Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Do educated traders make it harder to make a profit
Citadel is a large organization, with many roles to be played where intellectual capacity is not an edge, e.g. business development.
If you're on the trading team for Citadel's Tactical Fund though, nearly everyone has a PhD. The only one guy I knew who didn't have a PhD had earned 3 degrees and 2 minors from MIT in 4 years, and later left for Getco. And two network engineers who had M.Eng's instead, if I recall - but that's on the infrastructure side of Tactical.
Can you help answer these questions from other members on NexusFi?
The academics, such as yourself, rightly claim certain areas of a very diverse business. Others, such as the legendary Tom Baldwin, for instance, with a masters in ag business, are by no means intellectual elites. One of my CBOE mentors was happy to be done with academia after high school, he was easily over a million dollars a year for perhaps 30 years.
So, I guess I could be defending my own insecurity, but in my opinion good traders make it harder to make a profit.
In the prior thread about HFT, others reached similar conclusions and expressed in more direct language what I again pointed out, as it still seems to hold. Speaking for myself, I dislike what I perceive as deception, especially when the frequency of it gets high.
Here, you changed your argument from large hedge funds to all of them. "Worst managers" was a slight irony of mine you took at face value, to change that part to the shut-down of 1000 funds. I made it extremely clear what I meant: a 20 manager sample ranked by a 10-month snapshot of return, be it ascendingly or descendingly sorted, will exhibit prestigious school tendency due to $AUM alone. Yet you claim you "don't comprehend".
No individual firms were named in that link, not even in the user comments. Who is the legal team of HFT as a whole? Is that you?
Not only is it unfair but illegal to slow down public feeds while having proprietary feeds unaffected. To contrast just one of your flawed analogies with what actually fits here: This is like the mafia demanding payment for protection -- from themselves only, or else they will be the ones to beat you up.
It seems to me that you're taking things too personally. It's not productive for me continue engaging your posts, as there's a strong indication that you'll rather argue trivial matters rather than provide any new content. We're learning nothing new from you.
Your standards of clarity are certainly below mine, when you write insensible sentences like this:
Again, it seems that you are taking issue with the NYSE, whom I remind you, are the ones "collecting payment", not us. I don't see what it has to do with accusations that we practice some form of frontrunning.
Worst managers in a slightly ironic sense as I went by your standards even though I disagree with them. It is insufficient in my opinion to come up with best/worst 20 managers using a 10-month returns ranking. I already made that clear in my first reply in this thread. I wonder where "any new content" is in your post.
The Royal Bank of Scotland has lost 107 billion dollars in the last 6 years. This was all the public money what taxpayers pumped in to save the toxic assets and the bank. Now we can all agree that at such a famous institution all the top notch guys are very educated and smart. In deed they are so smart that:
"Despite the loss RBS said it had put aside £576m to pay staff bonuses for 2013."
But I wonder if he means by having to "scale" means he's averaging down a massive entry with his size.
As he seems to be ditching fighting the intraday short term price action "scalping" in favor of
some form of swing trading on futures and settling for a "35 to 40%" w/l rate. Well, may be interesting to the OP
with his concerns about too many smart educated (as in trading-educated) traders individual manual retail, algo, institutional or otherwise, taking all the "pie" which I guess he's really asking if daytrading as a retailer is worth it anymore as a veteran or starting new.
Or the post is just baloney.
