Lets say a successful trader decided to make an investment in a portfolio of "safe" stocks/real estate/bonds etc a year ago order to 'take it easy' - he/she is down a significant amount by now. In that period if same successful trader, trading his own stake once a day/week/month risking a lower fraction of his/her net worth pertrade than when he/she was 'actively' trading, is most probably way ahead. Which of the two is more stressful?
Commodity Corp offered every newcomer 3 million USD AUM for 3 month. Expected 3 month return : 4 % after fees. If trader kept up with the expected performance, Commodity Corp would have offered 10 million USD next year. After 2 years of positive track record they offered to increase stake up to 100 million. My personal experience with them in 1996. So, I would argue that these people had some "initiating" help with regards to asset raising. But performance is performance, regardless of where money is coming from...
Some high rollers in this thread... On paper, it all boils down to liquidity and performance. A good trader that hits 2% a day, could build a decent account to 8-9 figures in 5-8 years. The euro could handle that size, a yard deep, during peak hours. Its been said eurodollar futures are more liquid than fx, but thats got 40 front-month contracts, albeit correlated. To work, the strategy would have to be highly technical, tight stops, big leverage and play deep markets. I think its possible. Please keep in mind: not every billionaire is known to Forbes Magazine. Only those that pimp their status, go public. The super-rich - Central Bankers/Royal Families - stay underground. Forbes would have you believe Mayor Bloomberg or Mark "the Spaz" Cuban is 10 times richer than the Queen of Friggen' England or the Rothschild Family - majority stakeholders in the Federal Reserve and Bank of England!! LOL
There are a number of people that come to mind. Marc Rich, Peterffy at Timber Hill, D.E. Shaw, The guys at SIG. I'm sure there are plenty more but they lay low. Who really cares though.
Do you guys realize you are debating over the definition of a trader rather than if there is one worth billions or not? I believe once a sucessful lone wolf trader start hiring people and manages OPM for a fee he is getting a better risk/return curve and he is still a trader. Just like Michael Dell still produces computers and ole John D. was an oil deliver his entire adult life. What happend to these guys is that they developed an hability, the Entrepreneurship, that actually summed (not subtracted from) with their original duty. Take for example Bob. Bob is a killer and he kills to take money out of his dead victims. After some years of his one-man job, he decides to make a team of assassins: he takes 10s of kids, teach them the basics of the kill and act as their general. The kids, in response, are allowed to get a share of the money they rob. Now Bob can wipe a whole city at a time. Is he still a killer?
Here is my problem with your logic, I mean lack of it: You basicly saying that no job is worthy to take unless you can make billions with it. That means basicly 99.999% of jobs. Beside that, who said you need to make billions to enjoy your life and job? I am curiously waiting for your next thread...
Let's see... 3400 posts in a year. In his last year of high school. Busy with the internet, trigonometry, acne medications, after school work @ Pizza Hut. And you think he's a trader?