That's a good start, but journals are worthless unless they span at least two business cycles. Journaling your trades also says nothing about your risk management, which is a big driver in long-term survival.
You may not have been here that long but there's been a few trade journals here that mainly only talked about "risk management". I've seen others that mainly talked about other stuff too besides trades...e.g. economic macro journal. In fact, there's one guy at this forum that preach loudly that "risk management" is the only way to be profitable...nothing else matters. You'll eventually run into him at this forum...hard to miss. Oddly, he had a journal or posted in a community journal but he rarely discussed the details of his risk management while enormously defending his beliefs that its all about risk management. The same is true outside of ET and they've spanned more than several business cycles. Yet, I will say "most journals" I've seen with the exception of the ones I've mentioned above...the other trade journals out there only talk about trades and nothing else in hopes that they will follow whatever trading plan they had as a way to hold themself accountable. Simply, there are a lot of journals worthwhile while many more "may" seem worthless to you but is worthwhile to other people besides to the author. Something else to remember...trade journals can be very personal to some folks. The info in the trade journal is "useful" to the author...not suppose to be useful for you (the reader). Also, I'm seeing more trade journals online that are private (not public) via traders telling me they have an online trade journal but that its private. I assume these types of private journals contain confidential or very personal info besides just trades but info that has impact on the trades. wrbtrader
Agreed and the right to post contentious messages like mine is also uncalled for when dues have not been paid. Hence my comment, "good start". Depends on the direction of the journal going forward. Didn't mean it to talk smack, rather to point in the right direction. Apologies for the admittedly ex-ante overly-simplistic comment.
A lot of random retail money walks into this trade on risky reasons and if industry members were more proactive about it, we can avoid more people getting burned thus more irrational regulations. Right now the populace thinks we're to blame for 2008 cause of "The Big Short" when we all know it's more nuanced than that. Expectations management.
As much as I value sense of independence and autonomy afforded by trading, I do believe if you do work for someone else, whether being paid or no voluntary basis, you do have a responsibility to dedicate your whole self to the job entrusted to you and commit yourself to a certain standard of excellence in accomplishing the tasks that comes with the job. Although you are not obligated to make your supervisor happy unless your job description specifies so, you DO however have a duty to work well, to co-operate and uphold an amicable working (NOT PERSONAL) relationship with your supervisor; that is actually in pretty much all of the job description or stated in your Employee Handbook which nobody cares to read.
I disagree. You don't have an obligation to anyone. They'll can you as soon as it's economically reasonable to.
I would believe that in my younger days. But not how the real world works. Employers would be happy to work you to slave conditions while paying you the bare minimum.
Yes you do. Read your job description and Employee Handbook. You DO have an obligation to do your job with reasonable skill and knowledge as expected AND have an amicable work relationship with both your boss AND your co-workers and treat them with courtesy. If they can you, it has to be within reasonable means and cause. Otherwise you can sue them for wrongful dismissal. But as long as you are in their employment, you are expected to fulfill your duties as laid out in your job description and follow the Employee Handbook. Just because an employer has the right to terminate you for economic reasons doesn't mean that you can treat your job like s***.