niederhoffer is an inspiration and a real american hero. having first read 'education' in 1997, i am continually impressed with his insights and method of thinking. the more i learn, the more his knowledge strikes me as brilliant. he is, perhaps, the last living MASTER of the game. best, surfer
Not for anything brother Surf, but how can you read something like 'Old Trader and the Yen' and think this guy is a master For the record, I am not trying to 'hate' on Vic like some of the others on this thread -- just a little confused as to how he can be considered a master...
Jack that was a damn good question for a rabbit. But you obviously haven't read the book 'The education of a speculator' so what the hell are you doing on this site judging someone's ability. Or is it that you have been mixing too long with rabbits and have , like them, become harebrained and as a consequence your memory isn't too good ? I would think that his education goes further than a carrot and a hump here and there. freealways
i'm on the record as having called VN an idiot. imo, anyone that loses more than his entire equity on the one than his entire equity qualifies as an idiot. that doesn't mean i consider him to be an idiot in every single aspect of his life, or even an idiot overall; from what i've read of and about him it's quite clear that he isn't. but for that one single action, at that point in time, it's entirely appropriate to call him an idiot. rearden/molon, if he's a friend of yours, why don't you ask him whether he'd agree with that assessment? if he's honest he should say, "hell YES. i was a complete idiot!" rearden, as for your other friend's comments: AT SOME POINT JUST ABOUT EVERY TRADER SUFFERS LOSSES, SOMETIMES BIG ONES. FROM RICHARD DENNIS TO SOROS TO JOHN HENRY. AGAIN, READERS ARE ADVISED TO DO THEIR OWN HOMEWORK. THE IMPLOSIONS TEND TO BE VERY PUBLIC; THE BIG LOSSES OR LACK OF PERFORMANCE LESS SO. THE POINT I WAS MAKING WAS THAT JUST BECAUSE A LOSS OR POOR PERFORMANCE DIDN'T PLAY OUT ON THE FRONT PAGES OF THE WSJ DOESN'T MEAN THEY DIDN'T HAPPEN TO EVEN THE GREATS. FROM MICHAEL STEINHARDT TO JULIAN ROBERTSON TO GEORGE SOROS TO LINDA RASCHKE, THEY'VE ALL HAD A MOMENT OF TAKING IT ON THE CHIN IN LOSSES (REPORTED IN THE PRESS THOUGH NOT ALWAYS ON THE FRONT PAGES AND IN PLACES LIKE MAR). THE AFOREMENTIONED MANAGERS AT ONE POINT CLOSED UP SHOP (SOME PERMANENTLY, SOME JUST SELECT FUNDS). I AM NOT SUGGESTING THIS MEANS THEY ARE BAD TRADERS, SIMPLY THAT BAD LOSSES HAPPEN TO ALMOST ALL TRADERS, GOOD OR OTHERWISE. AS FOR THIS POST: But I will not praise the guy's trading record. It sucks. MY RESPONSE IS: "REALLY? IF MAKING MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AGAIN AND AGAIN SUCKS THEN I WANT TO SUCK LIKE THAT. YOU DON'T KEEP MAKING MILLIONS LIKE THIS ON LUCK. ONCE, MAYBE TWICE, MAYBE EVEN THREE TIMES. BUT NOT REPEATEDLY." replying this: don't you get it? the guy lost everything. not 30%, not 50%, not 70% everything. twice. geezus, if that is not 'sucking', then what the hell is? and no matter how brilliant his analytical capability might be (it is probably quite brilliant indeed..) i don't think his having made millions had very much to do with it all. my take is that his 'success' was much more a product of the mammoth risks he took, time after time. when you trade like that, your destruction is virtually assured. surely you must have read his book right? wasn't there some yen trade where he came periliously close to blowing out on? actually, i'm gonna go read that book again. i'm sure he had plenty of trades like that. (lol, and he was even proud of it! )
N.'s great returns and subsequent wipeouts are two sides of same coin - excessive leverage. His (mis)use of statistics makes him a poster boy for Gambler's Fallacy. That said, I may buy N.'s book anyway hoping to benefit from his considerable experience and insight.
lol. (what wtf was that?) i meant: anyone that loses more than his entire equity on the one trade qualifies as an idiot.
when I read that it sounded like you were thinking so fast... and so wound up in wanting to emphasize a point controverting others...... that you fgrot to steta wtha uoy ament ot asy... tbu I stil gto oury pnoit... (stro of) Good thing you weren't trading size ni htat tsate fo mnid Ice
First of all the sequence of events of his blow-up back in '97 were more like this: 1. Too much money under mgmt so they needed new markets in which they could trade. Broke their own rule about not getting too big. 2. Invested in Thailand market and lost a huge chunk. Mistake of on money mgmt front. 3. Tried to play "catch-up" with the OEX option trade and the floor trader learned about his funds precarious position. Mistake, never play "catch-up" or revenge trading. 4. Traded too big. Mistake on money mgmt front again. So he blew the entire fund equity but what people are forgetting is that he made more in profits during the time that he traded and the profits were returned to investors. People should remember that even the Quantum fund had to pack it in. So did Julian Robertson. So Vic's loss wasn't unusual but the magnitude of it was given the leverage employed in all his trading. I don't know him personally but I have heard that his daily p&l for his own account since then is very good.
I joked about his CNBC interview a few weeks back but all jokes aside, I cannot imagine another book coming out this year even with 9 months remaining that will come close to being as insightful as this one has been with regards to markets and trading. Seriously its the best thing I have read in a long long time. Definitely worth not just reading but owning and marking up with a highlighter or pencil.