well, of course it would be ludicrous and insulting to directly compare the value of losing life to losing money. however, if we can just see it as an analogy, why would it be so ridiculous to compare the two. we traders are involved in a battle of wit, instinct and courage where the price is in dollars. the men and women of the armed forces are involved in a battle of the same nature, whereas the price is blood. I have ultimate respect for the armed forces, and if I tried to speak of this subject in a subjective manner to a general, I would expect him to spit in my face. Now, if we could somehow reverse the value and nature of blood and money, and if a general came onto a trading floor, he might get the same response. And in the end, the ultimate price of blood is money and vice versa; thankfully, most of us value life more.
If you feel as if trading is war, you're doing something very wrong. Professional trading is a business and other traders are not the enemy, but merely people with whom you do business. If you know what you're doing, you know you are not competing against them, you need them to operate your business! You only need to be a bit better than most in this business; otherwise you wouldn't be showing consistent profits. If you're not showing consistent profits you shouldn't be in the business (or economics will shut you down), unless you need a tax loss. You should be studying the business, until you learn (or in my case discover) what you need to be successful. Only then should you enter the business and put money (or your future) on the line! Remember, losing trades are as much a part of a profitable trading business as buying produce is a cost of running a resturant. McD and BK are not at war, only competing successfully with both making a lot of $$$$
RA RA RA ... So much theory about whether trading is a war or not. Everybody has their own opinion. It isn't just subjective, but it's completely relative. All these arguments here for or against the point are rather irrelevant, since nobody here is actually specifying what they're talking about! All these totalitarian opinions just make me shake my head. These traders are so limited to their own little world that they have little consideration for the possible trading environments of other traders. If I watch a bunch of traders arguing their points whether it is or is not war, I would first ask what kind of trading it is they do. Because it entirely depends on the trading style, trading medium and trading timeframe. Let me clarify that a little: Index Futures trading is a lot more like war than stock trading (because it's a two-sided market and complete zero-sum / minus-sum). There's no win-win situation, like possible in stocks. Things are a lot more competitive here. Next, let's have a look at trading styles. If you read Larry Harris' book (yes the big one from IB), you'll see he distinguishes between about 30 different species of traders. Let's just focus on "Parasitic traders" here. Parasitic traders are Order anticipators, front-runners, sentiment-oriented technical traders, squeezers, bluffers, rumormongers and price manipulators. All of these are following some form of exploitive, to say rather aggressive way of taking resources off other people. This is a lot more like war than for example the other kinds of traders, such as informed traders, value traders, news traders, information-oriented technical traders, arbitrageurs, hedgers and various utilitarian traders. You see, the correlation between trading and war can vary very widely depending on the style. Now we already have styles and media (issues). Next, timeframes. Let's keep it simple: Position trading isn't exactly like warfare. Day trading is a bit more. Scalping very certainly is war. And scalping is a form of day trading. I don't care what some dummies say - Anybody who claims scalping isn't war is an idiot / has no idea about scalping. Some scalp with simple setups, some prefer complicated varieties of tools (I do the latter). Some warriors use big swords and armor (Samurai) and other warriors can still beat them with their bare hands (Okinawans practicing Karate against Samurai oppression), striking at them with a bare nukite (open hand : 3 fingers). They had enough practice to use 3 stiff fingers to break and penetrate a Samurai armor breastplate, penetrate through the chest and strike right into the heart. They only had one chance to swiftly kill the superiorly equipped Samurai, so they kept practicing. Scalping, similarly, can be done many ways. Whether it is done with lots of heavy high-tech weaponry or like an art form with lots of practice and spirit like the Karateka, it still remains warfare either way. If you really want to succeed at scalping screen-based markets, and that is not just provide liquidity, but seriously exploit one opportunity after the other, you may want to have an arsenal of training similar to that of war general. When I scalp, I'd say as the more tech-oriented scalper, I have a fractally interlapping matrix of different timeframe screens, various indicators, Lv 2 screens, market depth screens, T&S screens, volume pressure charts etc. functioning as radar and (market maker) surveillance. It is like sitting in a very complex warplane's cockpit. You need to know every little knob, know how it all works and perform even under fire of other players / MM's and extremely high (momentum) velocity, without hesitation, without fear, and with a cool head and the will to kill for a piece of cheese and then to fire the afterburners and run, before the whole thing turns against you. You need to be able to anticipate other players' actions in order to outperform them and take money off them the next second / half second. You ambush them in order to get money. Isn't that somewhat related to war? So, can we assume that for example scalping is a lot more like war than position trading or swing / day trading? How can we dare to slip into generalization then? OK let's move on from here. People talk about what war is. What's war about? Spirit? Pride? Power? Nonsense. 90% of wars are fought for one reason: To gain resources. Spirit, pride, power etc, at least in the sense of war, are largely masquerades of desire to control and possess resources, thus wealth. Yes, there were a few exceptions : The crusades were supposed to have happened "in the name of christ", in order to spread religion and to kill the atheists etc. But come on let's be honest: In reality it was just all about slaves, resources and land again. All this in order to control and accumulate more wealth. Yes, WWI and WWII were started for economical reasons. The recent war on Iraq was a massive manslaughter entirely just to get control over fossil fuels, stories about WMD's that never existed and all that bullcrap. Who are they kidding? It doesn't matter anyway, people just forget about it in a hurry, that's the sad thing about it. But essentially, it's all for resources. What are resources? Well, most resources today are defined in $ terms. Resources = Money. Money = Resources. We go to the stock exchange and fight for it or we go and fight our neighbour for it with a rifle. It's the same thing, in a different language. It's exactly the same thing. If you're saying you are doing less harm than the guy who fires a gun you're just kidding yourself. The fact that the company we're buying shares of is exploiting / killing workers / soldiers in other countries, such as Africa (thousands of American companies), Malaysia (Intel, Seagate, Quantum, IBM, Microsoft). The fact that today the pillars of western economy live off exploiting poor countries and child workers in order for us to make money doesn't seem to bother anyone. People like to think within their own little clean world, where everything is clean in beautiful corporate America. We buy shares of a great company and support a great cause. We're not fighting wars or something. No. We're good people. Get a bloody life. It sure is a war within a much larger war we're participating in, and a fine suit or glorious description doesn't make it any better. Whenever you buy a stock or future, you're fueling that machine, you're part of it, supporting and perpetuating it. By the way, did anybody read "Pit Bull" by Marty Schwartz? I think for anybody who thinks short-term trading in particular isn't war, should read the book again. Marty Schwartz got his attitude and discipline from training in the US Marine Corps. His performance as an aggressive champion trader is yet to be beaten. He turned $15K into $20,000,000+ in 10 years. And this certainly wasn't because he was "in perfect harmony with the market". Not Marty. Just realize that there are a lot of different traders out there, and lots of media and methods. Personally, trading isn't actually all that much of a war to me. I tend to scalp less these days, so it becomes a little less war-like. I indeed like to just ride the ups & downs, play trends and countertrends, much like surfing, and I relax while I'm doing it. I don't want the stress / war factor, I realized that over the long haul, it's only gonna make my heart surgeon money Still, all that being said : While my trading is now more like Karate training - meditative and relaxing - It still comprises or serves the end-purpose of combat, be it hopefully for good purposes only... Best Compliments, ~Scientist
LOL. I'd love to do business with you! The McD and BK analogy isn't actually very accurate, though. Their profit margins are a lot lower than you think and they're having head-on head races to outperform each other, just to survive. Eventually, probably one will lose and will win. This happens in business everyday. Best, Scientist
If "is" is not taken in litteral sense but in metaphorical sense you can say "trading is war" or at the opposite "trading is like cultivating a garden" or "fishing in a river" or "trading is like sailing" etc. Metaphors can be used interestingly when words - which are only proxies for thoughts - are too limited to reflect the description of complexity of what one feels. What counts is to know the limits of metaphors or analogies and avoid making abusive generalisation.
Trading is a profession imho, and if carried out in a professional way a very lucrative one too. So where does war, fight, competition etc come into that? The most interesting thing is that everyone seems to fight about it so much - something I just do not understand at all. Best Natalie
You're right. It's a profession and it shouldn't be stressful. If you're an accomplished warrior, war shouldn't be stressful to you, either. Unfortunately, this state is very hard or almost impossible to achieve as a warrior, equally as a trader, which is a reason why most traders don't make it, either. When you watch the most sophisticated combateers out there, I.e. the masters at the international Karate or Kung Fu championships, you will see their elite perform lethal combat with a state of complete tranquility and peace of mind, which means your judgment and body is 100% functional, as opposed to the adrenalin-rushed or even angry fighter, who will inevitably be far inferior due to his state of mind and probably lose. Anger / excitement causes mistakes. I know because I've been doing this for over ten years myself. If I happen to get in danger, cannot mediate and cannot at all avoid conflict, then I will anger my opponent, in order to weaken him. Now that he is angry, I can easily pick a weak moment, calmly strike and disable my opponent. Unless you do Martial Arts yourself, you will never understand how peaceful this actually is. Quickly and efficiently act in order to avoid further injury. No matter how "peaceful", it still is a form of war. If you choose to re-read the last 2 paragraphs in the context of trading, you might realize that a good trader acts very similarly. Trading, when it comes down to it, it is indeed about fighting for a piece of the action and about competitition. It's even more brutal than Martial Arts, because unless you're tearing pieces off other players, you're not making money in this business, that's a clear reality to anyone who trades. Here's interpretation of war (dictionary): war: A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war. Is trading active antagonism - or not? How many sides are there in each trade? How do they relate to each other??? There's only one answer. Whether one interprets it that way or not, there may be differences in individual paradigms indeed. You may either see it as an everyday-armageddon or as a relaxed, "peaceful" activity. If you don't see the bloody battle involved, well then you're figthing a "cold war". It still is a war! Just like the arms race between the USSR and USA was a war indeed. War is war, to put limits to its definition, such as bloodshed, is short-sighted and no longer appropriate for standards of the 21st century. With purely mechanical warfare (drones, remote-control tanks and planes, automated weapons), digital warfare, nanotechnological warfare (!), economical warfare etc coming up, war will need to be clarified at what it simply is: A condition of antagonism based on intent to control resources. The word "resources" in the sense of survival has in the modern world been universally replaced with the word "money", that's all. The basic motive never changed. So I ask you the question again, clarified: Is trading a condition of antagonism based on an intent to control resources? The answer should simply and unambigously tell you whether trading is war or not. I have no further questions. ~Scientist
I'm afraid I just don't see it that way at all. I don't see trading as competitive at all. I simply see it as working with the market action or against it. If working with the action, then profits flow, if working against it then losses are generated. I'm in no way trying to influence others actions or conquer anyone or anything. Just simply using the market forces (pricing in particular) to be profitable, like any company might in producing and selling a product. Now you are going to say - ah yes - but companies compete against other companies for market share, well yes I suppose they do if they have competing products - sure, but where they do not ...? I don't see trading as combative at all - sorry. Others might - But I still don't understand why... I see it more like putting an orange in my juice extractor to get orange juice, and I'm deffinitely not at war with the orange... (or the juice extractor come to that!) Best Natalie