Why can't you scale up and be a billionaire?

Quote from edfor:

I agree, and I don't want to outright dismiss the chance that I could turn out to be some prodigy when it comes to investing, but the odds are clearly against it.

The odds are against everyone. The odds were against George Washington too.

Grow a pair of balls and commit to trying this or not. And if it doesn't work out, try something else.
 
Ah I see myself ten years ago...so naive in how the market works... You sound smart. So now add 10000 hrs of face time with the markets and just might make it.
 
Quote from edfor:


I never really considered doing things any differently until a couple months ago when I found Interactive Brokers and the wide variety of investment products available and the low commissions. Long story short, but I jumped right in and started playing around with options and index futures, with crazy amounts of leverage and generating ridiculous swings. .

The first thing I would tell stop using over margin/levearge with IB you will get autoliquidated very soon.
 
Quote from edfor:

Let me just start by saying I don't think I have any unique insights on this issue, so I'm not trying to antagonize anyone .......

First of all, when I see someone writing such long stuff, I know his mind is confused. It usually takes a few sentences to express a complex idea. But your mind is meandering through an endless maze. You are mentally disturbed.

Second, you want to pose a question, but the title of your thread indicates the opposite: "Why can't you.....?" You have already decided that one "can't" do it. Then why bother asking the question? You are not asking the question, you are giving your opinion disguised as a question.

Finally, is Corzine a pro? Your basic assumption is wrong!
 
Quote from edfor:
"How could I possibly plan to beat the pros by investing in my spare time?"

Well depending on which pro's you are referring to, this may or may not be much of a challenge. I have spent some time on the Bogleheads forum and they often think of mutual fund managers as "the pro's". They are professional but generally not traders, and there is quite a difference. Another common misconception on the Bogleheads forum is thinking that because profitable trading is difficult, it is impossible or should not be attempted. Profitable trading is very difficult. Studies have shown that the majority lose, but studies have also shown that a not insignificant minority outperform consistently. Although it may be difficult to join this minority, it can be very worthwhile.

Some advantages the little guy has:

- No prospectus trading restrictions
- No investors making deposits/withdrawals at inopportune times.
- Can take on the risk of under performing the market, that many pro's cannot.
- Can focus on trading, not on raising capital, satisfying investors, etc.
- Small traders can be nimble, getting in and out quickly in volumes that do not move price.
- Can trade smaller stocks that many professionals can't, without moving the price.
- Can choose not to trade when the opportunities are not favorable.

Some reasons most will never make billions, or even millions:
- Successful trading is very difficult
- Scalability problems
- Changing edges. Profitable methods don't necessarily work for ever, or even years. Profitable traders have to adapt to changing markets, and this is every bit as hard as being profitable in the first place.
- Changes in risk tolerance.

In my trading I specialize in small stocks. I trade in stocks that those with larger accounts cannot without incurring significantly higher slippage, so right off the bat my competition is somewhat limited. Further I use a professional caliber tool that gives me a significant edge over many individual investors. A drawback is that these strategies have significant limitations on their scalability. When most people look at stocks/charts, they see their own projections of hope, greed, and fear. I approach it from an objective point of view and trade when the odds are in my favor.

"We know that we know almost nothing, but the ‘almost nothing’ we know isn’t completely nothing, and we only bet on that. ” – David Harding of Winton
 
Quote from edfor:





I think that's a good point. While there are really deep markets where you can move $50 to $100m in an instant, they might be efficient markets where you don't have an edge. And then you would need to look to the smaller ones where there would be an upper limit to the amount of money you can move around without having too much of an effect. In that case I could see someone being able to outperform the market by a large percentage without the compounding issue.

So realistically, on a risk adjusted basis, how much could a day trader outperform the market by? I had a number in my head of around 10% a year, which basically said to me don't bother thinking about it until you have at least $1m because the returns wouldn't be worth your time until then. Of course it would take most people until at least their forties until they could save up that kind of capital, and by then you would probably have such different priorities that you couldn't possibly decide to just start day trading with your life savings. I think ideally it would be something you work your way into in your spare time, but I just have that nagging doubt about how can an amateur beat the pros who are able to spend all their time watching the markets?

Looks like you already have the answer to your own question.
 
In general the longer the time frame and the further the stop loss point from entry the more scalable the system.

This is because you will have more time to build a large a position.

This does not mean it will be the most profitable system based on risk to return, only it will be able to handle the largest amounts of money.

So trading becomes less and less profitable in % return terms as your account grows but it continues to become more profitable in $ terms, because your bet size continues to increase.
 
Quote from edfor:

For example, a 40% annual return compounds to over 800 times the starting amount after twenty years.

Taxes on that 40%, plus living expenses, along with booze, broads, and bullshit.

Then you have periodic drawdowns and losing months/quarters or even years.

In the end you might retain 10-20% of the 40% return, to add to your balance on an average year. That's why many go the managed funds route, or eventually wash out of the game.
 
And don't forget that even if you increase your capital by
10% nominal you may still not come out ahead given the
money printing binge around. Beating the fake CPI is no good
you need to stay ahead of the true inflation.

Quote from Ghost of Cutten:

Taxes on that 40%, plus living expenses, along with booze, broads, and bullshit.

Then you have periodic drawdowns and losing months/quarters or even years.

In the end you might retain 10-20% of the 40% return, to add to your balance on an average year. That's why many go the managed funds route, or eventually wash out of the game.
 
Back
Top