|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
John,
You write from the point of view of someone who was an equity raiser for a major brokerage house.
So how did those CTAs and traders come to the attention of your firm so they could decide to raise money for that trader?
I have a good track record independly monitored by CTCR, have approached a few brokerage firms etc. with little luck. One year I was #3 on the CTCR list with a 100% increase in equity from trades. You would think my telephone would ring off the hook, right? Wrong! I am not the only one who has has this type of experience, as I have heard it often from other traders. I guess one needs a glossy presentation and lots of round turns to get the attention of the brokers. My approach only trades on average every 10 - 14 days, so not enough commissions for the brokers. I also make no secret that my approach is based on Astrology which is a marketing pariah (sp?). Apparently its not how much money you make, but how you make the money
that counts.
Cheers,
Norman Winski
John Hayden wrote:
> Sorry Norman I totally disagree, if the money manager is any good at all, there are plenty of people that will raise money for him. Why? Because the large FCM's, and other brokerages will place their customers that are in the process of blowing up their account (99.5%), that have a open mind (>5%), are willing to acknowledge that there are money managers that can make money consistently, and will pay the incentive, and management fees that they deserve. The hope is that by placing their clients funds with a CTA, that the CTA and the client will leave those funds with the brokerage company (~95%). Lest you think the brokerage company is ripping off the client/CTA with excessive fees, think again - the average is $9 US all inclusive.
>
> Furthermore this shit about beating the S&P is bogus. The underlying assumption is that you are fully invested in the S&P, i.e., there is no risk control parameters at all. I guess there is nothing like putting all of your eggs in one basket. Perhaps that is why the futures industry needs the constant influx of new fish. There is most definitely a food chain involved, unfortunately the illusion is otherwise. I guess its hard to see the big sharks when your a newbie. The movie "Matrix" sums up the trading game all too well.
>
> In any case with all due respect, if you are able to consistently grind out a profit, and you are either a off shore managed fund trader not accepting U.S. customers, OR you are registered with the NFA as a CTA and, or a CPO you will:
>
> 1. Attract Money
> 2. Not Sell a damn thing - why sell your edge?
> 3. Keep your opinion about the market to yourself - assuming you opinion is worth a damn!
> 4. Trade without emotion.
> 5. Be in charge of your beliefs, rules, and values.
>
> Sorry for the excessive post, I usually don't respond, however your post got through to me. I guess because I used to raise money for different CTA's while I worked at Lind Waldock.
>
> Good luck on your trading endeavors,
>
> >
> >NW: Yes. I think there is a basic flaw in your logic. There are many
> >incompetent money managers managing large sums of money. Just look at the
> >percentage of mutual fund managers who did not beat the S&P this year.
> >Another good example of this phenomena is the number of market letter
> >writers with poor track records but with large subscription lists. In
> >contrast, there is no doubt many talented traders who are managing small
> >sums of money. WHY? Because the amount of money one can attract is a
> >function of MARKETING and not due to trading talent. One who is busy with
> >trading usually has little time or money to develop an elaborate marketing
> >campaign. Those who do concentrate their money and time on marketing rather
> >than market research will probably see their trading performance suffer
> >while attracting sizeable funds from the public. . So, you are correct to
> >be leery of glossy marketing campaigns, but also wrong to blindly paint
> >everyone offering their talent or knowledge to the public with the same
> >negative brush.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Norman Winski
> >
> >
> >
> >
> .oİş°¨¨°şİ[ John Hayden ]İş°¨¨°şİo.
> ¨¨°şİo.,.oİş°¨¨°şİ[ Have a bodaciously outrageous day! ]İş°¨¨°şİo.,.oİş°¨¨
|