That's all well and good. But I refer to the aggregate numbers, wherein you made almost 1 million for your personal account while in aggregate (including your clients) you lost over 6 million. This was during the SAME period. So I'm not quite sure how your response explains this disparity given that we are talking about the same period and comparing your personal numbers with the aggregate during that same period.Quote from larrywms:
I was managing accounts prior to 1987 so perhaps that clears that up.
Accounts that came in prior to the 87 crash made a great deal of money. One such customer was Susan Kringle who sued me for $53,000,000 claiming here $60,000 account should have gone to that amount instead of the $460,00 or so the account close out at. That was her laywers arguments; the judge threw it out.
Others that started around the crash lost money. Remember mytrading account at Robbins went from 2,200,000 prior to the crash down to 750,000 and then I traded it back to 1,100,000...still down from the equity high. A few others managers lost then too as I recall. That's why they call it the "crash of 87'.
So it depends on when they came is as to how they did.
Hope that helps clarify this.
larry
Also, I was hoping for an explanation of how Robbins knew well in advance of the completion of the contest that you would emerge as a trader of managed money and, therefore at least implicitly, a winner of the contest. I still find this matter vexing.