Ha, well spotted, fair point, though I was just comparing probabilities between two dissimilar pools. When applying conditional probabilities my statement would most likely be inaccurate.
Quite honestly tired of threads that are meant to discuss discipline, habits, and reality of trading turn into broker bashing(?). Many of us looking at traders as a long term investment, not as a statistic. Today most customers reach out to the brokers because they want to enter the markets. Most discussions are revolving around technology, execution, latency, software and also most are educated enough where they are aware of the challenges of trading. However, what we do face, in terms of a challenge is the leverage customers want to trade with. Some at times overleverage, and we have to explain that it will be a very short career if you build leverage on leverage (in the case of Futures or FX). Second, the "micros" was not a contract requested by brokers, rather the CME exchange decided to launch it with ZERO (my personal opinion) research into the demographics of net-worth or income of those who requested it. I actually took the time and wrote to the CME asking why this contract should be different from any other micro out there that was launched in the past. I am also puzzled as to the size they chose because I am not sure how liquidity is built around such small notional size. Time will tell. As far as car salesmen, the last one who told me "I need to talk to the manager" was filling up the gas in my new car before my final "Bon Voyage". My recommendation was to reread Zig Ziglar.
Correct. I had no real education in trading (although I had one in finances but rather the accountancy side), so I was lucky. My mind and way of thinking were not polluted with all the free trading advices and techniques you find on internet. I started without my subconscious pushing me in a certain direction. I started with logical thinking (mainly out of the box) and analytical studies about the market behavior. "Why" was the question that popped up all the time. Indeed a lot of different skills/abilities are involved.
That's what you yourself said a few posts ago. What did I spin? You stated word by word " Frankly, much to the protests of the majority, the less one isformally educated in finance the better chance one has" How come all banks, hedge funds, hft firms, pension funds and other buy side firms hire and employ people with strong formal educational backgrounds? The truth is that perhaps 0.1% or less of the entire population are entrepreneural, creative, and self motivated enough to acquire knowledge and skills on their own. For the huge remaining majority, formal education that trains free thinking and allows for room to experiment and play with thoughts gets them into the positions they want to spend a majority of their lives in. And yes, only the top echelon of education provides that. I never claimed that in general a university degree prepares for trading careers. Quite the opposite, I said that successful trading requires first and foremost a DNA makeup that cannot be learned or acquired. The other half is the acquisition of skills, knowledge, and experience. The entire financial industry seems to agree with me and when you look at the vast majority of successful traders (the pool of those who profitably trade over a long period) you realize that most have a strong formal educational background. I rather err with the assessment and experience those institutions employ in hiring talent than siding with an anonymous poster who seems to have a chip on his shoulder re formal education.
But you obtained formal education if I understand you correctly and that allowed you to acquire a skill set in accounting that can be profitably employed in trading when done right. If I understood @Sprout right then he was referring to "formal education". I would have never been given the opportunity to learn trading in a professional environment without a valuable formal education and degree, not just to get my foot in the door but also because I came prepared with the experience and knowledge how to learn and comprehend complex ideas something a quality formal education gets you. There is a reason Rentech employs PhDs of various discipline. The major reason is that they know that the new entrants know how to think and articulate their thought process. You find such in those without formal education only in a tiny percentage of the population, too tiny a percentage to fill all the open positions.
The only use of accounting I have in my trading, is that I can check if my statements are correct and my bankaccount corresponds with the profits. I never learned anything about trading. I am probably part of the tiny percentage of the population that had no formal relevant education.
I was not referring to the relevancy of accounting to trading directly but the skill set and abilities that both relate to, such as feeling at ease with numbers, attention to detail, a desire and willingness to dig deeper and the capability to understand sometimes complex relationships.
Yes and, from your response, most likely you did not read the links I posted. To answer your next question - because they are looking for well-trained employees. Being an employer requires a different skill set, separate and distinct than an employee has developed or have the possibility of ever developing. The assumptions you have are what the links I posted illuminate. Trading with one’s own roll is closer to being an entrepreneur than being an employee. If one has always been an employee, what I am describing will generate negative emotions. One of the purposes of formal education is to create conditioned responses to be a well-trained employee. In contrast; Knocking on door after door after door, hustling gear out of the trunk of a car, cold-calling through a phone book (when they existed), doing whatever it takes to make payroll, put food on the table, selling assets to make scratch, find the next principal to pull a deal together, etc,... and/or the majorities least favorite - ‘experiencing failure in all it’s forms and guises’ provides hard-knock lessons that formal education cannot provide. Words don’t teach, only life experiences do. The above is not to discount formal education entirely. It’s just to pose a possibility that it does not warrant the premium that you give it in all situations and circumstances. Also quite frankly, the returns possible from extracting the market’s full offer pales what is proposed by conventional wisdom in the institutions you cite.
simply disagree, has nothing to do with an employer/employee relationship. Trading is simply about generating excess returns given an assumed level of risk. And the next question is what it takes to be successful in this endeavor. Most professional outlets seem to agree that aside a specific DNA make up a rigorous formal education and the work ethics to even get into top schools provide ample proof that the person in question has the right base ingredients to learn and be trained. Good traders will never be "well-trained employees". They will always think outside of the box, will possibly even have personality disorders, will always be highly independent and think off the beaten path. I think you are confusing the hustling of the average Joe with someone who is talented, worked his butt up from the ground into top academic institutions, held several part-time jobs, still managed to juggle hobbies and sports engagements. We are speaking of different worlds here. Perhaps you do not know the latter, but that is how most professional and successful traders were recruited and trained. There are always exceptions to the rule and I have nothing but the utmost respect for anyone who still made it despite his/her unconventional background.