Why not? Staying with my previous example, that teacher makes about 2K per week. But his well balanced student is going to make 20K per week, for that student the 2K fee for possibly having a system for a few good years worths way more than 2 K. I think the profitsharing is a good idea even if just for the first year. If the system doesn't make money or small amount, there is no fee. Otherwise the teacher is well compensated for a possible good system...
1) Charging for a method that works makes sense if you have only recently had some success and need to build up your trading capital If you are already, there is little point 2) There is a widespread belief that you can teach your method to someone else, and oftentimes they STILL won't be able to replicate your success...
and again, so much of the commentary is on teaching method, when in fact a big part of teaching trading is teaching HOW to trade. it is not the same thing. most aspiring traders do not understand game theory, business management, money management, and the psychological aspects of trading that cause them to frequently sabotage themselves. one of the reasons the markets ARE so tradeable is that human behavior is so typical in so many ways. we are not evolved to be traders. in fact, almost the opposite.
Your example doesn't make sense. If you are making 2k per week and you are going to ONLY teach someone for one week... You should only be compensated for the loss income to teach someone for one week = 2k Thus, the reason why your example is flawed is because you are assumining the student will make more than 2k during the one week of mentoring. It's flawed because you are trying to say the student will continue the exact same success after the mentoring has completed. Reality, that's not going to happen. Reality is that the income level will drop when the mentoring has completed as the student is still trying to digest what has been taught for one week... Digesting within a changed market condition. Thus, you are trying to based a higher fee upon income potential of the student in the future... Same student that no longer has access to your service.... Same student that ONLY got one week of mentoring. Another flaw is this... If you (the mentor) doesn't have the ability to make 20k per week... Why would you assume a mentored student that only has one week of tutoring from you can exceed your profit level. Simply, based upon your logic...years from now...the mentor should be able to achieve 20k per week. If that is correct, if/when such happens, that's when you can charge 20k for one week of mentoring... If you are lucky enough to find someone to pay that fee...it can be done with a money back guarantee policy if the mentoring fails to produce profits during the mentoring. Mark
Oh boy.... Since I made the example, it works just fine. That is your approach and feel free to charge only that much. Of course the teacher would be in this teaching business for profit right? If for helping the poor, no further discussion needed.... And we have to look at the other side, and turn over the question: If you have a decent account size, how much of that are you willing to pay as fee for a profitable method? If I had a mill in my trading account, 20K would be small change for having a profitable, 100% annual return strategy... Of course, just like airlines base their fees on the wealth of their costumers, thus there is first class and tourist....
First, your comparison of airlines to mentoring is not compatible. Airlines are not charging you a fee so that you can learn how to fly on your own. Simply, if you want to make some sort'uv a comparison...at least use something along the lines of consulting. Until then, your business model for mentoring fees will not keep you in the mentoring business with clients too long. My point is thus, a mentor goes from making in my example 2k per week via risking his/her own money in the market to making 2k per client via not risking a single penny of his/her own money. Therefore, the income level for the mentor has not changed but the risk associated with that income has changed dramatically. However, if the mentor is risking his/her own money via trading while trying to teach at the exact same time... Of course, a higher fee is merited. However, if the student is risking his/her money while the mentor is not... Charging a fee suitable to the average per week trading profit is appropriate. Can you see the difference??? I'll leave it at that. If you disagree...try your business fee model in mentoring and let me know how it went. Mark
There is no good comparison, because trading is unique this way that once the strategy is taught, it is really up to the student how much money he is willing/able to use it... Will do.... P.S.: It is a deal between the 2 of them, so it is appropriate to charge as much as the market (student) can bear...