A brand new trader trading 100-300 shares at a time isn't going to pay anybody. Meanwhile the trainer is taking attention away from his own trading which hurts his P&L. If somebody can turn a trader profitable heavily in a few weeks is it worth something to that trader for awhile especially if it costs the trader nothing up front? Robert
I think compensating the training by means of higher comissions and a lower payout for the time the newbie is being mentored is fair and equitable. I don't see how paid seminars fit into the equation. Would this be for offsite traders?
its amazing when one criticizes a firm based on truth that actual partners of the firm or profiteers of it come here to defend the firm. let the employees/traders do it. 500 min. bullet nationwide? oh i guess that makes it ok. may mean the firm is ripping off nationwide. why should beginners put up 500 share bullets when they should be trading less than 200 shares per trade to learn. and you say commissions dont matter? the only people that make such statements are the house in vegas.. i guess you are a member of the house. the other firms i mentioned may or may not be great (esp. defunct icap) but at least they try to be fair to a trader. if you are making money off of a profit split and commissions then why cheat traders on bullet rates; how are newbies supposed to learn when you are draining their accounts. a few thousand dollars of learning and then close your account you say? i guess thats how the parents eat their young.. by churning new traders thru a revolving door. essex radez in florida offers bullets as low as 100 shares, but i guess readers knowing that would see how they are getting ripped. i'm not saying lynx is bad or ggod? i dont care just letting readers know whats going on before they walk through the doors. learn to accept your faults and take real constructive criticism.
You are assuming that the trainer is consistently profitable. Otherwise this actually "double" helps the trainer. The reason I like to point out this implied assumption is that we all know that those who can trade don't write. Is that possible, maybe even highly likely, who wants to be a trainer might be just like those trading book writers. Take Mark Douglas for example, who has a couple of books most people think it highly, as he stated in his book "Trading in the Zone", as I remember, that he couldn't support his life style by trading so he bocame a trainer and wrote books later. I used to think that those gurus operating chat room teaching/training new wannebe traders, me as one of examples, are great traders. Now I realize that those gurus may really not have much to show for of their trading and they get majority of income from helping new traders. Just my thoughts.
and this is based on the assumption that those who can trade don't write....... Yet I know quite a few traders who have done quite well and have some articles/books written. I can argue and argue with guys on this board. Yet I have no reason to. Robert
please don't try to slam Lynx when you have an agenda with your firm that has a 60% split --- and for your info I'm not a partner in the firm The firm stands out due to their training for newer traders. They don't have the lowest rates in town for newbies but they train their traders well. Now experienced traders can find competative rates but they won't receive any type of training from the firm. It is about compensating the trainers for the higher cost the trainees are recieving. When the trainees are doing well their cost become much more competitive, or else they would just go to a different firm as there are no long term contacts. Robert
My head is spinning reading this thread. I don't know who's who's or who's defending which firm but all I know is that whoever said commissions didn't matter is absolutely wrong no matter what level of experience you are at. Just thought of one more thing. You have to assume that taking away a trainer's time is costing him money. All the trainers who can't make a dime trading turn to teaching before they leave the business. The only training that is worth the money is from someone who actually trades live. Seminars that charge thousands are mostly bullshit.
Your original statement was that trainning hurt the trainer's P&L. My discussion is that it is not necessarily, and more likely the opposite. I just liked to point that out to other readers, and not here to argue with you as you are saying. The first part of your subsequent response is illogical so I'm not going to discuss further, and part of your response deviated from what I was discussing and I have no intention to discussing how firm work/charge with their new traders since I don't have those facts. By the way I totaly agree that trainer should be compensated for their time just like I pay for Elder's book because he spent time to write it up not because him spending time writing hurted his trading P&L.