You’ve got to bring your A game to the table each and every day. There is no sitting in a cubicle playing solitaire, visiting with facebook friends, talking with others in the break room about fantasy football, etc. that is going to get the job done for you. Your efforts, whatever they may be, will be directly related to your bottom line returns!
Past success means absolutely nothing. You are only as good as your next trade, your next week, your next quarter, etc. In addition, what you do next always has the potential to unravel whatever success you’ve acquired previously. Few careers offer you the potential for self-destruction so quickly the way trading for a living provides.
The pressure to perform will create unbelievable amounts of negative stress and energy you’ll have to deal with daily. Most people don’t have to worry or fear that being wrong will cost them their paycheck. After all, just look at economists, bankers, and politicians!
There will be little to no respect or understanding for what you do for a living. People will assume you’re a “day trading gambler.” Or, in my view, which is even worse, many idiots will express the view that they could also “trade for a living” if they decided to. This is true even in by those who’ve shown no consistent success in the markets on a “part-time basis.”
Working in isolation you’ll often miss close human interaction and the lack of a competitive “team” like atmosphere. Also, building and holding outside friendships, especially for men later on in life, are often very difficult for those who don’t meet a lot of people through their jobs.
Sitting 12 hours a day every day at the computer will wreak havoc on your overall health and fitness. Many traders are overweight, have back issues, eyesight problems, etc.
Like many highly skilled professions it requires constant education & learning. In many, but not all careers, once you’ve acquired a certain amount of skills and knowledge, little more is expected of you. In trading, you’ve got to always be in learning mode. In addition, what you think you know right now and what is working for you, will not someday in the future. That’s the way of constant evolutionary state of the marketplace.
You’ve got to be a jack of all trades. I’ve often said that if trading was the only thing I had to do, my life would be a whole lot easier. Instead, independent traders must spend time serving as their very own tax accountant and tech support guru. In my view, there’s nothing worse than a hardware or software issue that takes you away from concentrating on the markets. (more…)
Confirmation Bias – The tendency for people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or ideas. Investors and economists often fail to fully appreciate other views due to a narrow minded view of the world often resulting from what they think they already know.
Ingroup bias – the tendency to favor one’s own group. In investing and economics we see this in ideologies and particular strategies. Austrians favor those who believe their own thinking. Chartists dislike value investors. Often times, the strongest economists and investors are the ones who are able to move beyond this ingroup bias and explore the potential that other groups have something positive to contribute.
Gambler’s Fallacy – When an individual erroneously believes that the onset of a certain random event is less likely to happen following an event or a series of events. We see this in trading all the time. This is the belief that just because something has occurred in the past that it is more likely to occur in the future. The “trend is your friend” and that sort of thing….
Post-Purchase Rationalization – When one rationalizes past purchases after the fact in an attempt to justify past actions. Investors often learn about how a bad trade turns into an investment when they rationalize their past purchases. If you’ve been in the business for a while you know how destructive this can be. (more…)
1. Sell stocks of companies that announce huge acquisitions, that overdiversify, or that spend a fortune on a lavish new headquarters.
2. Avoid stocks where management picks fights with analysts (or, by extension, hedge funds). See Overstock.com in 2005; Netflix in 2010.
3. Watch out when executives start selling a lot of stock — regardless of plausible-sounding excuses. Top execs in homebuilders, mortgage underwriters and Wall Street dumped billions before the 2008 crash.
4. “Run a mile” from all stocks in an industry going through a huge investment boom: Massive overcapacity and consequent collapse is inevitable.
5. Steer clear of investing in manufacturing companies. Their industries are usually plagued with extreme cycles of boom and bust, overcapacity and slumps.
6. Pay little attention to economists or market gurus.
7. Mistrust all mathematical trading formulas as well — they invariably fail just when you most need them to work.
8. Look for companies where the insiders are buying lots of stock.
9. Look for companies generating a lot of cash — a great sign of sustained outperformance.
10. Look for companies which have monopolies (or near monopolies), and those which manage to take out their main competitors.
11. Remember you are buying businesses, not just stocks. Pay close attention to the quality of the business, and especially the quality of the management.
12. Look for companies which have earned the trust of consumers, and which have very strong brand names.
Overconfidence may cause people to invest too much in volatile stocks because such stocks have a greater diversity of beliefs, and so if people dismiss the objectively bad odds of beating the market, such people will be drawn to stocks where they are in the extremum, and highly volatile stocks have the most biased extremums. One might think these people are irrational, but in the big picture people with this bias actually have a huge advantage, why Danny Kahneman said it’s the bias he most wants his children to have.
Two economists at Washington State University looked at twitter accounts for sports prognosticators and found that confidence was much more important than accuracy in generating followers. Their sad conclusion: Pundits have a false sense of confidence because that’s what the public, seeking to avoid the stress of uncertainty, craves. In other words, to be popular (read: successful), you need to be unwarrantedly confident. This takes either an amoral cognitive dissonance or ignorance. (more…)
His key warning:
In my judgment the authorities have a three months’ window during which they could still correct their mistakes and reverse the current trends. By the authorities I mean mainly the German government and the Bundesbank because in a crisis the creditors are in the driver’s seat and nothing can be done without German support.
He ends with a plea:
We need to do whatever we can to convince Germany to show leadership and preserve the European Union as the fantastic object that it used to be. The future of Europe depends on it.
June 02, 2012
Ever since the Crash of 2008 there has been a widespread recognition, both among economists and the general public, that economic theory has failed. But there is no consensus on the causes and the extent of that failure.
I believe that the failure is more profound than generally recognized. It goes back to the foundations of economic theory. Economics tried to model itself on Newtonian physics. It sought to establish universally and timelessly valid laws governing reality. But economics is a social science and there is a fundamental difference between the natural and social sciences. Social phenomena have thinking participants who base their decisions on imperfect knowledge. That is what economic theory has tried to ignore.
Scientific method needs an independent criterion, by which the truth or validity of its theories can be judged. Natural phenomena constitute such a criterion; social phenomena do not. That is because natural phenomena consist of facts that unfold independently of any statements that relate to them. The facts then serve as objective evidence by which the validity of scientific theories can be judged. That has enabled natural science to produce amazing results.
Social events, by contrast, have thinking participants who have a will of their own. They are not detached observers but engaged decision makers whose decisions greatly influence the course of events. Therefore the events do not constitute an independent criterion by which participants can decide whether their views are valid. In the absence of an independent criterion people have to base their decisions not on knowledge but on an inherently biased and to greater or lesser extent distorted interpretation of reality. Their lack of perfect knowledge or fallibility introduces an element of indeterminacy into the course of events that is absent when the events relate to the behavior of inanimate objects. The resulting uncertainty hinders the social sciences in producing laws similar to Newton’s physics. (more…)
Economists were seduced by physics because it made their claims seem more scientific. Their belief was in the concept of equilibrium, in which it would be impossible to profit from trading around a circle of goods or a circle of currencies without actually producing anything. Of course, that is possible, and that did happen, and that’s because you’re never really at equilibrium.
This Great Graphic is from theEconomist. It is based on the work of two economists, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers. A recent research paper looks at the relationship between self assessments of one’s well being and the self-reported annual income. 
This book almost convinced me that the markets are a random walk. I can’t really go into the details of why – you have to read it all before this impression begins to sink in. Compound this with the fact that all in all the economists of the world have said “we have no idea why the markets do what they do.” – Thats their conclusion.
So if they have no idea, what chance have I got? You may find within yourself some buried little impulse to “figure this thing out, once and for all.” – I know what thats like. You look at a chart, and you feel as though its on the tip of your tongue, just out of the minds reach if you will. You know that feeling? As if a thin veil could be lifted and you’d see the inner mechanics of it all. You won’t. Many have gone before you who tried, and still you don’t know where price will go next.
I think what happens is that if we make a certain call in one direction, and price happens to go in our direction, we say “I WAS RIGHT”… But we pay less emphasis when we were wrong. Its the old thing of when you want to buy a yellow VW you see them everywhere all of a sudden.
The impression left by the reading of this book doesn’t so much make me want to throw my hands in the air and give up, but rather it emphasizes the importance of things like risk/reward and high probability. Its not about being right or wrong. I also want to do some research into game theory, which is something that was touched on in the book. Its good how this subject constantly throws up new branches of learning.
