1. No doubt there's quite a few charlatans who prey upon trusting folks. In every field. 2. How much money a trader "makes" is not necessarily correlated to their educational value. Butch Harmon who was Tiger Woods swing coach was on the PGA tour for all of two years. Did Tiger say, âI can only learn from someone who won a majorâ? I was fortunate. I started as a runner at the CBOT in 1979. On the floor there was a zillion different styles to observe. Scalping, spreading, swing trading, position trading, options, different products ect.. Some of the guys who possessed the most talent-some who taught me the most-are broke! Does that mean these guys sucked? Of course not. At the end of the day trading among talented professionals is all about position sizing. I've known traders who were profitable for years but all of a sudden a divorce or illness or business loss outside trading throws them askew. They (me too) take on more risk than usual and then bam some extraordinary market event takes place and they're toast. Keep in mind that being a fund manager who grinds out exceptional 35% returns is much different than trying to be an individual who turns 10k into 10 million over a few years. A guy who blows up in the midst of such a journey may offer more value than Soros. Hell the blow up guy is probably more talented than Soros. Virtually everyone interviewed by Jack Schwager in his Wizard series was a top talent. I personally know 4 of the subjects and I'm a cousin of one of them. I think readers of the Schwager books would agree, all smart guys. Yet at least a handful have been smoked over the years.
& that's precisely why someone like me would never do a seminar. Because I think I have distilled the making money process into as simple a process that anyone can. And I don't want to give up my winning ways, while most in the seminar circuit are not good traders, or their methodologies are hard to implement that it would be more economical for them to sell their knowledge. An example would be Mr. Sands, and his turtle methods. Turtle methods work, but hard to trade and implement and is just much easier to teach. If I do it, it would be like George Soros holding seminars.. It just wouldn't be cool.
1. "Few" charlatans? How about LOTS of charlatans! 2. Trading is different from golf instruction.... no physical ability required. In golf, you have to judge by your conviction. (Golf accomplishment is not only knowledge, but "ability to physically execute".. not the same in trading.) In trading, the "proof of the pudding" is the P&L.
Just classic Brandon, I know that was meant serious, but I almost sprayed my diet coke reading that! Thanks for making me laugh.
I would tend to agree. Anyone can pass themselves off as a trading guru for a time, at the end of which the newcomer will have already lost a goodly sum in both trading and "instruction." An impressive and stable P&L may not guarantee competent instruction, but it is a good indicator. For example, when I go to the doctor, I like to see medical diplomas on the wall. The more, the better. There may be other "healers" who are more competent than my doctor but who do not have medical degrees. Even so, I'll take my chances with the guy who went to med school. A healthy, stable P&L in the trading arena is a proxy for such a diploma. While going to a doctor and seeking instruction may not be comparable in the normal course, it boils down to a matter of seeking competence in a field where you cannot otherwise realistically and objectively judge for yourself.
Great traders are not the best of Teachers. And Great Teachers are not the best of Traders. And Trading is not something that can be taught. Trading is something to be pursued, and conquered. Its like a hunt. A Trading Teacher that is adequate in Teaching is good enough to show you the way.
Agree about the execution part. A couple of points. Two of the best "gurus" were Marty Zwieg and Ned Davis. I have no idea if either of them did a ton of trading or how profitable they were. Their market observations though were splendid. Talented traders could take Davis's work and use it profitably irregardless if Davis made or didn't make money himself trading. Secondly profits are not a yardstick in themselves. In the mid 80's I turned 1k (I'd started with 10 and was down to just 1) into several hundred thousand in four months. Trading Bonds. Obviously everyone I knew thought I was quite wonderful. The truth is though I was just a guy who pressed his bets and hit several winners in a row. As soon as I was trading 300 contracts at a clip I went "cold" and lost half of it in one day. Was I Joe Superstar on Monday and Joe Bum on Tuesday? Nah, same trader. I'm very hip to the perils of judging based on survivorship bias. In fact for me personally-my greatest gains have come in periods of my least prudent position sizing. A better example. In the Bond pit there were many millionaires. Tom Baldwin wasn't even the biggest winner in the pit. Yet there were a couple of traders who traded relatively small (one was a 20 lot guy the other a 5 lot trader) who were MONEY. Both would regularly turn the market bid or sellers on a fraction of the size many others were trading. But by your yardstick they were âsub primeâ because they weren't making Baldwin money yet the truth is they probably each have more wealth accumulated in retirement than most of the ânameâ traders of their era.