Well thanks for the replies ,
I ask this because I really do think a lot of people have very unrealistic expectations as to what they can achieve in the markets. I myself have been paper trading and working on a trading plan for 3 years now with a view to trading a $20,000 account up to something that would eventually make me very wealthy indeed.
I am sure that my expectations are a lot more conservative than some other traders out there who think that you can double your money every month. Well I think these people need to wake up and also I think that people should realise that if they expect to earn a consistent living from trading without excessive risk then they will need an account size far in excess of $100,000 in my opinion. That is what I have now come to realise 🙁
Anyone who denies this is in a fantasy world.
I posed the same question to Dr Brett Steenbarger whom I have immense respect for and here is his reply:
¨I think you're asking the right questions. If you're learning to trade and doing the learning process right, I don't think it's time wasted even if you're undercapitalized for the purpose of trading for a living.
$2000 per month on a $20,000 capital base would mean that you would more than double your money year in and year out. That is not credible. No one in the professional trading world that I work with--and I work with some top hedge funds--comes close to that. Anyone who claims such returns would be managing large pools of money, not piddling around offering Web services. I sincerely doubt that anyone claiming those returns has offered independently audited account statements to back their claims.I think $20,000 is certainly enough to fund a learning curve; from there, you either want to raise more capital to trade for a living with reasonable risk or you want to think about trading prop capital. Hope that's helpful, even if it's not what you'd ideally like to hear-- ¨
Milesy.
