| RESULTS FOR DAY | |
|---|---|
| ZS Contracts: | 6 |
| Net $P/L: | 769 |
| Wins: | 1 |
| Losses: | 1 |
| Win%: | 50 |
| Avg$Win: | 1029 |
| Avg$Loss: | -260 |
In more Debbie Downer news on our occupation, "If you look around the poker table and you don’t know who the sucker is, you’re the sucker. Wall Street knows who the suckers are: naïve, at-home day traders." I don't know about you, but these "news reports" just motivate me more!
Posts
Everybody loves to bash the small guy ;)Keep em coming..
ReplyDeleteAnother financial scholar who probably has not had much experience with live day-trading or blew his account out and has conceded that day trading your own account profitably is not possible. Most will teach and pass on their advice while a few will actually do-it.
ReplyDeleteI clicked on the author info link to see that he once had an investment banker from with an investment advisory business. So I guess he feels we ought to let the "pros" make the tough decisions about investing/trading. =) Curious as to why he's no longer in that biz...
ReplyDeleteHe has an MBA in Finance/Accounting and subscribes market is entirely random theory in the short term which he includes in his attack on daytraders. The thing is, he must not be very good at math and logic. The whole is the sum of it's parts, so you can't have "non-random" long term investing is it's composed of just "random" short term sub samples. Conversely, if long term investing is non random, that quality has to also show up in the shorter time frames as well.
He's currently a business professor in China, lending beautifully to the old adage that those who can, do, while those who can't, teach. =)
Damn, guess you can't trust anything those guys with MBAs say! ;) Thanks for the due diligence.
Delete"Soullfire" makes some interesting points but one really got me thinking...
ReplyDelete>if long term investing is non random, that quality has to also show up in the >shorter time frames as well.
I think the most accurate description of the argument (whether I agree with it or not) is that in the short-term any market inefficiencies are so small that they are swamped by trading costs. Those small inefficiencies though are aggregated over longer time-frames and become much more exploitable (especially as this is a non-linear process) relative to costs.
All the above is just me "thinking aloud" rather than claiming to have an answer. It's probably not what you want in your comments section anyway (!) but is a very interesting topic.
L&W
Agree 100% with your aloud thinking and all comments are welcome!
Delete