Quote from jaredand:
I think you miss the point. As long as there's success for anyone, it can be considered viable. It has been written everywhere that 90% of the newbies will fail. What about people who want to be President of the US or other professions that have even a worse success rate? Are you telling people not to try?
I certainly am not telling someone that they should not try.
I would though, ask any newbie why they think they can and will beat the odds that are so heavily stacked against them in taking on the challenge of trading professionally.
With most schools that provide an education or training for a career, you have to pass entrance exams and they have qualification processes to weed out those who really have a low probability for success.
I mentioned it to Don once in a post that firms like his should have entrance exams and psychological testing to see if an applicant is really of the right mental and emotional development to take on the task of becoming a professional day trader.
He agreed it would be a good idea in theory. Has this testing been put to into practice? My guess is that nothing has or will be done in this area as long as firms like Don's can continue to make money the way they are.
If only 10% of those who try to trade professionally at firms who offer training have success, don't you think there is something lacking in their training programs, or am I missing something here?
The failure rates at med school, law school, etc. are not that high....
You have to pass exams in order to be licensed to practice medicine, law, as a CPA, etc.
Why aren't there exams to qualify traders before they begin trading (beyond a series 7, which has nothing to do with one's ability to trade)?
Some will say that there are not exams that can pre-screen traders, but I don't think that is true.
Air traffic control workers are tested thoroughly before they are allowed to direct real air traffic, and the tests they take include measuring their ability to make very difficult and impactful decisions under stressful situations. Sure, there is a big difference between a simulator and the real thing, but if someone can't pass the simulator test to a high enough level, they are not allowed to proceed to the next step.
Let me ask you this question:
If Don were putting up his own money for the training expenses and providing the seed money for trading out of his own pocket, entrusting his own money to the results of those he recruits and trains, do you think he would be more careful in the selection and training process, and test them thoroughly before letting them trade?
Of course he would, as he would have his own money at risk. Since he is not risking his or the firms own money, the results are not as impactful where it matters...i.e. his own pocket.
Bright can be a schlock shop like all the rest, make money on the constant flow of dreamers, and tell us he sleeps well at night as he is of a "higher moral" character than the others.
The bottom line is, even if he is a better crook than the other crooks, he is still a crook in the sense that he does not tell the whole story or provide all the facts about the business.
When someone comes along who revolutionizes the industry, who can show a success rate for training traders at a significantly higher clip than Bright's training provides....then I will value these types of firms at a higher level of esteem.
I firmly believe you could take a bunch of monkeys trading randomly and likely get as good or better results as these firms demonstrate from their "boot camps" and training programs through the first 6 to 12 months of trading by people who have not really had the level of professional training it takes to succeed in this business.
Hell, a flip of the coin would likely do better than the 90%failure rates....and monkeys wouldn't suffer the stress of knowing that they are losing their money.