Discussion in 'Trading' started by ElectricSavant, Jul 28, 2005.
consistantly over 5 years minimum
I think numbers are higher than this, just count % participants
that are large institutions , hedge funds, bank, brokers,...
If we are to say just 7% of all participants are successful
over five years, This means not even 1% of retail traders
can be in the list.
Nitro, was right, 95% traders in ET are hobbyist, if they
don't make money, it doesn't matter, because 95% of
profitable traders won't bother taking part in ET.
I say the figure is around 10% for all kind of market
Most people don't make it cos their expectations are way too high relative to their capitalization... if trading is approached in a disciplined manner, I believe any reasonably intelligent person can generate 10%+ per year (assuming zero margin)...
The problem is that, because so many newbies are so undercapitalized, trading is a non-viable proposition before even the first trade has been made...
10% on $1million+, however, is a decent enough living... and then if you bring in say 2x margin, make that 20%... $200k, very decent living... there are a heap of well capitalized traders who are quietly making a decent living in this manner...
And, simultaneously, the $20,000 newbies are giving up when, at the end of the year, they have netted 'only' an additional $4k... which is actually a damn good return (in terms of %), but obviously impossible to live on...
High capitalization is a large contributor to the Holy Grail of viable trading... just my 2 cents...
I agree with Candle, about newbie expectations. There is indeed a certain learning curve. Most blow up within 6 months!
I would put money on less than 5% of the members of Elite, trade as a primary source of income.
Is "Forex in The Can" quiet this week?
I assume you are talking about annual returns, consistently profitable month
to month is difficult to achieve. Since I haven't dealt too much with retail
traders, rather, spend most of my life dealing with professionals (wall street,
hedge funds, mutual funds, etc). I would put around 20% for consistent
5 year profitability for professionals.
Look at the number of trainees at, Susquehanna / SLK / CRT / OCA / etc,
and how many of them worked out, I believe the figure is around 30-40%
(ish) in those places. Now these guys could claim that they took the best and
brightest (a lot of MIT / Caltech / Berkeley grads).
I know, people could come up with a million examples of how a kid with no
high school did well, for, say, SLK, but a MIT PhD flamed out, I probably know
a thousand of such cases. But overall, the statistics don't lie, having a high
degree *is* somewhat correlated to mental agility, problem solving, critical
Also, time period and strategy matters, for equities, '95-2000 is great (so I
would think >75% of traders did well), but 2000-2005, not so much (<20%??).
Trading converts between 98-2002 is like a free ride, since 2004 it has dried
up. ... etc, etc.
Given that this is the main Trading Forum where most members venture, I hope the moderators won't mind if I post a request in here... feel free to delete this post after a couple of days...
It seems like when the trade gets slow, these types of threads pop up all over the place. I'm wondering why this matters? Are you seeking to measure yourself against others? If so, this way of measuring is deceptive. It might be better to measure yourself now versus last year or x-months ago. This gives a better idea of progress and consistency.
These type of threads come out when traders are struggling. in an attempt to bring everyone down, so that people will share in their misery.
DON'T TAKE THE BAIT. say no to these posters, tell them you are sick of their crying.
Instead of developing a system or methodology to trading they are just hoping the market agrees with them that day.
Profitability is one penny or more produced at the end of the year to go into your bank. If after 5 years you can not produce 1 penny or more from trading, then why continue to do it? Profitable traders after 5 years should be 100%.
Maybe the question should be; what % are making a living of it (equal or more than what they would earn at a job they may have been trained for) after 5 years?
Yup, my point (see above) precisely...
Separate names with a comma.