Why do people start with small accounts?

Because they do not have the courage to take risk of money to earn something big from a market.

Maybe the courage point can be countable however start with small amounts can help us to check the brokers processes like withdrawal etc before moving the entire money to the broker's wallet.
 
Why would anyone want to start with 50k to 100k and see their large account dwindle?There are few here and there that can make a success of even 1k account, while others blow much larger ones. Since the likelihood of failure is high when starting out why expose yourself to such a large account size? Its better to make mistakes, learn by trial and error, etc with small (but big enough that one or two losses do not blow the account) account.

When it comes to trading (not investing) if you are not increasing the account size by 20% a month (not year) then you really shouldn't be in this game.

If you are looking to make £2k on a £10k account after a whole year, its better to be working, not trading.
 
why does everyone talk about like "20%/month" trading results like its interest or something akin to an investment acct? this is TRADING, not CD's, or some other interest bearing acct. aren't there people here that can take a 5K account and with little DD turn it into 100K in a year??

i always dreamed of being one of those people someday.
 
and I'm not talking about ?martingaling" their position doubling up their contracts with acct size..

i mean staying 3-5 contracts the WHOLE way to 100K from 5K. There is some that can do this, right?

i no its not easy or everyone would be doing it but assumed there are some that can and have :|
 
why does everyone talk about like "20%/month" trading results like its interest or something akin to an investment acct? this is TRADING, not CD's, or some other interest bearing acct. aren't there people here that can take a 5K account and with little DD turn it into 100K in a year??

i always dreamed of being one of those people someday.

I am with you, those people talking about 10%, 20% a month as a given have not traded for very long... there is no such a performance here...

One of My favorite examples: Compound 10% a month over 10 years starting $10k and you'll be a billionaire, with over $1.5B in your account and I am yet to see someone doing it here :)

With "only" 20% a month, you'll be the richest man in history of the planet with trillions!!! $217351110304003.62
 
Maybe 20% a month is too steep, though one should, when fully proficient, be aiming for at least 10% to 15% a month. If you treat trading like investing, an altogether different game, why not use the trading trading funds to invest in the first place? Good investors are a lot wealthier because the funds they invest are far larger, and they usually invest with fund managers. You do hear about billionaire investors but never billioanire traders, that's because mega-wealthy investors usually have significant stake in the companies themselves e.g. Buffett, or fund managers who pool the money of their clients to buy up sizeable stake.
 
Maybe 20% a month is too steep, though one should, when fully proficient, be aiming for at least 10% to 15% a month. If you treat trading like investing, an altogether different game, why not use the trading trading funds to invest in the first place? Good investors are a lot wealthier because the funds they invest are far larger, and they usually invest with fund managers. You do hear about billionaire investors but never billioanire traders, that's because mega-wealthy investors usually have significant stake in the companies themselves e.g. Buffett, or fund managers who pool the money of their clients to buy up sizeable stake.

when i open my futures actt, i'm not going be AIMING for a %'age..thats masters of biz admin BS I WILL BE

aiming to take make a few hundred every day off a 5K acct, and i'll be happy as a lark with that
 
why does everyone talk about like "20%/month" trading results like its interest or something akin to an investment acct? this is TRADING, not CD's, or some other interest bearing acct. aren't there people here that can take a 5K account and with little DD turn it into 100K in a year??

i always dreamed of being one of those people someday.

No there is nobody here who can do that. That's a 32% monthly return. There are some unintelligent enough to believe that 1 or 2 months of this level of return means it is possible to sustain. I wouldn't call them so much fooled by randomness as utterly confused by mathematics.

If you can make 32% a month on a liquid basket of products like FX - trading low-med frequency, congratulations, you will be worth 82 million in 3 years time from a starting cap of 5k.

Not that you'd bother since if you build a 12 month record of returning 32% a month with a flat eq curve and no weekend holding as you're suggesting, you're about to become the wealthiest fund manager who ever drew breath within half a decade.
 
No there is nobody here who can do that. That's a 32% monthly return. There are some unintelligent enough to believe that 1 or 2 months of this level of return means it is possible to sustain. I wouldn't call them so much fooled by randomness as utterly confused by mathematics.

If you can make 32% a month on a liquid basket of products like FX - trading low-med frequency, congratulations, you will be worth 82 million in 3 years time from a starting cap of 5k.

Not that you'd bother since if you build a 12 month record of returning 32% a month with a flat eq curve and no weekend holding as you're suggesting, you're about to become the wealthiest fund manager who ever drew breath within half a decade.

i think i could do it, and not tyring be arrogant here, i.t.h.i.n.k.i.c.a.n.d.o.i,t

ie, take a 5K acct too 100K on no more than 5 contracts over a year

i think i can do it, haven't done it but i lol think i can
 
i think i could do it, and not tyring be arrogant here, i.t.h.i.n.k.i.c.a.n.d.o.i,t

ie, take a 5K acct too 100K on no more than 5 contracts over a year

i think i can do it, haven't done it but i lol think i can

Sorry to say you'd be wasting your time since even if you did it, you'd lose it soon enough afterwards at that vol.
 
Sorry to say you'd be wasting your time since even if you did it, you'd lose it soon enough afterwards at that vol.


if you gave me 50K , i couldn't take it to 500K.

but if you gave me 5K, i'd be up 100K at end of the year.

thats the crazy psychology ..of RETAIL. we aren't used to working with these big #'s
 
Maybe 20% a month is too steep, though one should, when fully proficient, be aiming for at least 10% to 15% a month. If you treat trading like investing, an altogether different game, why not use the trading trading funds to invest in the first place? Good investors are a lot wealthier because the funds they invest are far larger, and they usually invest with fund managers. You do hear about billionaire investors but never billioanire traders, that's because mega-wealthy investors usually have significant stake in the companies themselves e.g. Buffett, or fund managers who pool the money of their clients to buy up sizeable stake.

Sorry, but 10% a month on average long term is not mathematically possible...
 
Basically, the idea of starting small is not to remain in that stage forever. But this to cut down risk of losing much as a newbie and it also helps you in management. If you lose at this stage, it would be what you can spare and nothing more.
But then of course, gradually your lot in the market can improve at a slow and steady pace, for me this is a good strategy for newbies; to start small.
 
Common sense

For the most part it's because a newbie is afraid of losing money.
********
Use common sense -look at these vids for a reality check.

and - how long before a trader is profitable ?

 
*cough..leverage.. cough*

I can get 100/1 leverage... With a mere 1,000 I now have 100,000.
Which is no longer a small account
 
The idea of starting small is not necessarily to get huge profits, but as a measure for caution. This is true especially for beginners who would not want to rush the market, and I definitely buy this idea. Starting small helps you watch the market and learn the ropes without the fear of risking so much, so even when there are mistakes you wouldn't lose much.
After a while you can gradually increase your investments to the point where it is fully established at close watch.
 
The original post was about the feasibility of starting small with only a professional capital of $10,000. The argument is that it is insufficient to generate a source of income for a full time professional. The discussion isn't about starting small for a novice - a completely different topic.
 
The original post was about the feasibility of starting small with only a professional capital of $10,000. The argument is that it is insufficient to generate a source of income for a full time professional. The discussion isn't about starting small for a novice - a completely different topic.

this is true! the title is to blame, its ambiguous :)
 
Fundamentally, if you are a medium to high earner with no savings, this is your fault through a series of bad decisions over the years.

To want to leverage what savings you have, in order to take speculative positions on the market in the hopes of making large returns is irresponsible.

To want to give up a professional career, in hopes of financial freedom from trading at home, again is unrealistic.

The truth is, that you will need an income stream outside (this can be generated through a small business which your $10,000 can start). Once you have furthered your viable income streams; from a professional career, a small business etc. then you have the financial freedom to begin to take speculative positions on the market.

Here again, as with your small business, your aim will be to grow your business. It is stupidity to throw a large sum of capital into an account, simply to be able to take larger positions. All you are doing is increasing your risk exposure.

An investor with an understanding of risk will look over longer horizons, broader markets, and focus on net return not simply the number of 0's following an integer.

Good luck.

R
 
Top