I heard my name summoned back a few posts. Through 2000 (2001 is better, but we don't have the stats yet). Approximately 70% of traders who make it through the "learning curve" are successful with our firm after 1 year. 2 years it is about 80%, and of course after 3 years nearly everyone (who would keep doing this otherwise). Many don't make it the first year. It has ranged from 30%-70% over the years, and since this is an "individual sport" - outside circumstances have a great impact on the numbers. Since the requirement for licensing, our percentages have improved greately (we get very few "looky loos" and "hey, let's try stock trading, or Real Estate with no money down" types any longer). About 95% of retail traders fail (according to the NASAA ...not me, so send your cards and letters to them). About 90% of floor traders are gone in 1 year or less, according to my sources. I think we have one of the best "batting averages" available. And just because a trader doesn't make it the first year, doesn't mean they have lost all their money....many simply to back to doing something else if they don't have the knack or skills for trading. My Compliance Officer hates it when I post numbers, but I am sure that these are the correct stats reported to the regulators....(correct me if I am wrong, Diane!).
if your firm is so great, I do not think you have enough time and interest spend so much time here. 70% people can make money?
So if 100 of people walk through your door in year 1 how many are left in year 3...on average? (Help me out here I'm terrible at math)
80% of all people know that statistics can lie!!!! the question, imho, is out of "ALL" of those that attempt to make a living trading, what percentage make it. i would agree with hitman's assessment of close to 30% that have the support of a prop firm become profitable and know first hand that one certain retail firm that went under had less than 1% of it's traders make $$$$$. now if you want to take that successful 30% and say that 70% of that subgroup is successful the following year then fine but that lower's the overall success rate to 21% or 1 in 5. That is the number you should be advertising!!!!!! tell diane to give me a call, i'll be happy to break it down for her!!!!! if you keep advertising a 70% success ratio, most people (or 69.35%) will not understand that you are tweaking the original sample group!!!!:eek:
Maybe this is not the thread, I went to FMB's Website. Can you describe your group's style of trading? I think the style of trading has a lot to do with success rate. From your posts I gather that you trade your using firm's approach. Also, what's the realationship between FMB and Van Buren? the websites looked similar. still gathering info, thanks, Quote
Yeah the relationship is fairly simple. We opened Van Buren's San Diego's office in 1997. When the terms of our deal were changed, we left we left with about 3/4 of the traders in our office. About 3 or 4 stayed. The guy who designed our website also designed Van Buren's. He was the trader mentioned earlier. I do not really want to go into the style right now because I think for very short term time frames, right now, it is all about the tape and experience. The style we used is not as succesful right now as it was.
Bryan, I know I am not spposed to reply to your posts, but we AGREE so I am. The numbers used by Don are misleading. It is like the old joke my Pop used to tell me -- "If you eat peanut butter and jelly for a 100 years you will live long." The real number, which is very hard to track is what percentage of the people who attempt it from day one are successful. Oh, Don, how do you define successssful? Some would say being in business while others would say making more than 100k. Success is so subjective. What percent of the people who are with you for a year are making 100k in their second year? What a firm should be proud of is the number of people who don't lose enough money that is significant to them who realize they don't have what it takes. A firm that lets a trader lose her own money so fast that they never find out if they have the talent is reprehensible even if the number of people who do make are statistically high. Stats lie, the tape tells the tale.