Let's see, if I make 1% a day (on average) on a capital of 50K, this means that I make 500$ a day. Assuming I trade 4 day a week on average (I like to travel and do other things not trading) I will still have 4*4*500 = 8k a month, now, even after tax (about 5.5K), that more than I need to live (I am very frugal and I own my house) so every month I spend 2.5K to live and add 3K to my account. Now, when should I become a billionaire? Of course, for a year or two I may wish to trade a bit more and grow my capital to 100K-200K so that then I could enjoy even more free time or buy another house or whatever. I simply do not care in the least to become a billionaire and the only reason to make a million (or five) would be to have some added security in case anything happens. Still I will never be a billionaire.
Are you dyslexic or something? Or my post wasn't simple enough for you? Nothing forces you to compound, but you won't be making 300% a year the following year if you don't deploy the profits made the previous year, I thought I was very clear with the hedge fund example. Nobody measures performance by what is only in his trading account, by that measure I would have made far more than 300% a year because my trading account is usually underfunded (I only fund it when I see opportunities arise). Unless you aren't able to compound at all (barely making enough money to pay the rent), nobody who is making 300% a year will not increase size eventually. I did show you the math but its obvious that you can't read. 100k compounded annually at 300% over 20 years gives you one billion. Of course if you are barely making enough money to pay the bills (with say a 10k account) then thats not going to happen, and I also do not know anyone who can make 300% a year on such a small account, definitely not consistently even if its achievable over the very short run (which is meaningless for long term survival). Now this is just dumb. Where did I state that its impossible to make money as a trader? I have an issue with the returns that you claim are possible over the long run, I don't have any issue with people trading to make 20-30% or even 50% a year. I have made over 7 figures (from just 20k) from trading over the last 10 years, and I didn't have any other sources of income when I started trading, so I think I know what kind of returns are possible over the long run. What about you young punk? Did you start trading 3 months ago, made some easy money because we are in a bull market and therefore concluded that 300% a year is possible over the next 10 years? Lmao... I'm sorry to inform you that you extrapolated wrongly if that is so.
So you would grow your capital to 100-200k in 2 years' time and you will trade more, now think about what this would mean if you continue to make 300% a year (which is about 1% a day on avg), you would still become a billionaire in about ~20 years, assuming your expenses do not change (30k annual withdrawal is trivial relative to 200k account). Its obvious that such returns are not possible or sustainable over the long run, or we'd have several day trading billionaires by now.
No, you have a problem reading. Each year I trade with a fixed amount of money. I always make 300% a year on that amount of money. I never spoke about compounding. That was the statement. As I put my profits in other investments, I will never go broke. You use compounding because that's the only way you can defend yourself. About your "performance" there is no proof at all, just you posting it. You have no clue about me nor about my trading. I trade over 25 years, so not so young anymore, and I have more or less an idea what trading is and what is achievable by me. I had my proper fund and was registered as CTA with the NFA and the CFTC. Stopped all this nonsense because I had no life anymore. Clients calling all the time, lots of job to keep everything in order with NFA and CFTC... I have enough money of my own, don't need any clients to make a X digit income that enables me to live a good life. I prefer miilions and a good life above billions with no life. But to understand that you should first get in this position. Dreamers have no clue about all the worries you have managing 24/7 a lot of positions. The fact that you need to use "What about you young punk? Did you start trading 3 months ago, made some easy money because we are in a bull market and therefore concluded that 300% a year is possible over the next 10 years?" shows you that you have not a single real argument. Stupid or marginal people use this kind of discussion. You are really arrogant. You think you are the smartest trader in the world and nobody can beat you? Discussion is closed for me.
Sometimes people make strong statements to proof their (imaginary?) superiority and the inferiority of the counter party. But on internet statements without any proof are just unverifiable statements, so they can be true, but they can also be false. But the risk exists that by posting these strong statements they deliver the necessary information to the counter party to proof that the statements are pure lies. I made a simulation based on statement and the result was the following: Conclusion: nobody can make 10 years even +50%, but the author himself makes over 200% net each year. If not he can never go from $20,000 to $1,000,000 in 10 years without any other income.
Wrong! Its just not possible based on taxes alone. You can tell by the tax rates of years #9 & #10 - that is the mistakes most people that never made into high income brackets forget to fudge properly when making up false profit spreadsheets and/or equity curves. For example in 2015 & 2016 the MFJ (married filing jointly) tax rate is 39.6% on income over $465,000. On line #10 he reports paying only $50,000 when the Fed tax rate alone is 39.6% or $285,296 with the standard deduction of $12,600. Hence, line 11 can not be more than $466,966 and that is not even including state taxes.
The net profit is very symmetrical - don't we all wish the market was like an ATM where year over year we make 200% which is required just to keep the lights on - no draw downs or flat years and income tax never increased when leaping tax brackets. This spreadsheet is a fantasy - not real world.
Your posting confirms that the statement that was made about going from 20k to 1000k in 10 years is pure fantasy. The spreadsheet showed what mathematically the minimal return was, needed to achieve the posted returns. I never said that this is a realistic situation, it is the minimal mathematical return that is needed to validate the earlier posting. If you go in any year below this return you will NEVER reach 1000k in 10 years.