I would like to say 4 the record, in the books van tharp states something to the tone of him being a losing trader himself... i have read both books by him and also met robert in person .... the book are increadable and have helped me so much on my search for the "holy grail" It approches trading in a aspect many skip over, and it helped me more then most of the crap out there. the peak performance course is abit pricy so i havent had a chance to review it... but for the record I trade 4 a living and the books are fantastic, and robert i would like to take this oppertunity to again thank you for all your help and quick responces in the past to my questions..crediblity has been established in my book... thanks again Rocky
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Dr. Van Tharp Questions
- Thread starter prospective_25
- Start date
robert, if you could, without getting into sensitive legal mumbo-jumbo, why did your father settle the lawsuit rather than fighting it? im sure he has the money to defend his good name in court. but settling...?
Originally posted by sunnyskies
robert, if you could, without getting into sensitive legal mumbo-jumbo, why did your father settle the lawsuit rather than fighting it? im sure he has the money to defend his good name in court. but settling...?
Settle can have very different meanings.
A good trader knows when to cut your losses short. It's better to be wrong a very small amount than a very large amount.
Dragging it out is extremely costly in legal fee's and he isn't about to countersue his ex-friends even though they were sueing him.
The legal system for civil suits is much different. The guys who bring in the lawsuit are considered the victim and the guy being sued is presumed guility until proven innocent. The exact opposite of our normal legal system as the legal system for civil suits is protecting the person who brought on the lawsuit.
He has to be proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt and the limits for civil judgements can be really high.
Doesn't add up for huge R multiple wins but there can be a huge R multiple loss.
That's why
Just a note, the discussion in this thread on the psychology of trading was split to a new thread in the Psychology forum:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9108
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9108
Originally posted by rtharp
Settle can have very different meanings.
A good trader knows when to cut your losses short. It's better to be wrong a very small amount than a very large amount.
Dragging it out is extremely costly in legal fee's and he isn't about to countersue his ex-friends even though they were sueing him.
The legal system for civil suits is much different. The guys who bring in the lawsuit are considered the victim and the guy being sued is presumed guility until proven innocent. The exact opposite of our normal legal system as the legal system for civil suits is protecting the person who brought on the lawsuit.
He has to be proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt and the limits for civil judgements can be really high.
Doesn't add up for huge R multiple wins but there can be a huge R multiple loss.
That's why
Robert,
I don't want to look like I'm piling on here, but your description of the "legal system for civil suits" is not technically accurate. Maybe you meant in a figurative sense that juries tend to side with victims, and I believe that is true. The legal standard however in civil suits is that the plaintiff has to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence. This means basically more than 50%. The defendant certainly doesn't have to carry a "beyond reasonable doubt" burden.
You are right that it is difficult to get civil cases dismissed before trial. If there is evidence to support the plaintiff's claims, judges generally will force the case to trial, and they often are very generous in making that determination. The expenses can be enormous, plus you have to pay for the inevitable appeals.
There is another side to the legal situation however. The most the plaintiff can collect in most cases is the amount of actual damages. The plaintiff has expenses that often are even larger than the defendant's and must pay them out of his pocket. Few attorneys will take cases on contingency, unless it is a medical malpractice type situation where there is basically a guaranteed recovery. So someone victimized by a fraud or contract dispute is faced with spending a lot of money to get , at best, what they were owed to begin with. Then there is always the problem of actually collecting whatever award you win. Not a pleasant prospect.
Litigation is a nightmare for both sides. As you say, settling is often a prudent course and can be forced on you for reasons having nothing to do with right or wrong.
Many states have a "loser pays" provision whereby the loser must pay both legal bills. This tends to deter people from going to court and works to entice parties to settle.
Robert is right though, many times civil juries sympathize with the "little guy" who plaintiffs paint as having been wronged by the system.
Robert is right though, many times civil juries sympathize with the "little guy" who plaintiffs paint as having been wronged by the system.
How anyone who has spent even one day in this biz and is still able to fall for a crook who DOES NOT HAVE A LONG TERM AUDITED Track Record is completely beyond me.
How that same person can then turn around and even advertise for the crook, advertise him to your own clients, well, that just takes the cake.
How that same person can then turn around and even advertise for the crook, advertise him to your own clients, well, that just takes the cake.