$100 a day

[Ves]

Thats where we're building, hopefully! Not far from the golf course:dance:

I'll stop hijacking the thread now, but I think you'll enjoy living in that area.

 

[McLovin]

Thats where we're building, hopefully! Not far from the golf course:dance:

Is that the Pacific? I played there once before. Bit of water and some pretty tight fairways. Good course though.

 

[CanOz]

I'll stop hijacking the thread now, but I think you'll enjoy living in that area.

Yeah, looking forward to it....immensely!

Is that the Pacific? I played there once before. Bit of water and some pretty tight fairways. Good course though.

Yup, that's correct. Resonable membership as well Unlike Brookwater, that was like 4k a year. We looked at property there, but its a little far out of the CBD for our liking.

Maybe the mods can move to a proprty or general chat thread? Before i get banned

 

[McLovin]

Yup, that's correct. Resonable membership as well Unlike Brookwater, that was like 4k a year. We looked at property there, but its a little far out of the CBD for our liking.

Maybe the mods can move to a proprty or general chat thread? Before i get banned

I don't think I'd put the Pacific in the same league as Brookwater though.

 

[luutzu]

Aren't golf reserved only for old men and pretentious (young) a-holes?

Better put on a smile to go with the insult

 

[CanOz]

Aren't golf reserved only for old men and pretentious (young) a-holes?

Better put on a smile to go with the insult

Golf is anyone's game in Australia, its where i learned how to play. Its a great sport for any age. Not elitist here like it is in Asia!

 

[aBadTrader]

Haha I opened up the property investment discussion here it seems.

I believed 100k invested in the account risking 0.1% per position would be sufficient to be able to earn $100 per business day (considering weekends are closed and to be honest I like it closed on the weekends). But this also depends on the strategy and the method and risk management so all that aside, I thought having 100K with that position size per trade would be a good way to go rather than, say, trying to do that on a 10k account.

But again, I am just asking the question I am not making any definitive statements on position sizing and expectation on return - merely asking.

Maybe one day I will change my handle to AGoodTrader. A man can dream.

 

[hamli]

Easily with $200,000 without dropping a sweat, utilising 25-35% of capital (in case of large drawdowns due to to market moves) in a portfolio margin account trading leveraged products such as options & futures. Definitely doable with less, just with a bit more work.

But why only $100? Why not shoot for the stars.

 

[InsvestoBoy]

I know some guys that post on here or have posted on here that return 4 figures a day and more on 100k + accounts. They are the exception and most of them are pros or have been pros. Minwa's record is on here as well.

Peter2's strategy swing / breakout trading returns over 30%. So 100k account there would yield 30k annually before tax. I know of a pattern trading strategy that returns between 10-20% annually, before tax.

That would be pretty amazing if they can do that consistently.
1.I am not really sure it makes sense, if you were returning $1000/day on a $100,000 account, then in a year your account would be $350,000?
2. I took a brief look at peter2s thread, it looks great but I doubt it could consistently generate that kind of return year in year out forever. He seems to have his head screwed on straight and I am sure he would acknowledge there must be rough patches sooner or later.
3. There is a pretty big difference between 10% and 20% per annum returns! In either case are those merely backtested returns or actual forward tested returns after accounting for stuff like slippage and brokerage?

Obviously leverage is a factor in all those magical sounding returns! If I stump up $100,000 to buy a $500,000 property, do you calculate the rental return of $500/wk ($26k/pa) as 5% per annum or fool yourself and calculate it as 25% per annum?

$100 / day = $36,500 / year.

Isn't it more like a previous poster said, $25,000 a year? There aren't 365 trading days in a year, only something close to 250 (250 * 5 == 260, minus some days for holidays). I normally count it as 21 trading days per month multiplied by 12 to give 252.
---


Anyway, to answer the original question, try to think about it.

First of all, like pretty much everyone here is saying, you're just not going to pull out $100 per day consistently like that. There will be losing days, and losing streaks of multiple days or weeks or months. If you're looking for an average of $100 per day over the long term then it's better to try and figure out what percentage of your initial investment can return in a year, over the course of stretches of several years at minimum.

There are a lot of successful traders/investors/whatever, but one with the longest and most consistent track record is Warren Buffet who's average is 20% per annum in growth of his Berkshire Hathaways book value with the judicial and creative use of cheap "in house" leverage. So you might hear people talking about 100% returns per annum or 30%, but you have to wonder if they could really carry that out over the long term (decades). Probably not! Trading is like everything in capitalism, if there was someone generating huge profits consistently, other people would try and replicate their strategy, which would in turn cause the profits to approach the cost of capital. You can see this over the last 5-10 years with the advent of High Frequency Trading that replaced Market Maker humans both of which used to be essentially a license to print money and is now super highly competitive, a lot more robots chasing the same dollar.

If you were as educated, resourced, trained or capable as any of those market participants who move really slow (like Warren) or really fast (like HFT market maker robots), over the long term, maybe you could make 20% per year over stretches of years. Since you have basically none of those attributes, what can you honestly and realistically expect to return? 10%? 7.5%? 5%? Or worse, like many in your position, negative values that quickly destroy your starting equity?

Are you even set up as a corporation to avoid paying CGT on anything you held for less than a year? If not, how would your profits look after paying 50% of them to the Government?

So many businesses (and make no mistake, trading is a business) fail every year, one of the primary causes is undercapitalisation. If you only have $10,000 of starting equity, you're going to need to generate a 30% return just to "break even" after you spent in on new monitors, data and trading software. You wouldn't be able to take on leverage, because your equity would be too small to make sane position sizes. There are many more problems that come from undercapitalisation.

For me to comfortably and emotionlessly return $25,000 per annum I would need something like the $730,000 Value Collector mentioned, that would be 3.4% return. Seriously! Because you are fooling yourself if you think there is no discomfort or emotion when you're trading.

The real question you should ask, yourself, is "how much experience do I need to develop in this expertise before I can generate $25,000 per annum from $100,000".

 

[InsvestoBoy]

Haha I opened up the property investment discussion here it seems.

I believed 100k invested in the account risking 0.1% per position would be sufficient to be able to earn $100 per business day (considering weekends are closed and to be honest I like it closed on the weekends).

That's crazy thinking. $100,000 * 0.1% = $100.

So you would need to take a position every day, risking $100, and be correct 100% of the time, to make $100. If you lost a bet, you would need to make another two correct bets, or win twice as much...

This is just simple maths stuff, instead of asking on a forum you should sit down with a piece of paper, pen and calculator

 

[hamli]

For me to comfortably and emotionlessly return $25,000 per annum I would need something like the $730,000 Value Collector mentioned, that would be 3.4% return. Seriously! Because you are fooling yourself if you think there is no discomfort or emotion when you're trading.

The real question you should ask, yourself, is "how much experience do I need to develop in this expertise before I can generate $25,000 per annum from $100,000".

Mind as well say take out a term deposit ... and forget the additional market risk to make that extra 0.4%. Ho Ho Ho.

 

[Trendnomics]

This thread is a good example of how much Australians love property. :

Amazing how the average Australian takes on so much leveraged risk for so little yield and on top of that, expects to get rich from it (yet every other man and his dog is invested in property).

 

[fiftyeight]

Speaking of making a $100 working from home.

I work a 2/2 roster and therefore I have a lot of time off. It also allows me the freedom to live anywhere in OZ or SE Asia.

My wife though has a regular 9-5 which limits our choices. She has good HR job now, but we do not need my wife to earn a lot of $$$ to survive. We would happily take a big pay cut for freedom.

How are people making money online? In my circle of friends, the working from home thing has not really happend...

Google just comes back with a bunch of scams haha

 

[Wysiwyg]

That would be pretty amazing if they can do that consistently.
1.I am not really sure it makes sense, if you were returning $1000/day on a $100,000 account, then in a year your account would be $350,000?

Yeah Tim Grittani has gone on with it. Had another stellar month for 212k gain in July which he documented on u-toob. You either got it or you haven't. I haven't and know it. :

 

[cynic]

That's crazy thinking. $100,000 * 0.1% = $100.

So you would need to take a position every day, risking $100, and be correct 100% of the time, to make $100. If you lost a bet, you would need to make another two correct bets, or win twice as much...

This is just simple maths stuff, instead of asking on a forum you should sit down with a piece of paper, pen and calculator

You are assuming that the profit target on each position is the same as the amount risked. What if the trader was allowing winners to run further and ruthlessly cutting losers, would the average win, then, still equate to the average loss?

 

[Gringotts Bank]

I better edit that out...

A normal day job is always a good backup ABTrader.

 

[InsvestoBoy]

You are assuming that the profit target on each position is the same as the amount risked. What if the trader was allowing winners to run further and ruthlessly cutting losers, would the average win, then, still equate to the average loss?

I'm not making any assumptions, $100 a day is the amount the OP wishes to pull out of the market. They said they thought $100,000 account size risking 0.1% of that per trade would be reasonable. That's also $100.

So, given the first trade, if it's a win they can go home (+100). If it's a loss, the next two trades must be successful at 1:1 Risk:Reward ratio(-100, +100, +100), or the second trade must win twice as much as the amount risked (-100, +200). That's exactly what I said in the last comment. It's crazy to think in such terms "I am going to pull $X out of the market every day" :screwy:

 

[cynic]

I'm not making any assumptions, $100 a day is the amount the OP wishes to pull out of the market. They said they thought $100,000 account size risking 0.1% of that per trade would be reasonable. That's also $100.

So, given the first trade, if it's a win they can go home (+100). If it's a loss, the next two trades must be successful at 1:1 Risk:Reward ratio(-100, +100, +100), or the second trade must win twice as much as the amount risked (-100, +200). That's exactly what I said in the last comment. It's crazy to think in such terms "I am going to pull $X out of the market every day" :screwy:

Thanks for clarifying your understanding of this.

I am of a different opinion to yourself in that I do not consider it crazy to ponder the feasibility of extracting a liveable income from a given sum of money.

 

[InsvestoBoy]

Thanks for clarifying your understanding of this.

I am of a different opinion to yourself in that I do not consider it crazy to ponder the feasibility of extracting a liveable income from a given sum of money.

It's undeniable that there exist smart people who can make a living from the market. All I am saying is that if you try and frame it as "how much money do I need to extract $X from the market each and every day as if I was a money printing robot" you are setting yourself up for failure and this is demonstrable via basic mathematics.

The law of large numbers dictates that even the best traders (or robots) must eventually have a losing day or week or month. Are you really going to feel no emotion or discomfort after you're down 10% on the month when you had "planned" to make $2100?

 

[cynic]

It's undeniable that there exist smart people who can make a living from the market. All I am saying is that if you try and frame it as "how much money do I need to extract $X from the market each and every day as if I was a money printing robot" you are setting yourself up for failure and this is demonstrable via basic mathematics.

The law of large numbers dictates that even the best traders (or robots) must eventually have a losing day or week or month. Are you really going to feel no emotion or discomfort after you're down 10% on the month when you had "planned" to make $2100?

It sounds like you are a great fan of theory. What typically happens when attempting to impose those theoretical laws upon reality?