Can "Joe Retail" switch to the big time?

[Scataphagos]

Quote from blah12345678:

Were you the one in one of the Market Wizard books? I seem to recall a fund timer, buying at the close before the daily NAV posted...

No, but I had one of them call me to discuss my managing some of his money for him.

Speaking of SEC issue... I got an "audit for cause" from them... that's where they suspect some misdeed and check into it... after a story about me in the Denver Business Journal. When the auditors showed up, I asked if they were here because of the DBJ story. They said, "we're aware of it".

With funds, you always buy/sell at the close... but you have to place your trade before the close to get today's NAV.

If what you're saying is correct, some trades got executed today at YESTERDAY'S NAV and before today's NAV was posted? That's so blatant, I didn't think that was the SEC's beef. I'd always thought it was about some funds getting to past-post trades after market-moving news and before the NAV was posted.

Whatever it was, none of that was me.

 

[smallStops]

"Joe Retail"

here is the "secret" once a trader truely trade consistently :

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/_u33kFTYT8w?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Now apparently is you can compound by 700% per year, very shortly you will be swimming 10+ figures made of your own money.
As we are now starting to know is that the consistently profitable"pros" are actually very rare, hence all the stories of insider trading, etc... so aim for the consistent profitability, and you will be set for life.

 

[cornix]

Quote from smallStops:

"Joe Retail"

Now apparently is you can compound by 700% per year, very shortly you will be swimming 10+ figures made of your own money.
As we are now starting to know is that the consistently profitable"pros" are actually very rare, hence all the stories of insider trading, etc... so aim for the consistent profitability, and you will be set for life.

One important issue here, especially for day traders: liquidity. Let's suppose NoD (one of the most recognized traders @ ET) is consistently profitable trading CL. Can she scale her skill up to move millions of dollars per day instead of thousands? No way.

Of course if someone is able to consistently trade some hugely liquid market, that's a true blessing.

 

[smallStops]

So many people are profitable on forums ...
So it is important for "Joe Retail" to understand the power of compounding.

Your only problem is liquidity issues?

 

[cornix]

Quote from smallStops:

So many people are profitable on forums ...
So it is important for "Joe Retail" to understand the power of compounding.

Your only problem is liquidity issues?

No it's not my neither a #1 problem for most @ ET I believe.

Considered it important though to mention that compounding is not so easy magic trick to become rich as many could imagine. Scaling up is a very serious issue in MOST businesses.

 

[smallStops]

Quote from cornix:

...

Considered it important though to mention that compounding is not so easy magic trick to become rich as many could imagine. Scaling up is a very serious issue in MOST businesses.

Permits me to completely disagree with you there.
IF and this a HUGE IF a trader is truely consistently profitable, with a truely robust method - aka has a very good understanding of "how the market works", not just a "statistical" understanding of the market, but a true understanding of it - then compounding will get the person there. The scalability is not the real issue.

 

[blah12345678]

Quote from Scataphagos:


With funds, you always buy/sell at the close... but you have to place your trade before the close to get today's NAV.

If what you're saying is correct, some trades got executed today at YESTERDAY'S NAV and before today's NAV was posted? That's so blatant, I didn't think that was the SEC's beef. I'd always thought it was about some funds getting to past-post trades after market-moving news and before the NAV was posted.

Whatever it was, none of that was me.

I don't have the book handy, but I think you are correct. This was in the 80s. He worked exclusively with Fidelity funds, and he found a way to reliably predict what today's NAV was going to be. So he kept shifting funds from one Fund to another. They eventually told him to go away...

I think he moved on to some other strategy, but I don't remember what got him into the MW book. It might have been Mark Weinstein in the 1st book, or Gil Blake or Richard Driehaus in the 2nd book.

 

[cornix]

Quote from smallStops:

Permits me to completely disagree with you there.
IF and this a HUGE IF a trader is truely consistently profitable, with a truely robust method - aka has a very good understanding of "how the market works", not just a "statistical" understanding of the market, but a true understanding of it - then compounding will get the person there. The scalability is not the real issue.

I am very consistent in auto parts sales family business (20% pure profit margin on every sale on average). Now can I easily scale it up to sell $1M worth of parts a month and not $200K as it is now? Nope. Not any close to being an easy task.

Asked you the same question about NoD. Can she scale her skill up and trade 100 contracts of CL exactly the same way she trades 5 contracts of CL? What did you answer?

P. S. Of course if one is consistent in general it's possible to scale up using more instruments or going up in the time-frame of trades, but it's not as simple and linear as "add more contracts and become rich". That's my point.

 

[smallStops]

Quote from cornix:

I am very consistent in auto parts sales family business (20% pure profit margin on every sale on average). Now can I easily scale it up to sell $1M worth of parts a month and not $200K as it is now? Nope. Not any close to being an easy task.

Asked you the same question about NoD. Can she scale her skill up and trade 100 contracts of CL exactly the same way she trades 5 contracts of CL? What did you answer?

P. S. Of course if one is consistent in general it's possible to scale up using more instruments or going up in the time-frame of trades, but it's not as simple and linear as "add more contracts and become rich". That's my point.

well well well ... as I said "Joe Retail" , once "Joe Retail" is truely consistently profitable, is to learn the "secret" of compounding. And before "Joe Retail" realises, "Joe Retail" will be swimming in 10+ fig account made of his own money.

As I said, the true issue is : how robust is the method?
A statistically based trading method is most unlikely be robust for a certain "large number". Hence the importance of understanding what the trading approach is all about. Not sure I am clear. If not, just know it is not always easy to explain things.

Sorry I do not know much about growing franchises, so I can not comment on non-financial trading type businesses.

 

[cornix]

Quote from smallStops:

well well well ... as I said "Joe Retail" , once "Joe Retail" is truely consistently profitable, is to learn the "secret" of compounding. And before "Joe Retail" realises, "Joe Retail" will be swimming in 10+ fig account made of his own money.

As I said, the true issue is : how robust is the method?
A statistically based trading method is most unlikely be robust for a certain "large number". Hence the importance of understanding what the trading approach is all about. Not sure I am clear. If not, just know it is not always easy to explain things.

Yea, I don't understand your point (probably due to me being not smart enough and not you explaining it badly ). Do you want to say that statistics based approaches are inferior to "robust" approaches and those least are not susceptible to liquidity issues?