Exactly, like any business, the cost of a blowup is just that, it's an operating cost. Just like one of the costs to having a salaried job is being temporarily unemployed. The cost of being a professional athlete is getting hurt. It's the sum total of all the cash flows that matter.
The longer you play, the more likely you will die
- Thread starter marketsurfer
- Start date
Exactly, like any business, the cost of a blowup is just that, it's an operating cost. Just like one of the costs to having a salaried job is being temporarily unemployed. The cost of being a professional athlete is getting hurt. It's the sum total of all the cash flows that matter.
Yes, thanks. Mav, what are your thoughts on that one MUST RISK a blow up to make it beyond
survivial subsistence mode in this business --unless one already is wealthy to begin with OR has another source of income? Hopefully, this question makes sense--
Btw, here is a list of some of those educated "underachievers":
Bill Ackman: Harvard Business
Kyle Bass: Finance, TCU
Ray Dalio: Harvard Business School
George Soros: London School of Economics
John Arnold: Economics, Vanderbilt
PTJ: Economics, UVA
Ken Griffin: Economics, Harvard
Ed Thorp: Mathematics, Phd, UCLA
Steve Cohen: Economics, Wharton
Bill Ackman: Harvard Business
Kyle Bass: Finance, TCU
Ray Dalio: Harvard Business School
George Soros: London School of Economics
John Arnold: Economics, Vanderbilt
PTJ: Economics, UVA
Ken Griffin: Economics, Harvard
Ed Thorp: Mathematics, Phd, UCLA
Steve Cohen: Economics, Wharton
Surf, it all comes down to one's opportunity cost. A person with a lot of capital and is very educated actually has a very high opportunity cost. While they may be successful, the question is are they making the best use of their resources accounting for their education and capital.
For someone who is poor yet also very educated, they also have a high opportunity cost. For someone who is poor and not educated, their opportunity cost is very low. Understanding math is VERY important. Very few poor people can generate enough after tax income in present value dollars to justify trading. It's really simple math. The % returns are useless as they are in all business. What matters is the cash flows and the risk and opportunity of those cash flows.
While I would agree that an MBA degree is generally overrated (I happen to have one), I don't think you are in a position to be overly critical of other people's education.
Do you know how to use PowerPoint?
No. But I'm no slouch with a dictionary.
whatever, once you take away fees and book deals etc. there is very little evidence that trading performance is related to education. Carry on and stroke each others elite dicks.
Show me the superstar hedge fund managers with a high school education. In fact, show me just one who is both successful and managing more then say 100 million. There are 6 billion people in the world, I need you to find one. You're on the clock....
fuck you, you totally misunderstood my post. I don't have much of an education because I never wanted to do anything that requires an education. The director of my symphony orchestra advised I drop out of music school because it had nothing to do with playing good music plus it was interfering in his business since I had been playing for him when I was still in high school. If I had wanted to become a music professor I would have stayed in. If an education had anything to do with making money as an indepedent trader who needs no OPM to eek out a living I would go back to school and study whatever it is you claim a trader must have a degree in. Go back to your godamn big high powered world. Not everybody, especially me wants any part of it. And yes, for me, I must be willing to blow up to make money. That's kind of hard to sell to a client.