You can't generate positive alpha without a PhD.

PhD's learn more and more about less and less, until they know absolutely everything about nothing at all.

I bet this dude just read EBTA and feels he has it all figured out.

For now, I have little reason to believe anything other than the null hypothesis:

H0 = golfer has <= anything but an ePenis
 
I think its fair to say the us traders are as full of ourselves as Wallstreetgofer, or else we wouldn't be so riled and as nasty as he is...and in some cases moreso. ;)

Since we can't prove that our past success is a guarantee of our future performance, perhaps the OP can post his statistical data that strongly suggests it is random, including all variables, assumptions, and modeling used.
 
Quote from Brandonf:

The fact is this: The markets are a lot more random than most traders want to think it is. It is also a lot less random than most academics want to think.
More...
I like that, it's almost - Poetic.
 
Quote from Brandonf:

The fact is this: The markets are a lot more random than most traders want to think it is. It is also a lot less random than most academics want to think.



Best post, I agree.
 
Quote from virgin:

Quote from Brandonf:

The fact is this: The markets are a lot more random than most traders want to think it is. It is also a lot less random than most academics want to think.



Best post, I agree.
More...

I would make a small modification:
Change "a lot less" to slightly
The fact is this: The markets are a lot more random than most traders want to think it is. It is also slightly less random than most academics want to think.
 
Quote from shanoballs:

I'm not doubting the trading abilities of anyone here, but here is something to consider. i ran a random signal test where i tell my computer to pick 292 random trades out of the SP market from 1982 to 2007, and i ran the test 255 times to replicate 255 traders. the results are below. out of 255 traders 78% of them were net positive, 67% of them made over $100,000, 55% of them made over $200,000 and 1% of those 255 traders made north of 1 million dollars simply by luck. i just thought that it was interesting. i redid the trader burnout calculation using 90% rate, i was not aware that there was data supporting the 90% burnout rate, i simply used the fact that less than 50% of fund managers do not beat market returns.

<img src = "http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/9108/traderssjn5.gif"
More...


here is an interesting paper for people who are interested. i think its useless to argue about something from two extremes, in any case, i found this to be a good read:
http://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/empeco/v30y2006i4p947-971.html
 
Quote from Brandonf:

The fact is this: The markets are a lot more random than most traders want to think it is. It is also a lot less random than most academics want to think.
More...

Well said, although embracing that imo is a trader's quickest route to failure. In the constant drive for more knowledge and understanding, nothing should be accepted as simply random.
 
Quote from WallStGolfer31:

I believe that's the other way around.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&refer=home&sid=agHGQ249p.98



One of my professors got his PhD with a guy who ended up at Barclays after he graduated. This other guy makes $1 million a year in base salary. It's because he's the only one who understands things enough to be a director of some quant division.
More...
More TROLLS to come. I can see it now.

==============================================
Hey guys, first time poster here. Have you heard about PhDouchebags.com. They have some really good ideas on how to trade. I snooped around their site and it's really easy to set up an account and their customer service is second to none. I spoke with some guy who called himself WallStGoofer and he was really helpful. Sharp site, too. Give'em a call.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top