Post: #51

(12-16-2014 02:17 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 11:01 PM)Grange Wrote:  Business Insider is a terrible publication. It seems like it's what people who have no idea about business think a "business insider" would write about if he was their buddy.

Guess who was the reporter: Jessica Pressler - a young impressionable girl for whom emotions and 400$ spent on caviar was way more important than facts.

Interesting story here from a Trader in Japan - guy was 29 back then and does it for 8 years:

http://www.japanprobe.com/2008/05/20/tak...ay-trader/
http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/co...3600_into/



He is supposed to have made 13.000$ into 156 mio. $.

But there is a catch: He got a good leg up via an error of a trading house:

Quote:Just a quick info on what happened in 2005. There was a big event called J-Com shock in December 2005 when an employee at Mizuho Securities, an IB firm handling the IPO of a company called J-com, erroneously ordered 610,000 shares per 1 Yen (that's around 1 US CENT today) instead of 610,000 Yen per share ($6,100 USD today). This caused a huge panic, and amidst of this panic, this guy bought 7,100 shares, and through cash settlement of 6,000 shares he made 20m USD on that day. Still a great investor and seems like a humble guy.
I hope my first post-ever on reddit helped some people lol -Half-Japanese guy fluent in Japanese.

So he made his first 20 million on one day via a very lucky break and then continued by increasing that to 156 mio. $ over the years. Those returns were reached even by entire funds for some years, so it's not impossible.

But of course he also lost sometimes 7 million $ in one day:

Quote:He began trading during college. He never finished, just two credits short.
Even this genius trader couldn't foresee the failure of Lehman Brothers. The company bankrupted two days after he invested, resulting in a ~7 million dollar loss... and a broken monitor, which BNF punched out in anger upon hearing the news.

Without the 20 mio. $ lucky gain though, he would be making money, but not anywhere as much.

Post: #52

[attachment=23558]

Post: #53

(12-15-2014 06:27 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  The other boys all talk about having started their businesses at ages of 8-10 and now being on the verge of opening Hedge Funds:

Post: #54

Timothy Sykes called this kid out too... http://www.timothysykes.com/2014/12/call...2-million/

and here. http://www.timothysykes.com/2014/12/7-le...2-million/

Post: #55

(12-15-2014 08:39 AM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 07:45 AM)bojangles Wrote:  The only part of that story that does seem reliable is his parents not letting him leave home.

It's a Bengal thing. The children don't usually leave home until they get married.

It's an indian thing, I'm Indian, I know. I thought this was bullshit as well.

Post: #56

I have next to no knowledge of trading business but I am very analytical. What are the best resouces to learn trading at a fundamental level?

Anyone here who has found success in this field? Could you give any advice to someone looking to enter the field?

Post: #57

(12-17-2014 11:30 AM)FunctionalPsycho Wrote:  I have next to no knowledge of trading business but I am very analytical. What are the best resouces to learn trading at a fundamental level?

Anyone here who has found success in this field? Could you give any advice to someone looking to enter the field?

Books to read - go through most of them - the ones regarding risk management, technical analysis and basic economics can be different. The ones regarding lives of successful traders, mindsets etc. are an absolute must.

http://bclund.com/2012/03/13/20-books-ev...ould-know/

If you want to do it, don't put yourself in debt. Read & Study, then take out a virtual account - trade for weeks and months virtually. If successful start out with some minor account and as low as 1000$. With modern tools like some CFDs (those few companies that are not rip-offs) you get enough leverage to reach 10.000-20.000$ - depending on your trading style slower or faster. But you are in no hurry -if it takes 1-2 years, it is still good. Then with 20.000$ you can leave the CFDs and venture into the world of real-life derivatives. If you are a stock trader, then it is even most straightforward, but frankly if you are trading stocks you need 100.000$ to 200.000$ initial capital to make it work, or the risk exposure will kill you.

There are no wrongs in the picking of the market or trading style.
Most traders do not even discuss what they do individually since they would not be able to replicate each other's approach anyway.

Ground rules:
1. Study the basics - fundamentals & mindsets
2. Risk management is fundamental
3. Find the right trading style to your personality
4. Start out virtually trading - nowadays that is easy - open trial accounts and start only after having made money for weeks
5. Follow with low investments and increase only when successful. If you can make money with 1000$, then you can do so with 100.000$ unless you are doing high frequency trading, but that is something that 99,9999% of private individuals cannot replicate for a number of reasons.

Post: #58

Thanks a lot for the thorough reply @Zelcorpion.

Post: #59

Editor-turned-blogger Richard Bradley -- who was among the first to call the UVA rape hoax bullshit -- has a really insightful take on this story and the (lousy) state of journalism today:

"More important, whether it’s with Jezebel or New York magazine, we’re seeing a generation of writers who simply haven’t learned to report. They grew up writing for blogs, where snark generates hits, which generates attention—and in the short term, that’s good for your career. Eventually, it catches up to you…call it “snarkarma.”"

He also notes how both this writer (I hesitate to call her a reporter) Jessica Pressler is similar to Sabrina Rubin Erdley because neither admitted they'd made mistakes.

"Whether it’s Rolling Stone, Sabrina Rubin Erdely or Jessica Pressler, why is it so hard for people to admit when they’re wrong? The idea that New York magazine “is not a financial publication”—and by the way, New York does cover finance quite a lot—and that mitigates the idiocy of publishing this story is just so facile and morally irresponsible."

And the worst part:

"Ms. Pressler, by the way, is moving to Bloomberg next year to join the “financial investigative unit.”"

If they allow her to keep her current job and if Bloomberg really does bring her on, I take back what I said on the UVA rape hoax thread about how editors really care and hold reporters to a high standard, blah blah blah. Things must really be changing. This never would have washed in my day, but my day in journalism seems to be receding into the past faster and faster as each of these hoaxes reach print.

Since Bradley threw in a gratuitous photo of the writer, I'll repost it here. And I'll paraphrase a British tabloid's words about singer-songwriter Joe Jackson regarding her: no matter how successful she is, she never, ever has to worry she made it because of her looks.

Post: #60

(12-20-2014 01:58 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  ...

And the worst part:

"Ms. Pressler, by the way, is moving to Bloomberg next year to join the “financial investigative unit.”"

If they allow her to keep her current job and if Bloomberg really does bring her on, I take back what I said on the UVA rape hoax thread about how editors really care and hold reporters to a high standard, blah blah blah. Things must really be changing. This never would have washed in my day, but my day in journalism seems to be receding into the past faster and faster as each of these hoaxes reach print.

Since Bradley threw in a gratuitous photo of the writer, I'll repost it here. And I'll paraphrase a British tabloid's words about singer-songwriter Joe Jackson regarding her: no matter how successful she is, she never, ever has to worry she made it because of her looks.

Pressler at Bloomberg:



Days - forget about journalistic standards - if such a broad now works at Bloomberg after writing idiotic stories like these it should give you a whiff regarding popular journalism for the masses. To quote 1984: The proles don't count.

She could have easily fact checked this punk's claim as any sound journalist would have done. Even I would have sat down and told him to show me his trading accounts - seeing his trading history would have sufficed. Buying me a drink and 400$ worth' of caviar is not fact-checking.

And as far as her making it via her looks - well she is slim and more or less attractive, so yeah - she can fuck her way to the top - remember Zoe Quinn - standards are low now among the thirsty men without Game.

Post: #61

I read Bloomberg every day and shit is getting ridiculous.

I think it was last month, they had that Sarkeesian bitch, whatever her name is, with a big photo and supportive article.

There are also more gender/PC based articles that have next to nothing to do with the markets popping up regularly.

We're seeing the feminization of virtually all mainstream news sources/magazines now, regardless of initial subject matter.

Whether it's GQ, Bloomberg, etc. it will ultimately fall on Red Pill men to create alternatives, and I'm glad to see sites like Roosh's Reaxxion hitting the ground running.