Even if you were able to secure a qualified mentor, someone who trades for a living and not simply someone in the mentoring business, all you can get is ideas and direction. You will trade differently than the mentor because you ARE different. We all have different personality traits and cognitive abilities. Trade plans are like fingerprints...they look similar but they are all different. We each have to find what works for us. For those who criticize day trading, it's not for them. For many of us who do day trade, we don't want to go to bed with an open position....different strokes for different folks.
Trading courses have value in that it gives the aspiring retail trader a road map on how to get from point A to point B to point C. What it does not give you is the holy grail. Outside of a guru, books, dvds, seminars give you a small taste to entice you to buy the product. It whets your appetite for knowledge in trading without actually, giving you the whole thing! The reality of it is, it is a business and why would you continue to buy things from that business if you already have what you need? Not even sure a guru even if you pay him lots of monies is going to give you the entire enchilada because you would be competing with him. He might give you enough to earn some monies but, not enough to be a very good, competent trader. Maybe, you will figure it out on your own or maybe, you won't. Still it is a business and you come back to the guru for more training.
I have read some of your posts in other threads and value your opinion immensely (particularly what you advised regarding prop shops in other threads). However, I would argue you are of the Baby Boomer generation and your experiences were in a different time/easier environment. When you traded, the internet was still in its infancy or not around even. I would argue that you would find the game much more competitive now for a new entrant. What worked for you then is unlikely to work for you in 2019. You will see by the job ads I posted as to what level of skill funds ask for. An example of this was a post I read on ET of a guy who was successful in 2006 in a prop environment. He gave all sorts of advice as to what worked for him. However, his advice became less and less applicable due to structural changes in the industry and, in fact, the prop model has all but ended (apart from selling training or making money from overnight financing). It did not happen overnight but happened slowly. What worked for him 10 years ago, does not work now and could be quite dangerous to your net worth. You will find a lot of people giving outdated advice from less competitive times (a lot of mentors and gurus fall into that category). Try speaking to a top hedge fund with your MBA and Fortran skills today. Very difficult. Actually, even your NYU MBA could be regarded as elite to an extent. I did a quick Google search and fees are $100k plus. Probably you paid a lot less, in real terms, when you did it back then (there has been a student loan bubble since then). Even so, I would argue, it would still not be enough today, in my opinion, unless you had a very very solid quant and programming background as well as a high level of intelligence. Sales, however, is more forgiving. My overall point being that a lot of viewers here are totally unaware of the level of competition at the top. They are often misled as to what is possible. They think a $7500 course and a 'I can work harder than anyone' attitude will suffice. Then, just like the film Limitless...they will get noticed, raise capital and set up a fund. It might have done even a few years ago, but not now. Or rather, the chance have decreased significantly since then to make it highly improbable. They have to be aware of just how high a level you have to be to have even a good chance to play at the table and who the competition are. The best way is to study the bios of the top players. You will see elite degrees, high level presentation skills and usually very rich family backgrounds and connections. Also, a certain racial, social and height bias. Once in a while somebody gets there who is different, but that is very rare On a positive note....once you truly see the game you can play it this way 1. Get qualified - if money is tight and you can't afford a six figure degree- CFA CAIA FRM etc 2. Get connected - the the right geographical nodes 3. Present yourself well and learn to sell, negotiate etc. Learn to conform to certain social classes 4. Work for the right people 5. Get some quant and programming skills It will increase your chances.
Why do you say that? Do you have any evidence for it? Seems like a 'feel-good' emotional statement. The evidence and trends are clearly in the opposite direction to your statement.
I will add to my previous post. The secret is that there is no secret. There is the hard way ...and it is very hard... 1. Get qualified - if you are poor and you can't afford a six figure degree- CFA CAIA FRM etc (I was not rich and did some measure of this) 2. Get connected - in the right geographical nodes 3. Present yourself well and learn to sell, negotiate etc. Learn to conform to certain social classes 4. Work for the right people - ideally for many years 5. Get some high level quant and programming skills ..and there is the really really very hard way....become a retail trader from home, learn from the internet, slave away for 20 years, fill your head with all sorts of false ideas and training from gurus etc. I recommend the hard way. Here is a case study... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...fund-manager-flies-coach-and-stays-in-hostels 1. Track record - worked in the industry for decades including Morgan Stanley 2. Went to Columbia business school (costs a small mortgage to pay for - may have had rich parents?) 3. Had clients who transferred over and had rich multi-millionaire family investors (..indeed he had rich parents) 4. Has millions under management ...and he is making very little money out of it. You need at least 100mil USD just to make as much money as a good doctor. And only the very best can attract that capital. My point being, that if this guy can't scale, what chance does a retail trader have? The only negative I can think of is that he needs to work on his personal presentation (shave and dress sharper)...
These threads often involve different people talking about different things...apples and oranges. Your premise spoke to the difficulty of retail trading. Yes, if you want to break into the institutional arena these days an MBA or PhD from an esteemed institution is a start. Having spent years in corporate life, I wanted out of the grind no matter the compensation, prestige, perks etc. What I didn't realize was how much time and effort had to go into the development of the specialized skill set and attendant personal behavioral necessities required. No degrees or professional accreditation or referrals are necessary but that doesn't make the profession of retail trading any easier. I went to B school which was invaluable in corporate life but had little application as an independent retail trader. Unlike other demanding professions, trading requires no medical, law, engineering or CPA degrees. The lack of barriers to entry allow the naive and unprepared to slam some sheckles into an account and proceed to lose said sheckles. Despite prior accomplishments and achievements, I was among the naive and unprepared. But while I would never encourage anyone to get into retail trading, I can offer the encouragement that IF you are willing to put in the effort and time not only in learning how to trade but learning how to behave in a dynamic environment with no guaranties...the result can be richly rewarding. Having paid my dues, I wouldn't have it any other way. As far as the nature of markets, from a strictly technical price development point of view (which is the only thing relevant to what I do), if there has been any material change in price development since the beginning of the tech crash, It's been too gradual for my notice. Anyone who trades for a living has to be alert to refinements and adjustments to a trade plan given changes in market personality....range, speed price structure etc. Knowing when to stand aside has to be part of the skill set. All the best to those wanting to do this but it will likely be harder and take longer than expected.
100 million HaHaHa. You clearly have no clue as to the nature of leverage and ROC related to competent futures trading. BTW, I shave when I want.
I disagree. On a basic level. If you want to scale out (either in terms of AUM or better resources, research, build a team etc) you need to attract non-retail investors. In both the US and the UK there are different classifications as to what an eligible or professional client is compared to retail. They are classified based on net-worth, their experience and so on. Retail clients are protected and you do not have the same freedom to pursue non-standard strategies as you would with professional clients and have to abide by strict rules such as the amount of leverage, attitude to risk, suitability etc. If you want to attract any kind of serious money for a non-standard strategy you have to be 'institutional' in your set-up. Even if this money is from high net worth individuals or family offices. The reason being, is that nobody is going to part with their hard-earned money unless they trust you, your team and your set-up. Also, there is a 'beauty parade' of alternative propositions from an absolute myriad of funds, asset managers, financial advisers, venture capital funds, real estate deals, IPOs etc etc where they can put their money....in other words...competition. You can go for a walk down streets in Mayfair in London and in a few hours....there will be hundreds of firms (with track records, teams etc) that will take your money as an investor. Due to rising compliance and regulatory costs, this 'institutional' set-up can be an additional barrier to the start-up. Hypothetically, I would not put any hard-earned money with somebody who felt they didn't want to shave every day, for example, if I saw some clean-shaven sharp salespeople (some of whom are very attractive and credible) in some of the funds in London and New York. Although, of course, somebody might. Also, regarding speedo's post. I do understand leverage. A lot depends on the model of the fund but retail investors are often very surprised just how little leverage is used by hedge funds that invest in equities, for example. There are reasons for this, unfortunately, retail investors do not have a similar approach to risk. This is the myth promoted very much to the FX trading community, for example.
Again, apples and oranges. As a small retail trader, I can safely leverage a low 6 figure day trading account to low 7 figure positions multiple times a day. We become adept at navigating a jet-ski through a tight slalom course. It's an entirely different thing than a fund manager ferrying a population safely across an ocean on a ship. As far as FX (spot market)...bucket shop environment.