Why Trading is so Hard
- Thread starter John9999
- Start date
Possible, that's why what Turtles did doesn't work anymore. Markets are far more sophisticated now.
Turtle trading is dead in fact its almost a scam caused by pure luck , these turtles just lucked out starting their trend thing at the start of the biggest 15 year bull market ever . Delete turtles from mind , they only making money selling books these days , I had a conversation with Russell Sands ( one of original turtles) a few years back and he was in a huge drawdown , I suggested some quantitative methode to improve his results , he lost the plot , he reacted like i was suggesting joining a Cult . Irony was that he was the cult . true story
Sorry, this is making me dizzy. What exactly are you trying to say?
I guess I am not a capable trader then. As long as a strategy is not losing a ton of money and has positive statistical expectation, I'd run it.
The only thing i have to prove anything to is myself and i have plenty of hard evidence . To employ someone to provide this type of evidence will be 5 figures with at least a 2 in front . There was a time i was like you . Eventually i realized there are no free lunches . I dont care if you are wrong , i only care that i am right . Good luck , work hard ..
If you are wrong that is your issue . I pull this out regularly
Attachments
Last edited:
Something that all experienced traders have learned , or been taught, that won't be recognized by beginning traders, and that makes profitable trading even harder, is that a surprising number of things that investment banks and brokers advise their clients to do may not be at all in the individual would-be traders best interest. Arthur Levitt, a former SEC Chairman, said it best when he wrote, "Your broker is not your friend."* And too, although there is much helpful literature available, there is also a world of self-appointed trading gurus that sound authoritative and sell books and courses that are of little real value when it comes to making money from the markets; yet they are an appealing trap for beginners.
That "Wall Street" -- in the generic sense -- does not always have their clients' best interests at heart is recognized within the Dodd Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act gave specifically to the SEC the authority to impose upon brokers/dealers standards of responsibility toward their clients, an authority which already extended to registered financial advisors. The law threw a small bone to the brokers, however, by including this statement " [brokers/dealers] would not "have a continuing duty of care of loyalty to the customer after providing [advice]." The law is under review by the Trump administration. Wall Street objects to it -- presumably to the notion that they should be required to provide good advice, if they provide any at all. Some see the provision as unworkable. It does threaten to end the age old practice of investment banks doing the opposite of what they advise their clients to do.
The remarkable thing here is that it was deemed necessary to pass a law requiring a business to give their customers good advice rather than bad. This harks back to the very foundations of stock trading under the button wood tree and its innate unsavory nature. The rules have always been different than what's taught in Sunday School. New traders need to be watched over by an old, and benevolent hand.
____________________
*N.B. I am not intending my remarks here to reflect negatively on Robert Morse's firm, Lightspeed Trading. I do not know that firm personally, but I have observed Mr. Morse's contributions to ET forums, without exception, to be forthright and helpful .
That "Wall Street" -- in the generic sense -- does not always have their clients' best interests at heart is recognized within the Dodd Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act gave specifically to the SEC the authority to impose upon brokers/dealers standards of responsibility toward their clients, an authority which already extended to registered financial advisors. The law threw a small bone to the brokers, however, by including this statement " [brokers/dealers] would not "have a continuing duty of care of loyalty to the customer after providing [advice]." The law is under review by the Trump administration. Wall Street objects to it -- presumably to the notion that they should be required to provide good advice, if they provide any at all. Some see the provision as unworkable. It does threaten to end the age old practice of investment banks doing the opposite of what they advise their clients to do.
The remarkable thing here is that it was deemed necessary to pass a law requiring a business to give their customers good advice rather than bad. This harks back to the very foundations of stock trading under the button wood tree and its innate unsavory nature. The rules have always been different than what's taught in Sunday School. New traders need to be watched over by an old, and benevolent hand.
____________________
*N.B. I am not intending my remarks here to reflect negatively on Robert Morse's firm, Lightspeed Trading. I do not know that firm personally, but I have observed Mr. Morse's contributions to ET forums, without exception, to be forthright and helpful .
Last edited:
Are you suggesting that trend following is dead (very possible, at least for a while) or that Turtles method was a fraud from the start (can't comment, TBH)?