...btw if psychology not so important - why do many firms keep a psychologist on staff / on retainer (rhetorical if you prefer)...
Many top institutional trading firms hire psychologists to help employees deal with work related issues or personal issues that's impacting their performance at work especially considering many of these individuals make decisions that impact millions of dollars.
This isn't a financial market issue...its an issue for many different types of businesses and I've seen a lot of different terms used to job title (describe) these psychologists being hired.
http://www.profitguide.com/manage-g...e-you-about-to-hire-a-ticking-time-bomb-71384
Terms like corporate psychologist, occupation psychologist, organizational psychologist, HF Consultant, Supervisor Intelligence, business psychologist and one new term I've seen as shown in the link above is "industrial psychologist"...
all of them are psychologists.
I believe Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs uses the term for their psychologist as "industrial psychologist" whereas in the past I incorrectly identified them as just "corporate psychologist".
I remember one wall street firm working with an outside firm called Hogan (a Clark Wilson Group since 1972)...a business in "advancing the science of personality"...basically they help corporations find the right CEOs, Presidents, Vice Presidents or any individuals that will be in the position of making key decisions for the company.
Their motto is the following...
When you multiply the right individual by the right environment, success is inevitable.
Not sure why most retail traders have problems connecting their beliefs, persona, interaction problems with the markets involving psychology when wall street obviously has no problems in such a relationship.
So the issue isn't really if psychology is important because as shown above...its obviously very important to the financial markets. The issue is this...does having the right person in the right position gives that firm
an edge in comparison to another firm that does not have the right person in the right position making key decisions for the firm ?
Now lets drop this discussion down to the retail level...
Once again, the issue is the
definition of edge considering there's obvious more types of edges out there than the
quantifiable edge phrase used to describe automated or systems...there's a large group of traders that do not use automation or system. The profitable few...how do you describe their edge or is it just
luck and has nothing to do with the psychology of a trader that's able to consistently follow the trading plan.
