im not trading to become rich. I am trading to make a living and I enjoy it. there are other jobs that are difficult: lawyer, doctor, surgeon, oil driller, ceo, etc.
Contrary to what you say, daytrading is relatively easy work. You sit in front of the computer from 9:30 to 11:00 (1 1/2 hrs) and do five trades. You get two winners and three loosers, typical daytrading results. And if all you are doing is to net maybe $500 average a day, that's $2000 for the week. That's above middle income for individual earners. Not bad for guys without a degree. Most MBA's probably make less than that, but they probably enjoy their profession and the creativity that it presents. There is nothing to enjoy in daytrading, but to make a buck.
They want you to have worked for a few years first. Here's what I've learnt, having researched this topic in years past: MBA will only help you land a "financial markets role" if it's from a Top 10 (preferably Top 5) school, or, if you're really outstanding, maybe a Top 20. Those schools are incredibly difficult to get into. Outside the Top 20, it is debatable whether an MBA is even worth it for any job role (ie aside from finance). If you want to learn more, there are better boards than ET for discussing this topic. Just be aware that most participants on those boards carry chips on their shoulders and are very full of themselves. The Business Week (I think) message board has a lot of discussion on b-schools.
The MBA setting is a varied one. My feeling is that there is a ring or rainbow around all schools. In that ring are a combo of hot faculty who have associates and they usually set up as partnerships or sub chapter S's. S's are less common because once you commit you are then stuck with using that form with one group. They do consulting and do it well but they do bring in other guys temprorarily to do work arounds on problems that they see as unsolvable from their expertise vantagepoint(s). The work around business is a hot one on most MBA campuses because it is where people get to just drop in on really intreguing opportunities. For me the financial aspects of research capitalizations was the most interesting. It had to do with destressing researchers to be able to get objective (instead of subjective) needs assessments ploughed into the over all corporate models. Balancing (or not balancing intentionally) corp silos was another. Employers/employees. You see that the M (250) is where the E/E shows up for closest scutiny. As you consider the model, you see people do face views looking in two directions. Employers are looking to their contracts to use the "replicable paradigm" They are connected and receive cash flow according to production. They do not "see" the overrides that are retained and/or used as bargaining stuff. When they look at their employees they see "growth" by "broadening" their application of the paradigm (widening the conveyor belt). This brings up your insight above. What do they do to realize the value of the intellectual capital they have obtained? they can strike out and advance themselves independently, of course, especially if they feel they have the complete set of intellectual property. However, you also see that they can run in parallel with themselves by repping their existing corp. There is no real choice, however. It is a choice of soloing in a new (this is a necessity) marketplace and not having the embeded reputation of the parent in that new market place where that parent is going to come in and compete with another of the M's sooner or later. This is self policing in that sense. Now a glance at the employees who have aspirations and talents. They are potential M's themselves, whereby their incubator gets a "residual' for spinning them out as a means of accelerating overall penetration. All the waves of expansion are a mixed bag of three classes of components that you raise in your response: orignals, side by sides and spin outs from mature ops. In our ops we receive aggrigated commissions from units of sales. It is absolutely true that employees track their and other's performance. Because we otimize sales units by doing them in parallel in ever increasing size groups, employees are teamed to get throughput. This means from pre-prospect to post followon maintenance. With an average 3:1 referral ratio, the followon maintenance exceeds setting up to prospect (preprospect). Our current bottleneck for example is getting administrative permissions in data bases so we are tying up batching new commissionables lists all the way to information managers who deal with sytemmic revisions to process data. We are a regional system oveload at this point vis a vis market penetration. The above paragraph says that positions must be salaried as a minor income and periodic bonuses are major income. We netogiated a fixed commission and a breakpoint set of performance based overrides. At present our override advances are not being tracked in close enough detail for those we face to "know" what override is asociated with what portion of the flow at this point. We know though. So "volunteering time" is really like the person working as a coast guard person compared to being a FEMA crony. The coast guard person is problem solving oriented and the FEMA crony is doing contract analysis while the problem is not solved. This is how the bonus system prevails in most corps that are making markets. So what happens with iterative refinement. You as well as I know that is what congent marginal analysis does in an operating system. We had to improve team sizing to cover backshop overloading when prospects easily recognized how to get signed up more effectively using an available alternative that meant more office time and less effective field time. When a paradigm is created to solve a pervasive institutional problem (meaning the nation as the institution) a normal marketing program becomes a delivery system, in effect. We build a high class funnel that now looks like an ever widening conveyor belt running at optimum speed for not wrecking the material carried. It is my opinion that the players in all locations and levels are "tuned" to want to continue by making the set of variables (letters) be continualy optimized relative to one another. This system above is designed to transfer a capital pool from government control to private sector control by the simple signing of documents and no subscriber financial consideration at the time of signing. The enabling effort that was made was to find the appropriate papers and a pool larger than the government pool to assure efficiencies. After that you can see that we built an adjustable conveyor belt. This is the direct aspect of the econometric model. The indirect, induced and substitution effects are incredible and we are not attending to them at all. What if. Well what if we did. It would make all of the above look like small potatoes. For the humor of it look at an example that is the same. Consider computers for family use, furniture for homes and homes and communities of homes. Look at rich people now. Gates makes computers and got rich. He is not as rich as the furniture maker though (IKEA guy is richer than gates). Step up to homes. I was on Bucky crew for doing geodesic domes after a Pennsylvania huricane made a figure 8 in NE PA. From scrapping to pour pad to key handed out was 31 hours. What if H for H is converted into an economic business like deal. step up to communities. Tsunami>> Katrina>>> Asian earthquakes>>>> IRAQ war damages. If Sean Sullivan of EWB ever speaks go and listen. Engineers Without Borders. Make up the coefficients for the homes and communities thing. what you see is how the work force is immediately and continually mobilized through employment created by the series of coeefficients that link the pools of capital to their direct application. it is the opposite of how Bush signed off on hourly pay minimums and sole sourcing to solve Katrina. I did the warm up drill for this by combining five paradigms to clean up the urban housing mess found in most cities. M for each is 250. Ikea signed on in one 2 hour first meeting. The profit ratio for intercity: urban tract housing is 2.5:1. Easy capital pools have lots and lots of zeros there are no sourses that, upon sniffing that say no. Nada. To start down the econometric road on the health delivery paradigm just glance at the billions of doolars savable with david Brailer's NHIN that could be built. Skip the HHS and HIT crew...just roll it out in the private sector. See the special article (pg 75 et al) that follows the Cramer cover story (crap) in BW 31OCT05. At some point, the Washington stuff is going to get so bad, an alternative infrastructure is going to show up and get the job done. Meetings are being held... MAK call me......