't have to be worried about the "boogey man" getting you and taking your money (but then, if you do nothing, how would you have money)....damn, I'm starting to sound as silly as you.....Oh yeah, for God's sakes don't try sex, you just might fail. Back to you (not cranky anymore)... lol Don
If 90% of people failed at sex, the human race would cease to exist. Bad analogy. The key issue are the statistics of failure. No one should be denied the opportunity to do whatever they want, but they should be counseled at the probability of success, and given a good reason to think that will in fact overcome the odds. Are you selling dreams or reality? I don't believe you counsel, or test to find those limitations that that lead to failure to a high degree of certainty. Sure, you can't deny a person paralyzed from the neck down the right to seek to play in the NBA, or you can't deny a 60 point IQ person the right to become an Quantum Mechanical physicist, but you can speak to them in common sense terms and try to find out why they think they will succeed in overcoming seemingly insurmountable odds. If after thoroughly understanding all the facts, having taken all the tests to see clearly where they are when they want to embark on a task, if they want to continue, let them.
Sorry, Pal....but there are many examples of successful people with "low IQ's".....And, of course, by becoming a trading member of a stock exchange, and LLC member, and having passed the Series 7, and having created enough wealth and desire to run their own business.......counts much more than any type of testing. (not that the Series7 accounts for much, every stockbroker passed it lol). Don