I just did a 3-second study from my computer while having lunch. Results are as follows: "After reviewing imaginary data in my head, I concluded that most retail traders who attempt to day trade futures for the first time will lose money" There I achieved the same logical conclusion that these fucktards reached after how many months and $$$ studying trading records haha.
Here is the study conclusion: "We show that it is virtually impossible for an individual to day trade for a living, contrary to what course providers claim." WAIIIIIIIIT...the study did not research day traders.....it researched NEW RETAIL DAY TRADERS and every year removed from the study anyone who had previously day traded limiting the study group to only NE W RETAIL DAY TRADERS. Therefore the conclusion stated by the study is factually incorrect, wrong and misleading based on the actual data they reviewed. Extrapolating a generalized conclusion based on specific targeted research is introducing bias into a study as well as demonstrating absolutely shitty research methods. The authors should be embarrassed as well as anyone who cites this in the same manner as the authors.
I've taken a number of statistics courses through graduate leval and have designed and conduced my share of hypothetical studies. Read El Ocho Cinco's post...slowly.
Your hot take isn't debunking it. If you debunked it, Rachael Maddow is a scholar of the highest order. Your "they used shit evidence" is baseless and indicates your lack of actual sophistication when it comes to reading academic papers. Pro tip: you read more than the abstract. You didn't debunk this: They even go on to discuss the monotonically decreasing property of traders and related it back to roulette, which is absolutely and without question true. In the foot notes of page (3) they offer a cite to a previous source in this area. You didn't debunk this either. Do you even know what a panel regression is? Do you disagree with their explanatory variables? You didn't debunk their proper control of HFT and algorithm influence in order to shake out the "actual day-trade effect" - which they did properly. You didn't comment on section (2.1), nor did you comment on their remarks section. Do you have a problem with their particular sources? I went through them and didn't see any problems for a paper of this caliber. I get you're a troll but I don't want people to think you actually know what you're doing. Sure you have, bud. How much @El Ocho Cinco pay you to shill for him?
Sticking at something is persisting. Quitting after 300 days is not persisting, relatively compared to the time profitable traders have put it. You can persist at something without it being futile as with your example. Persisting can be becoming better at something by learning from mistakes and improving. It is a matter of persistence.
I think the study is totally valid and not just for Brazilian markets. Probably U.S. markets too. Having said that, I think traders who persisted and try on their 3rd,4th, 5th, or 10th time and improving each and every time will show abnormally consistent profits. But those are again a very small percentage of the retail daytrading universe. Perhaps, 0.75%. How many make a good living around $150K-$200K+? Probably .1% to .25% of the total universe. Basically the top 1% of 1%. There are much easier ways to make 6 figures income. However, some of the top 1% of 1% make 7 figures easily...
New daytraders,new daytraders,new daytraders,new daytraders,new daytraders!!! Do you really understand what it means? I bet you don't have a clue.
You appear to be adept at pulling numbers out of your ass so I can understand why you would consider this study to have relevant validity.
arguably - people quitting after 300 days are smart enough to realize that there are better games to play than stinking day trading lol.... the worst game in town.