[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | | Home]

Day trading is a meme

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 85
Thread images: 11

>Thinking you can out perform this long term
>>
>~10% annual
>>
File: 1467141818935.gif (2MB, 400x206px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1467141818935.gif
2MB, 400x206px
>I will be one of the 10% that doesn't fail as a day trader
>>
>>1713418
Who cares?
Investing like that is no fun at all.
>>
>>1713704
It's not supposed to be fun.
>>
>>1713713
That's why I day trade too.
Because that shit is fun.
>>
>>1713507
as many as 10% make it? i find that hard to believe. thats pretty good chances then.
>>
>>1713719
yeah. do you remember the occupy wallstreet and how they were protesting the 10%?
>>
>>1713727
>occupy wallstreet
It wouldn't surprise me if they thought day traders were the richest guys on the street.
They thought Bernie Sanders had good ideas.
>>
>>1713727
>10%
>1%
>10%
>1%
>10%
>1%
It's ok anon, you were close.

>>1713732
And you unironically agreed.

Daytraders, ladies and gentlemen.
>>
>>1713753
>And you unironically agreed.
With what?
You'll have to be a bit more specific, dumbfuck.
>>
>>1713784
You unironically agreed that Occupy Wallstreet was about protesting "the 10%" (day traders who make it) as oppose to what it was actually protesting (the 1% of wealthiest people controlling so much of the country's resources and assets).

Looks like you're the dumbfuck. Lrn2ReadingComprehension
>>
Pretty sure I could do better than 10% annually, but I don't have a lot of capital so that makes it easier.
>>
>>1713788
Nope, I never said that at all.
But I applaud your overactive imagination.
All I said was that they were probably stupid enough to think that day traders were the richest guys on Wall Street.
And they probably were that dumb.
And you were probably one of them.
>>
>>1713788
>>>/leftypol/
>>
>>1713803
Are you joking?

>>1713727
>Said: "do you remember the occupy wallstreet and how they were protesting the 10%?"

To which you responded:
>>1713732
>"It wouldn't surprise me if they thought day traders were the richest guys on the street."


You clearly thought that "the 10% of day traders who make it" and "the 1% of wealthiest people in the US" were the same thing as you mistook what the actual purpose of Occupy Wallstreet was. Why try to backtrack and say you didn't say what you actually said? Is this how autistic NEETs actually think and operate? Also, who the fuck types like that?
>>
>>1713816
>You clearly thought that "the 10% of day traders who make it" and "the 1% of wealthiest people in the US" were the same thing
How could anyone with half a brain believe those two things were the same?
And by the way Occupy had a serious stick up their ass about daytraders, so it really wouldn't surprise me if they thought traders are led by the devil.
Seriously, you should calm down. You're really reading too much in to things.
>>
>>1713842
>Person A: 2+2=5
>You: Yeah 5-2=2
>Person C: You're wrong in saying that, 2+2 actually equals 4
>You: I didn't say that 2+2=5 you fucking idiot stop reading too much into things RREEEEEEEE

Wow you look a helluva lot stupider when you change the subject being discussed. I hope this serves a lesson for you to actually think about what you say and not just spout bullshit just so you can be a part of the discussion. Go die in a hole NEET.
>>
>>1713853
You should probably think about why I mentioned Sanders, that would give you a clue.
See, that whole movement was dumb enough that they bought into a lot of his more baseless ideas. Namely, that speculators (you know, like daytraders) were the same people as the 1%, despite that really not being the case.
See how that works? Maybe now you can take a pill and wipe some of the spittle off your mouth.
>>
>>1713869
How do you still not understand that what you said didn't make sense and was wrong? I almost feel bad for your parents having to raise such a complete fucking autistic NEET.


Back on topic: OP, plenty of day traders beat 10% annual returns. Indexes are just easier for your average investor due to lack of financial-IQ.
>>
>>1713753
are you retarded? that anon said 10% is a pretty good chance, which i sarcastically agreed. if true, one in ten people would be rich, thus my comment. those commie faggots were protesting the 1%. not the 10%. it wasn't a typo, it was ironic shitposting.

fucking hell. i don't want to sound like a fedora tipper, or the iamverysmart folk that your kind gloat about mocking, but my level of ironic sarcasm is beyond you.
>>
>>1713881
>It wouldn't surprise me if they thought day traders were the richest guys on the street.
Not wrong, plenty of them probably believed this. This in no way references a specific percentage amount, either, it only speculates about the stupidity of the movement.

>>1713881
>They thought Bernie Sanders had good ideas.
This isn't wrong, either, as most of them thought this. It also references the previous comment.

It also amuses me you think I'm a NEET, as I happen to be retired and as such, had plenty of time to follow the antics of those jerkoffs in Zucotti Park.
>>
>>1713901
How's it feel to have >>1713898
admit that he was being sarcastic and you didn't pick up on it after arguing for 30 minutes that you aren't a complete fucking retard? Just curious.
>>
>>1713907
>admit that he was being sarcastic
I think the only one here who didn't already know that is you.
As he said, you missed the irony of his "10%" comment completely.
>>
File: Weaponised Autism.png (65KB, 491x399px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Weaponised Autism.png
65KB, 491x399px
>>1713907
>>1713881
>>1713853
>>1713816
>>1713788
>>1713753
>>
>>1713918
That's not my post or my ID that he tagged. What the actual fuck are you on about?
>>
>>1713944
>What the actual fuck are you on about?
Well, it sounds like you honestly believe that there are people who believe Occupy was protesting "the 10%", and wouldn't have picked up on the sarcasm.
Maybe some people as young as you, but come on, you'd have to have been living in a box not to have heard all the bitching about "the 1%".
>>
File: frogman.jpg (8KB, 400x343px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
frogman.jpg
8KB, 400x343px
>>1713933
>>
>>1713950
I just got trolled out of my fucking shoes. Why does this happen when I try to explain shit to people REEEEEEEEEEE
>>
>>1713898
I gave consideration to the possibility that you were shitposting, since it was a pretty blatant error. But I decided not to give you the benefit of the doubt.

The fact that you splurged about after-the-fact tells me my hunch was correct. A shitposter who misses the mark just moves on to another thread. Only true autists try to pretend that their stupid comments were intended as shitposts, and therefore we should all acknowledge that they're not as dumb as they sound.

Your both retards. Final answer.

>>1713881
>plenty of day traders beat 10% annual returns
Plenty as in a large number? Compared to what? Why is "plenty" the relevant measurement?

Daytrading has a 90-95% losing rate, and its still a shitty strategy despite the fact that "plenty" of people are in the 5-10% of winners. That would only change IF the 5-10% who win made 90-95% more than the market average, which they do not. Even those who "win" at day trading barely beat the market on average.

Day trading is a stupidity tax.

>Indexes are just easier for your average investor due to lack of financial-IQ.
Show me a single shred of evidence that intelligence contributes to daytrading success. Not some anecdotal, homespun insight ... actual evidence.

I realize you're trying to play "reasonable man" in the thread, but you don't help yourself when you make stupid claims or admit to stupid beliefs.
>>
>>1713418
8 years is far too long to wait to see those pleb tier returns
>>
>>1713996
>Your
More irony?
>>
>>1713996
I trade via an algo that tracks another stop-hunting algo (not sure who runs it but it has to be a larger firm), there's thousands of other traders who trade via algo's and make plenty of money while only losing occasionally. If you want me to post screens of my account and trades then I can.

Since we're talking about evidence, why don't you post evidence that "daytrading has a 90-95% losing rate" or that "5-10% who win [did not] make 90-95% more than the market average" and don't worry I'll wait. Don't depend evidence over "anecdotal, homespun insight" when that's the only thing you provided. You cited no source, provided no graphs or outside info, just your opinions because your little millennial ass is 'spering out about something that I said.
>>
>>1713996
>Your both retards. Final answer.
>Your

fucking idiot. this board is slow so i go away and check sporadically.
>>
>>1714051
>why don't you post evidence that "daytrading has a 90-95% losing rate" or that "5-10% who win [did not] make 90-95% more than the market average"
Ok.

http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/behfin/2004-04-10/barber-lee-liu-odean.pdf
http://www.investorhome.com/daytrade/profits.htm
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers/Day%20Traders/Day%20Trading%20Skill%20110523.pdf
http://www.iassa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/journals/075/iaj-75-no-3-ryu-final.pdf

Is it possible to make money daytrading? Sure. Just like it's possible to make money at a casino or playing the lottery. Its pure chance, no skill involved, and very low probability of coming out ahead over any meaningful period of time.

Ball's in your court, snowflake.
>>
>>1714129
>Its pure chance, no skill involved
Sure it is.
You know, you could've just stuck with your (easily provable) points.
But instead you just went full retard.
>>
>>1714139
Full retard huh? Projecting much?

https://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/teaching/35150_advanced_investments/Luck%20versus%20Skilll%20in%20the%20Cross%20Section%20of%20Mutual%20Fund%20Returns.pdf

Research has already shown that success in active trading is the result of luck. This is old news.

As soon as you win the Nobel Prize and run your own mutual fund family, I'll believe what you have to say. Until then, I'll listen to the smart guy.
>>
>>1714165
>Research has already shown that success in active trading is the result of luck
No, that's just an assumption on your part.
Go ahead and argue that using a random generator to pick stocks will give as good results as someone who uses some common sense.
>>
>>1714169
>Me: "Here's an academic study proving success in active trading is luck."
>Me: "By the way, the author of the study is a Nobel Prize laureate."
>You: "that's just an assumption on your part"
You're filtered, kid. This is /biz/ not /r9k/.
>>
Day trading has potential to increase net returns, however the human psyche is weak, and for most day trading is adjacent to gambling. These two aspects produce lots of losers which suggests that day trading is not worth while.

I believe that creating algos that day trade based on sound logic can yield high returns (until others stumble upon the same idea) and these take out the human psyche risk as well.

When i implement an algo to trade for me, I only give it a portion of my portfolio's money. Basically I look at each algo as a asset itself, if one isn't doing well, or the assumptions behind it are weak, i depreciate it and implement another algo.... Even if backtesting suggests I'll make a ton, I limit my exposure. With this strategy I out perform the market.

IDK if algo trading is the same as day trading though.
>>
>>1714195
Ok, you use the random generator, and I'll pick.
I should note that I'm going to select the 100 companies making up the NASDAQ 100 index.
I'm sure the dogshit companies your machine picks will do just as well, though.
Say hi to your "Nobel Laureate" for me.
>>
>>1714195
>Nobel Prize laureate

That's not worth what it once was and a study which proves on average managed funds do worse or the same as passive ones does not prove trading success is based purely on luck.

With that logic you could say any difficult endeavor is based on luck for success as on average most people fail at it.
>>
>>1714465
I know it would involve more time, effort (and let's be honest, intellectual capacity) than you can commit, but maybe if you actually READ the fucking study you'll know that Fama address your exact point.

I'm not sure why I bother to make intelligent posts or provide academic sources when retards like you just come along with your "hurr durr" responses. Its a sad commentary on the people who frequent this board.
>>
>>1714475
Seems like a waste of time given their fundamentally flawed abstract.

>I'm not sure why I bother to make intelligent posts

Do shut the fuck up, you are regurgitating other peoples ideas and hiding behind "Nobel Prize Laureate" whenever anyone disagrees them.
>>
>>1714494
At least you admit you didn't read the paper. Most of your kind just lie or ignore the truth altogether. You actually made the effort to click the link and read four sentences before giving up on logic and reason.

Fuck you, child.
>>
>>1714503
>giving up on logic and reason

I read the abstract and found it flawed. Why would I bother with reading the rest of it? The entire idea of using the average performance of managed mutual funds as an indicator of skill is absurd. Every bank has a slew of mutual funds who's point is to make the bank money through fees, not to generate returns for their clients. "Managed" is a very loose term as well, they may as well be index etf's just with higher fees. Of course they are going to lose money compared to other investments which track the same thing but charge less.

So you read this nonsense you dredged up and imagine all investing is purely based upon luck, I will continue to make money with my logic.
>>
>>1714503
>Fuck you, child.
Is this Viola Davis?
>>
>>1714503
Literally nobody else in the thread has agreed with any of your father's opinions that you've been puking up all throughout your posts. Stop ranting, roleplaying, and arguing via ad hominem, you honestly just look immature and unintelligent.
>>
File: fingers-in-ears.jpg (57KB, 460x276px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
fingers-in-ears.jpg
57KB, 460x276px
>>1714566
>Me: "Here's a study that proves you're wrong. It's a peer-reviewed paper published in a prestigious periodical by one of the world's leading experts on investing. It's been generally accepted by every financial researcher and scientist in the world. The author even won a Nobel Prize."
>You: ...
>>
>>1714592
>>1714594
Fuck off, autistic trash heaps.
It would be nice to have actual discussion without you faggots
>>
>>1714592
Hard to argue with the logic of the guy who claims a "bunch" of successful daytraders means its a proven and successful strategy, despite all evidence to the contrary. You ready showed me.

Also, let's be honest here, getting the popular vote on /biz/ pretty much means you're a dipshit espousing bullshit. Do you even read the board?

Enjoy your daytrading millions, kid. And he calls me the roleplayer. Lol.
>>
>>1714603
Just because the average, unqualified person fails at a task does not mean that task isn't a good idea. I'm sure you don't personally know how to build a house with your own hands but does that mean that nobody should ever try to build a house because the average person can't build one with their own hands? No, that's foolish logic. That same logic was used by men who want you to invest in their passively managed mutual funds so they can collect fees from you.

Also, I never said I traded "millions," you should really work on those reading comprehension skills.
>>
>>1714617
>Just because the average, unqualified person fails at a task
The studies have look at large scale and frequent traders, including those with years or decades of experience. The odds don't change. You're still buying a lottery ticket, no matter how much you try to convince yourself otherwise.

>invest in their passively managed mutual funds so they can collect fees from you
I guarantee I make more on my index funds than you do from daytrading, and I guarantee I pay lower fees (and taxes, for that matter) than you pay in commissions and trading costs.

>I never said I traded "millions,"
I was mocking you. Do I have call you a "retard" to your face before you realize that I think you have a diminished intelligence capacity?
>>
>>1714632
I'll take that bet. Post your returns from the previous 6 months (from your index funds) and I'll post mine (from my daytrading account).

BTFO in 3....2....
>>
File: Clipboard02.jpg (86KB, 1549x544px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Clipboard02.jpg
86KB, 1549x544px
>>1714640
>BTFO in 3....2....
1.
>>
>>1714205
I am working on developing my own algos. I have a ML engine built, now I need to build the tools to do WFA. Poorfag ATM, saving every penny.

I am curious, how did you get started? How much did you have to begin? Did you returns right away? How cool was it when they worked in the live market?
>>
>>1714682
Indexed mutual funds don't woudn't net you +$400k one month, then only $13k, then put you in the whole $300k, then bring you back up $280k. That's a simulated trading account and I'm sure it doesn't even consist of mutual funds.

Like I said, stop roleplaying. You just look like a child.
>>
>>1715268
Just look at the markets, kid. It's not hard. The months I gained were months the market went up. The months I was flat were flat months in markets. The month I lost was a month the market went down. It's not rocket science.

It's sad that you don't even know what the markets did as recently as the last six months, and are too stupid to look it up.

Now that you've seen how much I made with funds, let's see those daytrading gains. I'm really curious to see if you made more than me.

>BTFO in 3 ... 2 ... 1. Now. You got BTFO.
>>
>>1714594
You should probably just kill yourself.
>>
File: TotallyNotFake.png (129KB, 926x443px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
TotallyNotFake.png
129KB, 926x443px
>>1715279
The market doesn't correlate to your extremely volatile returns is what I'm saying. Show where you're actually invested in indexed mutual funds and show where that's live trading and not paper-trading. I'm not going to give you insight into how actual trading works just because you posted a screenshot of a paper-trading account with random fucking stock picks.

Pic related: it's easy to show a fake account with fake returns lad
>>
>>1715279
Also, why black out your Beg. Balance and W/Ds? Is it because that's a fake paper-trading account? If not, then most that same screenshot without it. I'm also still waiting to see what funds you're invested in so you can show how legitimate you are and how much better of a trader you are than everyone else here also roleplaying. You might just come out as king of the roleplaying NEETs today, congrats.

For future reference, calling people "kid" in every post is a dead giveaway that you're still in high school. Nobody is fooled.
>>
>>1715305
>>1715312
Just sad. You finally meet someone with proven success in the markets and all you do is wrap your small brain in a cocoon of denial.

And I blacked out the balances and cash transactions because they can be used to social engineer access to an account. You see, when you actually have wealth you take certain reasonable precautions to protect it.

Since you seem so curious, I'll tell you that I'm 80/20 stocks/bonds and 85/15 domestic/international. My asset allocations pretty much match the market capitalization, except I do strategically overweight into small-cap value.

>The market doesn't correlate to your extremely volatile returns
Check again, dummy.

But no, I'll not be sharing my holdings with you. Posting any more details would require effort I'm unwilling to spend on you, and would take the thread in a direction I'm unwilling to pursue. This little contest of ours is over, and so is our conversation. I only stuck around to see your reaction to getting one-upped. As predicted, you splurged, backpedaled, and generally acted like a massive puss.

Thanks for the laughs. You're filtered.
>>
>>1715324
>And I blacked out the balances and cash transactions because they can be used to social engineer access to an account. You see, when you actually have wealth you take certain reasonable precautions to protect it.
>social engineering

Is english not your first language or are you a 12 year old who spouts random words and phrases you've heard adults say when you roleplay online?

Also, 80/20 stocks/bonds would not give you volatile returns. Whenever the domestic stock market has dipped at all over the past 6 months the debt markets have been booming thanks to the election.

>my asset allocations pretty much match the market capitalization

Yeah I'm going to assume you mean "capital allocation" and not "asset allocation" because you aren't allocating assets you're allocating capital into asset classes. Also, I don't think you know what market capitalization means. If you put as much money into each stock as their respective market caps then you've have several million in each stock which would correlate to you only gaining about 0.4% gain in 6 months, not that impressive.


Every time you post you just prove further that you're not only roleplaying, but also that you have the financial-IQ of 13 year old autist.
Nice comeback at the end of that last post too, "thanks for the laughs, you're filtered," you go girlfriend.
>>
>>1715324
>You're filtered.
Do say this to everyone who makes you mad?
It's kind of cute.
Especially when you say it in a lisping little boy voice.
>>
>>1715348
It's more of a fat raging SJW voice in my head.
>>
anyone on here who claims to be a day trader is also a neet playing with $1000 on robinhood

>transaction fees
>commissions
>rapid generation of capital gains tax
>retail investors trying to be institutions

you would have to be the biggest chump to buy into the day trading meme
>>
File: 1:8.png (36KB, 842x172px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1:8.png
36KB, 842x172px
>>1715390
Whatever you say.
>>
>>1715390
Transaction fees and commissions are one in the same and these things don't matter as long as you have $25k+ in capital at work at a time.
Rapid generation of capital gains tax can be offset by losses in the capital gains department.
Not sure what you mean by "retail investors trying to be institutions." Nobody that day-trades is in denial about the fact that we are picking up pennies in front a bulldozer, we just have a larger appetite for risk than most and trust our own research and DD over advice from someone that is 10 years younger than most of us. Why would I take investment advice from someone who was in diapers the last time interest rates were notched up?
>>
>>1714129
You obviously don't know what day trading is if you think it is pure chance. It's about risk management, strong discipline, and good technical analysis. A good day trader can could only make a winning trade 40% of the time and still make money.
>>
>>1713418

>bought in 20k in $MSTX about a week ago
>See news this morning about a merger
>Nasdaq had a glitch for a second showing $29.30 as SP instead of .10.
>almost shit myself from the 29000% gain.
>>
You're fucking retarded, I ended up 55% last year with my swing portfolio trading natural gas, miners, and oil. If you shorted oil to 30 like intelligent people you would be up over 100% alone. Suck my dick faggot I am a god compared to your mentally deficient ass
>>
File: 1483732453612.gif (808KB, 225x249px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1483732453612.gif
808KB, 225x249px
>>1715390
>2016
>transaction fees
>>
>>1715651
I might be noob at this but 20k in a 0.1 stock o.O
>>
>>1715651
>>1716155
oh wait sorry i'm tired
>>
But what about when the market goes down? If you'd just been long in the market between 2000 and 2010 you have gone absolutely nowhere.

The lost decade.

I've been paper trading this year with option strategies and beaten my passive investments in half the time and with less capital. But I guess monthly option strategies doesn't count as daytrading right?
>>
>>1715397
what is that, your margin trading account?
do you mean to imply that you are smarter than passive investors because you are gambling with someone else's money?

>>1715403
beat institutions* sorry I was on my phone
everything you do will be inherently inefficient because you are not them
>can be offset by losses in the capital gains
up to a limit of $3000, and you can do this with indexing as well
>>
>>1717245
Yes, that's one of my margin accounts.
And I never said I was smarter than passive investors, only that not everyone who day trades is a NEET with $1,000 on robinhood.
There you go again with that reading comprehension.
>>
>>1713418
It took you an entire decade to make that??? That's pretty sad considering I've made higher percentages in a week trading the right penny stock.
>>
>>1713418
Invest in CVM+ and you can make triple that in less than a month.
>>
Day trading is not bad per se but you have to understand what are you doing.
Day trading is basicly gambling and you should know how much and when you should quit.
Just aim to get 5$, 10$,15$. If you win as little as 5$ everyday you'll be amazed how quickly that adds up but keep in mind if you spend 10+h hours looking at pc for 5$ then you are not so bright (pajeet gets more for data entry).
>>
>>1717460
you're right it's not robinhood im so told omg

so how much of it is actually yours? $1000?
>>
>>1718293
Yeah, the SEC gave me special permission to trade with 230x leverage.
It's super secret, though, so don't tell anyone.
>>
>>1718293
>http://www.finra.org/investors/day-trading-margin-requirements-know-rules

He has at least $25k in capital at work in that account alone. It's pretty clear that you have never day-traded by the fact that you didn't know the minimum capital requirement. Why would you claim that passive investing is the better method of investing (over active trading) when you've clearly only tried one and haven't even researched both fully?
>>
>>1717951
Is they some secret discord group where you guys decided to shill the fuck out of this so you can pump and dump it.
>>
>>1717245
>up to a limit of $3000
There's no limit if you change your accounting method.
But you can't do that if you only index.
Thread posts: 85
Thread images: 11


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.