In agreement, trading is a bad trade for the majority, however for those who stick it out over many years it can become a good trade. Trading is good for the soul, much to learn and imo is a window to understanding people. The responses on this thread an example of how entertaining trading is. The mention was made, the exception to the 'bad trade' was investing and I fully agree. This is the reason and generalising here.... (a) it takes many years to learn, (b) when it finally gels how to trade you will have lost a lot of money, (c) it may take some years to recoup those losses, (d) when you are now account positive you are beginning to age, (e) when you age your brain slows, you have lost energy, you DO NOT want to be day trading, believe me. (f) as an older citizen you want quality of life, passive investing is the way and if you wasted years day trading you will not be ready for investing, it's a different mindset and again years of experience on what works and what doesn't work. Investing can also mean trading, but on longer cycles, I'm personally not a fan of buy & hold unless you began many years ago with a large portfolio to begin with.
Would not the same apply if someone proved you wrong* with their account statements? * I refer you to the title.
Simple law of nature: You need a large number of hunted to sustain a few hunters. Trading is a good trade if you are the hunter and a bad trade if you are the hunted. After all, the money has to come from someone.
Aww shucks, thanks. I've bankrupted two exotics dealers and was a PM for four funds exceeding $1B in AUM. You are what? An equity broker? I trade on an ISDA. Google it. Predator (sic). "Equities in Dallas"
Have not seen that reference in a while If @cityboy12 want to find "traders", he should look at PMs multi manager funds or prop firms. These people live and die by their PnL.
No just an equities broker...I refer you to my previous posts...I did a number of jobs in the industry to learn it 'inside out'....I was also a PM. But thank you for your input destriero. You aren't swearing as much.
Hi, It wouldn't just be me who would find this helpful. Please remember that, statistically, there has to be people who are in the fraction of a percent of traders who are 'hitting it outside the park'. They exist and must do...statistically. My suspicion, however, is that very very very few of them play the same conventional game as the retail 'hunted' (thank you Ironchief for the word). When I did my research I found none who did this (although that does not mean they don't exist) Here is an example...everybody called him a 'trader'. You could call him that loosely, but, essentially, he wasn't gifted or clever. He was spoofing the market (more of a 'hunter' than the 'hunted'). The fact that he is 'scruffy' and 'lives with his parents' isn't an indicator that he is smart or some kind of a higher-level genius who forgets to wash because he focuses on equations and abstract physics. Smart people learn the value of hygiene. Rather he is a low social-skill misfit who learned to 'game' the market and was of comparable or lower-level intelligence to the others in the firm. People who didn't understand his 'game' thought he was smart. A quote.... Another trader said last night: 'Nav was a legend wherever he worked'. Just like a lot of people on this forum praise Steven Cohen or other 'legends'. Cohen has been effusely called a 'genius' by people who did not know what he was doing. In fact, he even called himself a genius. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...it-allegedly-pocketed-stock-market-crash.html He could be handed a 380 year prison sentence. Interestingly, the trading firm Futex was one of my case studies and proves another one of my points. They were essentially pyramiding off of their traders (extracting fees and commissions with low risk/reward) and did not have the capital they needed. They went bust. Please research this yourself.