LOL. Okay, a two way street makes perfect sense. You will give me your tax returns and I'll pay you, and I will give you my tax returns and you'll pay me. Of course, my returns will cost more than yours -- a lot more. Also, a clever mentor could produce audited trading records from only profitable sources, while failing to disclose unprofitable sources. Why, I could imagine a really clever mentor trading two separate accounts simultaneously in opposite directions, so as to be able to show a profitable track record with little or no risk. This reminds me of one of the oldest investment advice scams: 1. Pick 1,000 potential customers for direct mail newsletter subscriptions. Tell 500 that the market is headed up, the other 500 that the market is headed down. 2. Repeat #1 with the one half of the target audience until that audience starts thinking you can't guess wrong and buys subscriptions. 3. Find a new 1,000 potential customers and repeat #1-2. As the years progress there will always be a very few people (~1 in 1,000), who, by random chance will have obtained great advice and a profit for their initial subscription. Everyone else, however, will have been scammed.
First of all, you are the one that solicited for a mentor along with making such a public announcement at EliteTrader.com Mentors did not contact you first. Secondly, based upon your commentary in this thread... You truly do not understand the value of a good mentor and you underestimate what a good mentor will request of his/her student. Simply, you think its all about 10k with a good mentor. That may be true with a bad mentor or someone that just wants your money but you're approach will not attract a good mentor... So far I've been right. In addition, I did say in my message that a signed letter from a tax accountant w/ contact info along with audit records from a audit firm w/ contact info is better than tax records when those tax records contains other confidential information not related to trading. I also said if there's no other unrelated trading info in a mentor's tax records... Tax records are ok. In addition, I said that making available only part of a tax records that's related to the trading info should be good enough via my that's a different story comment. Summar, only a fool will give you access to private info on tax records that has absolutely NOTHING to do with trading. Just trying to keep you straight about the above facts in my prior message. Last of all, now that you've mentioned scams... Have you heard (it was big news in 2007 for you law folks) about the lawyer that was disbarred due to mortgage fraud, identity theft along with other crimes that was the result of having access to his victims tax records??? Like I said before, you said "no comment" in your $10,000 Challenge thread as a reply to someone else when they said only someone that's naive will take you up on your offer. Who's trying to be clever here??? Mark
To the OP, What I don't think you understand is that whatever methods traders are using today are most likely simple - or if complex, there's a solid logic behind it that keeps it from being confusing. Learning the simple methods isn't the issue. People can show you their setups, but what they can't teach you is how to figure out when a setup is not working, how to notice changes in how orders are being worked, etc. That you can only gain from your own experience and that's how successful traders stay one step ahead. It can't be taught. Today, I was talking to a trader in my office who trades completely differently from me and I asked him to show me his trades. He showed me the setups eh was taking, and it was nothing complex, but the subtleties of why he liked something wwere almost impossible to explain to me - for one reason: his own experience. The only way to get away from the crowd is being sure of what you saw in the past. I look at t&s and the books and see patterns every day. It's not black-and-white and the patterns have subtle differences, but by and large the exact same things happen every single day. A good trade is just clear and obvious to me. No one taught me the setups I used now. I just sat and watched. If you really want to trade, you just have to trade and observe. If you're not observant enough, then a mentor won't be able to change that. All a mentor can do is tell you you're wasting time looking at the wrong things. However, if you post a journal on ET, I'm sure many people will answer your specific questions and give input on your journey. I am saying this only out of genuine honesty, not because I'm bitter or wish you anything negative, but it seems like your personality demands a lot of assurance. You don't want to learn from someone who doesn't babysit you, you don't want to learn from someone with three years of profitability, etc. Now I'm not saying this trait necessarily will carry into your trading, but if it does, it may mean the business is not for you, only becuase trading is all about uncertainty and being okay with that. My "edge" is that I pull the trigger when other people would still wait for more certainty - then, by the time the certainty comes, the price has already shot up, and I can sell into it, getting my "certain" profit. I realize from your point of view what I said might sound absurd - if I were you, I would think that, too. "Basically you're saying because I want to avoid getting conned and I want to make sure I'm only getting trained by someone fully qualified therefore I seek too much assurance in general to make it as a trader." - I know, I probably sound crazy, but it just feels to me like you're approaching trading like a lawyer, not a trader. I could be totally wrong and you could be someone who, once you sit down in front of a screen, can feel natural just hitting the button the second you think it's a long without waiting for anymore certainty and that you are just paranoid because of all the scammers and losers out there. it's likely somewhere in between; I guess to conclude my ramble what I really mean is that you have to approach trading from a paradigm that's foreign from anything else in life. That paradigm is unnatural and has to be learned, no doubt, but the ability to learn it has to be natural. You have to realize all the answers are in the price and the price alone, and the $10k you'd pay someone to pay you is enough of a stake for you to learn the game with on your own. As for my uncertainty example with waiting for reassurance and then it being too late, that's just an analogy for trading in general. You might be able to deal with the uncertainty of a given trade, but what about the uncertainty of your living and future? What happens when your edge stops working and you have to start from scratch, because all you previously knew about trading is worthless and you just blew through 2 good months realizing that? Most people aren't fit to deal with those things.
<i>"Why, I could imagine a really clever mentor trading two separate accounts simultaneously in opposite directions, so as to be able to show a profitable track record with little or no risk..."</i> These are the type of cliche' statements I've heard for years from aspiring traders over and over again. Just one of many tired mantras that never die, it is a seemingly logical thought from someone who has a long way to go before fully understanding all aspects of profitable trading. Here's the reality veteran traders understand: that scenario above is flat-out impossible to accomplish in today's marketplace. Only in the days of yester-decade where floor traders could rig timestamps was such a two-book scam possible. Take ten, one hundred or one thousand trades at random, long in one account and short in another as you see fit. Doesn't matter which way is what. Why? Unless you have a solid edge of trade entry, trade execution and emotional balance to execute those two different and completely separate aspects of trading, both accounts will either finish at par or negative across the board. * Layman's logic assumes that one account would be up equal to the other down, minus costs. That is true after one trade. What about five trades? Ten trades? One hundred trades? No edge in all of those trades = no money in either account at the end. Those who have an edge know better than to try such a failed experiment in the first place
You are. The legal profession is not flush with lawyers scamming people for identity theft. You are describing an anomaly and trying to suggest that it has the same predictive weight as what goes on in the private investment advice industry -- where such scams are notorious. Do you have some governmental license to protect for which you paid a substantial price in both time, effort and money? Do you carry professional liability insurance? I do both of the above. Generally speaking, legal professionals (not accountants, either) do not need to steal their clients' identity info from their tax retuns in order to make a living. We just charge for our services and people pay. That having been said, this is really just an academic discussion, because, as I've already explained several times in this thread, I don't expect anyone to accept my offer -- there's simply no incentive to do so. Anyone who can make 100% annual on his/her investment trading has no reason to tell anyone else how they accomplish this activity.
I appreciate your comments. I'm not really looking for anyone to accept my offer. And, your viewpoint is probably the best that anyone is likely to give -- for free or otherwise.