1) It's a mathematical certainty that only a minority of funds invested can achieve above average returns. So I suspect it relatively safe to also assume that those funds are controlled by a minority of investors. IOW: when it comes to investing the crowd is axiomatically wrong EVERY TIME without exception. 2) I must have missed the memo that preordained this jan was required to be a bear market. hey ya got me there . I'm not going to lose my shirt foolishly hoping to gain from every squiggle and retracement of the market. IOW cheap crystal ball umm cloudy. 3) backtesting , Why do you have a time machine you want to sell me? Knowing your history is fine but expecting it to repeat exactly is beyond foolish. 4) You seem like a newbie trader or a bit dense (without being vindictive thus far), so I will try to take it a little easy on you. You are the one who appeared impressed that metastock or whatever it was sold for $3k. Here's another hint: When companies find a truly winning formula they keep it a secret, think coca-cola. 5) Let's just say a perfectly valid and profitable investing method is being described to you right now. However you reject it because I'm not holding your hand and telling you exactly what and when to buy. Plus you seem to think profits can come without losses. 6) You might want to read more of the thread or actually educate yourself on leveraged equity products. 7) Once again you prove yourself as myopically fixated as talon. Even if the underlying market were to reach new bubble market highs it's not likely that I have enough shares to reach my monetary goal. Thus the simple and safe solution is to seek more shares. I can only surmise that you are unaware that buying low is better than buying high. PS: If you think trading riches await you through the purchase of some blackbox method, software or advisory letter without any effort of your own: you have a lot of painful learning to do.
I have an account that bought DIA in August and October of 2002, held most of it to mid 2008 and added in March 2009. How is that myopic? Also, just because failed traders like you don't believe it's possible, why should I not have a short term focus when I can return well more than 100% CAGR on my short term trading capital for more than 10 years? And how is trading not teachable when I could show you a handful of people I have trained who achieve similar returns? Piker I feel sorry for you and your failed attempts at learning to trade... and for the failure awaiting you in this leveraged ETF fiasco you're working yourself into. Tell you when, since you haven't been a complete douchebag yet (working on it though) if you're ever in Manhattan let me know and maybe I'll let you see what a real trading operation looks like and let you take a glance at some account statements from a few years back. Perhaps then you'll realize just how foolish you actually are being in claiming that you're going to best my performance. FWIW, we're selling aggressively into every bounce from here until something changes. Ride your coattails? LOL.
Evidently your memory is bad. If you think you are going to REPEATEDLY come here on my thread and make highly suspect claims, offer bupkis for supporting evidence and not be challenged you are simply delusional. Here are the track records (afaik) of 3 legendary traders/investors. Warren buffet 44 years compounding for 20.3%. 1965-2009. George Soros - generated an annual return of 30% through his Quantum Fund from 1970-2000. Julian robertson: has the highest long term rate at 53% for 16 yrs 1980-1996 Your claim of above, is rather dubious, 100% CAGR FOR 10 YRS consecutively results in a gain of 102,300% well above the legends mentioned above for the time period. Yet that boast wasn't enough for you, you claim to generate (snicker) "return well more than 100% CAGR ". That's just priceless, everybody else here can do the math too. So we are left knowing 1 of 3 things. 1) You don't have a clue what you are claiming. or 2)You trounce some well known trading legends over a 10 yr period or 3) You are a ridiculous fraud I guess the readers will have to decide for themselves. PS: Ironic how you wanted to make light of my 6th grade math skills, yet it was the instrument of your undoing.
Piker, it's largely a question of size. could i generate these returns with a $100M account? no. $50M? doubtful. so what it boils down to is pulling funds out of the account to keep it small enough... with a very small (<$5M) account you have opportunities denied to big investors like you are comparing me to. Apples and oranges. i've never been interested in managing a large sum of money or in trading other people's money (there was a time in my career i did have some outside money... basically looked at it as a call option on my trading career...) much more interested in doing my own thing. it works like this... this year you have $100K and you make $200... you pull some out and put it away, live off some of it, do some fun things with some of it... and next year you start with $150K and maybe this year you only make $50... so next year you have $175 to start with... etc... i put the numbers into terms that might be more relevant to you, but this is the way it has worked for me. as for your "proof" which i dont owe you at all btw... let me know if you ever get to the big city and if you havent pissed me off too much by then i just might show you things you never dreamed could exist... of course you probably would say the numbers are made up so maybe not much point right? however, paying office rent where i do and employing the people i do would suggest the income comes form somewhere, wouldn't it piker? and i dont sell courses or collect any management fees... kinda hard to figure out isn't it? where could the money be coming from? and actually, douchebag, i have a pretty good memory.
Boy there have been some unintelligent responses here. First of all, Pekelo, plenty of people would love to see the market tank 40%. I'm one of them. I'm a long only value investor. I only have about 10% cash. Why would I like to see the market tank 40%? Because I could put that cash to work, and I'm not at all worried about my current holdings because I know the value of them would be fine and the price would eventually recover and follow that value. Second of all, INDEXPIKER, you should be worried, no, terrified of the market going down 40%. Yes, it would be a once in a lifetime buying opportunity, only one problem. You only hold 15% cash, and the rest of your holdings are LEVERAGED!!! If you are 2.5 leveraged as another poster has said, that means you would lose pretty much everything, except that 15% cash. That means if your account is worth $100k, then it would be worth about $16k if the market lost 40%. YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE a 525% return just to make it back!!! Thats why you don't use leverage. It wasn't that long ago that the market tanked more than 40%, your memory is short. I think you have been hittin the good ole' Bama moonshine to hard. Lastly Talontrading, I can almost guarantee you that you will not get a CAGR of 100% over the next ten years, unless you are trading with 100 bucks or some other extremely small amount. If you had just 10K it would be 10 million by the end of the decade with that compounding. I just don't see it with you, from what I have gleened from your posts and the fact that you post on ET.
1/31/10 starting 737,807 1/6/10 ending 704,949 weekly loss of 4.4% 12/31/09 : 888,972 1/6/10 704,949 year to date loss 20.7%
I'm sorry I was just at a loss for words for someone who claims to be a professional trader , using "CAGR" incorrectly. Do you do this all the time or just to the people you think you can bamboozle. 1) uh -oh I just might catch and exceed that account in 20 yrs. :eek:
1) Congratulations you seemed to have learned something. 2) You simply fail to realize that you are wrong. When the underlying index rebounds the leveraged fund will be on steroids. 3) Of course you are correct , and everybody else reading also knows he's full of crap.
The price would eventually recover is the key. How do you know how long does that take? What if it takes 10 years? Than you made zero return on most of your investment for 10 years and made 66% on 10% of your capital, allover you made 6-7% in 10 years. Congratulations....