There have always been an abundance of ET members that have expressed the desire to become traders in the future.
There also have been more than enough members who are quick to criticize young aspiring "not yet" traders for asking questions.
Recently someone managed to get an awful lot of attention asking if his upcoming graduate studies would help him land a job as a "salaried trader".
Another post I read today was from a college student who asked how much he should take into consideration for slippage and commissions for "backtesting" or "paper trading" or whatever his purpose was.
This guy, having not traded, was immediately labeled by someone else as a "piker". This made no sense to me. What is wrong with asking questions? If someone doesn't want to answer a question, that is one thing. But putting someone down for asking a question (good or bad question...that is not really relevant) seems nothing but just mean-spirited to me.
Who has ever been hurt in any way by having a question posted on these forums? Anyone can choose to ignore, or to answer. But to call someone names because they just ask something? I really don't get it!
We have all read a lot of name-calling, a lot of boasting, and been introduced with big splashes to some new "traders" that were going to set the world on fire as soon as their wire transfers were completed and they got their account numbers. Turn 5K into 5mm right out of the gate. And so on.
We have read about guys that clamed to make 5% a day. Guys that have seriously questioned their decision to make a career of trading and have never made money at all. And everything in between.
I remember a thread where some 17 year old said college would be a waste of time for him because he could spend those years making huge money as a trader. And he was actually encouraged by some others in that belief. (A minority, but still....).
Now I certainly don' t claim to know all that is possible. Or impossible. No one can claim to have all the answers.
But from my experience, for what it is worth, I will say that an education is always better to have than not. When a 17 or 18 or 22 year old says that trading is the only thing they want to do in life, it would be humorous if it were not so troubling to hear.
The true number of people that support themselves solely through trading their own accounts is proportionately miniscule. And of those who are successful, virtually all of them were successful at something else previously. If not, they would not have the money to have started their trading careers.
The person who asked with such humility if his mathematical studies at Oxford would help him get a "salaried trading position" got a lot of attention, and very little in the way of realistic or helpful answers.
He then tried to get votes in a poll to validate his increased chances of getting just an INTERVIEW for a "salaried trading position". The results were (last I looked), not encouraging for him. But did people vote with reason? Or with emotion?
The reality is that a good education can never hurt. Employers want intelligent and well educated people. They want as much for their money as they can get. Pretty simple really. Graduate at the top of your class in law school or medical school, and it's easy to get a good job.
Trading, as a career is very different. There is no accredited "Trading School" I have ever heard of. (There was a good clinic offered at the CBOE when I was there...a "simulation"...but not an acedemic program). Can a background in mathematics be useful as a trader? Statistics? Programming? Psychology?
Yes to all. Useful, but not essential.
Virtually all of us that trade get paid on results and results alone. Whether we trade our own money, trade firm capital, trade for a fund, trade managed money....anything.
I don't know of anyone who has ever been hired right out of school to trade other people's funds. Salaried or not.
I have worked as a prop trader, a firm trader, and as a retail broker. I have traded on four different exchanges. I have been involved in this field since 1984, and I have never even heard of anyone getting a "salaried trading position" like the Oxford guy seems to be striving for.
For the most part, trading as a full time career is just a pipe dream for young guys. Unless you have wealthy,generous, indulging and tolerant parents (or other benefactors), it is something that just isn't a realistic way to earn a living. This is NOT to say it isn't worth attempting. I am just saying this is not a way in which anyone can expect to support himself for a significant period of time. The tuition of on the job learning is very high.
I have a nephew that went to grad school at Wharton. When he was finished, he got a job with Merrill Lynch in their M&A operations. His starting salary was more than I ever made as a trader. He no longer is making that amount of money. In fact, the position he was hired for no longer even exists. But his education made him qualified for that job. And his experience and hard work at Merrill have kept him employed. But in a different position and for less money than he was making fresh out of school five years ago. Things change.
The only education that qualifies someone to trade someone (or anyone) else's money is trading itself.
Seems like one of those paradoxes. Catch 22.
So where do traders come from? Who trades for the hedge funds, the mutual funds, the managed accounts at the big brokerages? The banks?
The answer is it is the guys (and gals) that paid their dues and learned to trade by being clerks, assistants, runners, interns, etc. (Or in rare instances those who established a track record on their own. Which can be a long and expensive route as the majority here can attest to).
It is hard work. It is low paying work. It can even be demeaning work at times. But that is how it works.
If you want to be a movie director, you start by getting coffee, observing, working hard, being cooperative and making yourself "exceptional". Same thing with trading.
Anyone who has been on an exchange floor, or even just observed from the galleries can easily see that there are a huge amount of people that are NOT trading. They are working a job and doing what they are told to do. They make no decisions when it comes to initiating or closing a trade. They learn to trade like we learned to speak. Exposure. Listening and observing and accepting that whatever we think we know is not sufficient. Infants don't have the kind of ego that interferes with learning.
Traders that trade for themselves (like many ET members) learn mostly by making all the mistakes that come so naturally. Which is why trading is always an uphill struggle in the beginning.
Now it takes only common sense to realize that NOBODY is going to get paid to make mistakes. Nobody is going to entrust someone who has no actual trading experience with anyone else's funds.
The choices are really pretty simple. Make the mistakes, and pay for them with you own money, or work hard alongside and for traders that actually know what they are doing (from their own experience), and get paid a very nominal salary to just be in a learning environment.
That's it. There is no such thing as the "salaried trading position" that the "Oxford Guy" thinks his education will entitle him to. (If there is, it has been a pretty well kept secret. News to me).
Being a "gofer" can be a humbling experience. And will help anyone who is too arrogant to come to terms with how the real world works. Should be perfect for the "Oxford Guy".
Peace,
RS
There also have been more than enough members who are quick to criticize young aspiring "not yet" traders for asking questions.
Recently someone managed to get an awful lot of attention asking if his upcoming graduate studies would help him land a job as a "salaried trader".
Another post I read today was from a college student who asked how much he should take into consideration for slippage and commissions for "backtesting" or "paper trading" or whatever his purpose was.
This guy, having not traded, was immediately labeled by someone else as a "piker". This made no sense to me. What is wrong with asking questions? If someone doesn't want to answer a question, that is one thing. But putting someone down for asking a question (good or bad question...that is not really relevant) seems nothing but just mean-spirited to me.
Who has ever been hurt in any way by having a question posted on these forums? Anyone can choose to ignore, or to answer. But to call someone names because they just ask something? I really don't get it!
We have all read a lot of name-calling, a lot of boasting, and been introduced with big splashes to some new "traders" that were going to set the world on fire as soon as their wire transfers were completed and they got their account numbers. Turn 5K into 5mm right out of the gate. And so on.
We have read about guys that clamed to make 5% a day. Guys that have seriously questioned their decision to make a career of trading and have never made money at all. And everything in between.
I remember a thread where some 17 year old said college would be a waste of time for him because he could spend those years making huge money as a trader. And he was actually encouraged by some others in that belief. (A minority, but still....).
Now I certainly don' t claim to know all that is possible. Or impossible. No one can claim to have all the answers.
But from my experience, for what it is worth, I will say that an education is always better to have than not. When a 17 or 18 or 22 year old says that trading is the only thing they want to do in life, it would be humorous if it were not so troubling to hear.
The true number of people that support themselves solely through trading their own accounts is proportionately miniscule. And of those who are successful, virtually all of them were successful at something else previously. If not, they would not have the money to have started their trading careers.
The person who asked with such humility if his mathematical studies at Oxford would help him get a "salaried trading position" got a lot of attention, and very little in the way of realistic or helpful answers.
He then tried to get votes in a poll to validate his increased chances of getting just an INTERVIEW for a "salaried trading position". The results were (last I looked), not encouraging for him. But did people vote with reason? Or with emotion?
The reality is that a good education can never hurt. Employers want intelligent and well educated people. They want as much for their money as they can get. Pretty simple really. Graduate at the top of your class in law school or medical school, and it's easy to get a good job.
Trading, as a career is very different. There is no accredited "Trading School" I have ever heard of. (There was a good clinic offered at the CBOE when I was there...a "simulation"...but not an acedemic program). Can a background in mathematics be useful as a trader? Statistics? Programming? Psychology?
Yes to all. Useful, but not essential.
Virtually all of us that trade get paid on results and results alone. Whether we trade our own money, trade firm capital, trade for a fund, trade managed money....anything.
I don't know of anyone who has ever been hired right out of school to trade other people's funds. Salaried or not.
I have worked as a prop trader, a firm trader, and as a retail broker. I have traded on four different exchanges. I have been involved in this field since 1984, and I have never even heard of anyone getting a "salaried trading position" like the Oxford guy seems to be striving for.
For the most part, trading as a full time career is just a pipe dream for young guys. Unless you have wealthy,generous, indulging and tolerant parents (or other benefactors), it is something that just isn't a realistic way to earn a living. This is NOT to say it isn't worth attempting. I am just saying this is not a way in which anyone can expect to support himself for a significant period of time. The tuition of on the job learning is very high.
I have a nephew that went to grad school at Wharton. When he was finished, he got a job with Merrill Lynch in their M&A operations. His starting salary was more than I ever made as a trader. He no longer is making that amount of money. In fact, the position he was hired for no longer even exists. But his education made him qualified for that job. And his experience and hard work at Merrill have kept him employed. But in a different position and for less money than he was making fresh out of school five years ago. Things change.
The only education that qualifies someone to trade someone (or anyone) else's money is trading itself.
Seems like one of those paradoxes. Catch 22.
So where do traders come from? Who trades for the hedge funds, the mutual funds, the managed accounts at the big brokerages? The banks?
The answer is it is the guys (and gals) that paid their dues and learned to trade by being clerks, assistants, runners, interns, etc. (Or in rare instances those who established a track record on their own. Which can be a long and expensive route as the majority here can attest to).
It is hard work. It is low paying work. It can even be demeaning work at times. But that is how it works.
If you want to be a movie director, you start by getting coffee, observing, working hard, being cooperative and making yourself "exceptional". Same thing with trading.
Anyone who has been on an exchange floor, or even just observed from the galleries can easily see that there are a huge amount of people that are NOT trading. They are working a job and doing what they are told to do. They make no decisions when it comes to initiating or closing a trade. They learn to trade like we learned to speak. Exposure. Listening and observing and accepting that whatever we think we know is not sufficient. Infants don't have the kind of ego that interferes with learning.
Traders that trade for themselves (like many ET members) learn mostly by making all the mistakes that come so naturally. Which is why trading is always an uphill struggle in the beginning.
Now it takes only common sense to realize that NOBODY is going to get paid to make mistakes. Nobody is going to entrust someone who has no actual trading experience with anyone else's funds.
The choices are really pretty simple. Make the mistakes, and pay for them with you own money, or work hard alongside and for traders that actually know what they are doing (from their own experience), and get paid a very nominal salary to just be in a learning environment.
That's it. There is no such thing as the "salaried trading position" that the "Oxford Guy" thinks his education will entitle him to. (If there is, it has been a pretty well kept secret. News to me).
Being a "gofer" can be a humbling experience. And will help anyone who is too arrogant to come to terms with how the real world works. Should be perfect for the "Oxford Guy".
Peace,
RS