Hmmm ... I'm wondering (not that it matters, really) whether (a) the quotation above is from the original edition of the book, long ago, or the much more recently updated new edition; and (b) whether possibly the good Dr Elder was saying that with regard to some very specific context not mentioned above? (I suspect from my recollections of the book that he was probably talking/thinking mostly about stocks?)
The answer to this surely depends greatly on one's personal circumstances, and what's going to be an appropriate "minimum turning-pro account-size" for one person might be hugely different for another? Depending on many, many variables (including even "what they're trading", and perhaps "what other skills/education/prospects they have, in case things don't work out")?
Granted, Elder makes the essential point that "you probably need quite a bit more than you think you do", to try to "turn pro", and that's a good point for him to make; but the issue's so vague and ill-defined and variable that it's not really too easy to discuss helpfully?
For me, given what I was doing at the time, my overall financial circumstances and aspirations, the alternatives I then had, and various other personal considerations, I felt that "turning pro" became a realistic option for me when I was able to make $3,000+ per month for each of several consecutive months with no drawdown over 5% along the way. So the amount of money I needed to "turn pro" was roughly "enough for that to be a realistic expectation" together with about 6 months' "funds to live on" already saved up separately. (Some people - for example those with families to support, will perhaps laugh at this and consider it grotesquely inadequate - and probably rightly so from their own perspectives and circumstances, which may be hugely different from what mine were at the time.)
It's undoubtedly true that undercapitalization's a common problem for people, and so are unreasonable expectations, and the two together will take the overwhelming majority of people out of the game.
But I don't think it's possible meaningfully to give absolute figures. If you're going to try at all, you'd certainly want to make them on the high-ish side (exactly as Elder's done, above)?
Overall, I think the major issue (not nearly widely enough discussed and drawn attention to) is that considering "turning pro" isn't primarily about "how much capital do you need?". It's actually much more to do with "how many hundreds or thousands of consecutive trades have you made in a live market, with a funded account, without losing money and with no drawdown larger than x%?"
If you genuinely have the risk-management skill-set and the objectively proven edge, the money becomes less significant (and for sure, if you ever want to trade OPM at a professional level, your drawdown sizes are very likely to be a far more significant parameter than your profits).
) But the levels he references are outcomes: a $120,000 account may seek a robust, reliable 15%-20%, a get-it-while-it's-hot 33%-50%, or a "Hey! Look what I can do!" 50%-100%. One of these will still be around in 10 years.
