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)
Speaking personally and of course only for me, I know that very well.
And from the past you should know best that I know...so really no apologies needed.
I fully understand your point of view.
"If you don't design your own life plan, chances are you'll fall into someone else's plan. And guess what they have planned for you? Not much." - Jim Rohn
I'm sorry that you felt angered with wording of my post, that was clearly not the spirit of it, given it was interpreted correctly by others.
Equally, regardless of your intent or the way you are perceived externally I can only go by your interactions here. And you did come across as thin skinned to a genuine observation of the business in this case. Stating you're not aggressive doesn't negate your actual responses here, and that they are also on behalf of Optimus.
To retort, clearly individuals in dominant numbers in this industry are not successful, in comparison brokers are in a fortunate position that they do earn revenue irrespective of their clients success/failures (all things being equal in the retail space this difference is by a large margin). Given that view, it's a slap in the face to all traders for Optimus Trading Group to state this is effectively ok, because they fail or move on, because in some way every single broker has earned fees / commissions off the back of a trader going bust and it's quite simply a cop out to say its a 'micro view' or a 'macro view'. Whilst clearly brokers can't be responsible for individual clients given that it's a business no business could be, to then be self righteous about the fact that someone's highlighting the true disparity (irrespective of the wording), is just disingenuous to the realities.
To then state that you're trying to show that your firm is all about customer service is equally disingenuous, you're certainly running a for profit business not a charity, no matter how much you personally value service level. And honestly read this thread back mate it's not really shining through in this thread.
Bottom line - Income isn't 'guaranteed' for anyone but if you're a broker you've got a heck of a better chance than a regular joe trader. Fact.
This table is disclosed by one of the brokers. The rolling windows of profitable accounts (fx) just to get a feel of numbers lie slightly below 50%.
Using this, I would hypothesize that on any given day/quarter or timeframe winners and losers would be separated by 50% due to a singular price marked to market but the winning skew is less due to the other frictional costs of trading. (slippage,comm,interest,datafeeds etc etc.)
Thus, the question I felt earlier when I first started wasn't so much on if the accounts were at the end net profitable (for whatever timeframe) but what % of accounts would be consistently profitable year after year. I created the below table assuming a slightly more optimistic % of winning accounts (50%) and assumed 10k accounts. There might be some proverbial truth that only 5% (6.25%) of traders would be consistently profitable after 5 years and even less as time goes on.
What I came to realize was that the processes for winning at markets (50/50 on any given day) would be completely different from being a long term winner.
