|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
The other side of the coin to being warned by regulators and others
is the total acceptance of responsibility by the individual.
I tend to be of the belief that if we take this total responsibility,
even for things that we supposedly can't control or where someone else
was ostensibly to have acted responsibly, overall we as people would be
better off and as traders I think our performance should improve.
For example, if you get a lousy fill, do you blame your broker? Some
do and in certain cases justifiably so. I tend to look at it and ask
what I can do differently to improve it next time. Do I need better
connections to the floor? Should I ask for time and sales? Or maybe
I should avoid trading in fast or very thin situations. Perhaps my use
of order types was what gave me this exposure. Maybe the broker has a
part, but it's still by job to fix it.
NW's points are well taken. There is a *lot* more risk out there than people
are led to believe. The commercial interests of Wall Street and Chicago
both want to see more gamblers at the tables. You see the insiders bulling
their positions on CNBC all the time. Look at the ads for mutual funds. Talk
about crass. But that's how they make money, and nobody is forcing us or
the public to trade.
Caveat Trader,
Phil in Cupertino, CA
nwinski wrote:
> NW: What I found both interesting and disgusting about this article
> is that is the the usual media propaganda that the Wall St. establisment
> wants the public to believe. Why doesn't the SEC issue warnings about
> the volatility and risks of owning stocks? I have seen many stocks
> lose half or more of their value in one day. Why doesn't the SEC warn
> investors about gambling with stocks on margin? Why doen't the SEC warn
> investos that 90% of all IPO innvetments are losers after the first 3
> months? No one forces futures traders to be highly margined just as no
> one does this to stock traders. So why is the media alway painting such
> a bleak picture, i.e. "gambling" in futures? Statistically studies have
> shown that overall commodities tend to be less volatile than most
> stocks. So, most of the assumptions apparent in the article below are
> wrong. With all due respect to Nick, this article is full of the usual
> media propaganda crap which is highly slanted against commmodities. I
> wonder if there ever really was such a carpeter or this was a fictional
> story made up to brain wash the masses. Whatever the case, it is
> financial journalism at its very worse.
>
> Disgustedly,
>
> Norman--
Please note the new email address below:
Old: 5150@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
New: 10-8@xxxxxxx
###
|