I think the criteria they have is just about right. Real institutional traders are dealing with millions and millions of dollars and multi-million dollar accounts. the candidates need to have a long track record of working very hard in very competitive environments and suceeding. They need to be the tops of the tops with strong math skills and also be personable to work with their clients. They need to be able to take the pressure without burnout, and not have high turnover. threfore Ivy league, top of class, young, sharp, and with internal referrals...is the way it needs to be. lets be honest that the average individual trader (like those of us on this board) dont meet this criteria. that is why we do it for our own account...instead of with Goldman Sachs money.
are you serious? I would say the opposite 1. lack of track record...clean slate so they havent picked up habits that the company doesnt promote 2. experince...yeah, but only if it is with your major cometition to be able to offer insight . 3. Never blown up. twice means they dont learn their lesson the first time. do you want the trader to blow up the company money..or worse client money? 4. 40+ Wife, family, maybe out of shape? i would find someone with minimal commitments and ability to take extreme stress and abuse, that tends to be the younger crowd.
LOL ES I just had an idea for a reality show on mtv: MAKING THE GRADE: Proprietary Trading Have a house like Real World and give them all prop trading shots... "The Apprentice" LOL how's the new digs ES?
I think that while a serious drawdown may have an initially destabilizing effect, it may actually engender a stabilizing effect on the trader down the road. (At least I sure as hell hope so!)
Yes, it will help down the road. The concept of risk isn't TRULY appreciated until one gets wacked. It reminds me of the definition of a political conservative. It's a liberal who's been mugged.