Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

MadMarketScientist

Who Makes More Money?

Who Is More Profitable?  

46 members have voted

  1. 1. Who Is More Profitable?

    • Short term trading (shorter time frames, scalping)
      73
    • Long term trading (longer time frames, swinging)
      93
    • Investing (Warren Buffett style)
      36


Recommended Posts

most powerful force in the universe - compounding interest/inflation :2c:

 

Unless of course you want to say i made 100% in a few days.

There are benefits to both depending on circumstance, but IMHO if you talk about absolutes and the most money - there is no debate assuming you are profitable - one has a 'glass ceiling'

 

For many of those really profitable scalpers - ask - are they scalping or market making, HFT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a report on Bloomberg about a HFT firm that makes $300,000 on average EVERY DAY in the ES alone.

 

I thought that was pretty cool.

 

I think it's more about the velocity of money. You can certainly make a lot of money very quickly if you have developed a skill in short term trading - thats why so many are drawn to it.

 

However, the shorter the time frame, the more adaptable you have to be if you want to keep making money. This makes it more difficult as it's way more competitive.

 

Looking at the other end of the spectrum, investing is perhaps more certain, but the rewards will be lower.

 

SIYUA makes a good point about compounding interest for example. However, at the moment, that gig is bust. Consider this:

 

Inflation is approx 2-3% (assuming you're in the western world)

Margin rates are typically 4-6% to finance positions

Tax will be say 20-30% of any profit.

 

Given a bank deposit will be paying out around 3%, you will lose money (inflation will take away the returns - which will be taxed).

Given govt bonds are paying out 2-4%, you will lose money.

Good dividend paying stocks will return 5-6% - you will lose or scratch after bro' - assuming the price remains the same.

Given good investments (structured products, hedge funds etc) are yielding 10% if you're lucky, you may end up with say 2%. Most are returning 6% or so - so again, you will end up just above 0.

 

These figures are approximations - and just there to show that at the moment, yield investing is dead - until interest rates start to rise again. Speculation is the only choice at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tax will be say 20-30% of any profit.

 

Hi Dude,

 

My understanding was that the likes of Warren Buffet avoid taxation through a variety of measures, such as purchasing puts to lock in profit on a position rather than selling to close - with the profits insured in this way they then borrow against the stock they hold - and there's no tax on borrowed money (even though you can still buy mansions and yachts with it).

 

How easy it would be for the average investor to implement these measures I don't know.

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

ps. I continue to be mystified by the reported earnings of HFT firms in CME markets - they're FIFO - just how the hell do they do it!?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Dude,

 

My understanding was that the likes of Warren Buffet avoid taxation through a variety of measures, such as purchasing puts to lock in profit on a position rather than selling to close - with the profits insured in this way they then borrow against the stock they hold - and there's no tax on borrowed money (even though you can still buy mansions and yachts with it).

 

How easy it would be for the average investor to implement these measures I don't know.

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

ps. I continue to be mystified by the reported earnings of HFT firms in CME markets - they're FIFO - just how the hell do they do it!?!?

 

But you still have to pay borrowed money back - or do you let them keep the stock (purposefully default) and not roll over the puts?

 

BTW, my figure above re HFT was wrong - it was closer to $400k per day!!!

 

High-Frequency Trading Prospers at Expense of Everyone - Bloomberg

 

Although not a big fan of 'trading books', Irene Aldridge's High Frequency Trading explains the basic algorithms and concepts if you're interested and have a good understanding of maths, stats, equations etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's more about the velocity of money. You can certainly make a lot of money very quickly if you have developed a skill in short term trading - thats why so many are drawn to it.

...............

SIYUA makes a good point about compounding interest for example. However, at the moment, that gig is bust. Consider this:

 

 

Good point....absolutely the velocity of money is important if its profitable.......you will still hit the ceiling, plus scalping v HFT v market making - i think these need to have clear distinctions.

 

Re the compounding of interest - i should also have added the compounding of profits (either corporate or speculative).

 

for me the issue is the scalability will limit you.

Otherwise....who one scalper might make more than a swing trader for the same amount of money......until you change the amount of money.

 

Blue - a lot of taxation issues revolve around "where are trading decisions made/implemented" - the server might be in one country, the business might be in another.

The regulatory taxation arbitrage is pretty good (getting harder), whereas the effect of compounding often elinimates the requirement for taxation to reduce the long term profits.

ie; you as an investor are better than the government at making money.

 

So - leave tax out - too many variables

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding was that the likes of Warren Buffet avoid taxation through a variety of measures, such as purchasing puts to lock in profit on a position rather than selling to close - with the profits insured in this way they then borrow against the stock they hold - and there's no tax on borrowed money (even though you can still buy mansions and yachts with it).

 

That is very interesting ... thanks for that golden nugget!

 

MMS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But you still have to pay borrowed money back - or do you let them keep the stock (purposefully default) and not roll over the puts?

 

Thanks for the Aldridge tip - most of the better trading books that I've read have been those recommended to me on TL. :)

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm totally going to do this the next time I want to cash out my $200MM in company shares

 

MMS

 

Are moderators allowed to be sarcastic? :)

 

See the proviso at the end of my original post: "How easy it would be for the average investor to implement these measures I don't know" . . .

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See the proviso at the end of my original post: "How easy it would be for the average investor to implement these measures I don't know"

 

Average investors can totally do this, I was just being making reference at the fact some people are cashing out $200MM! Geez ...

 

MMS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Average investors can totally do this, I was just being making reference at the fact some people are cashing out $200MM! Geez ...

 

MMS

 

Assuming there is some sensible postion sizing going on, then the mind really boggles when you consider the size of the portfolio they must hold!

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what does everyone think? Do scalpers collect enough pennies throughout the day? Or do the swing traders make more compounding their position?

 

MMS

 

 

Maybe the questions should be more specific. Are we talking about retail traders or specialized firms?

 

E.g., retail traders cannot copy the trading techniques of HFT firms, but at least they have a fighting chance to copy swing trading or "certain" investing techniques.

 

Note: I say "certain" in the latter sentence, as the investing techniques of Buffett - to which the poll relates - are not that easily to copy... the various books describing his "value investing" style do not reveal in detail how he developed the foundations of his huge fortune. I've read once an interview with someone who followed his paths for many many years (forgot who it was) and this person said that Buffett made his fortune mainly by taking controlling interests in companies and influencing the way the businesses are run, which is basically the private equity model of investing; hence, difficult to copy by retail investors (yes, he must have been successful before in order to be able to buy controlling interests). Maybe there is even more to it, but what I'm saying is that there is more to it than just 'buy what you understand' and 'buy cheap' (I'm simplifying here) and you'll get rich... Not saying though, that this is a bad idea to invest like that, but many authors writing about Buffett's style sell it like everybody can do it... this sells the books much easier than telling everyone that it's "slightly" more complicated than that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe the questions should be more specific. Are we talking about retail traders or specialized firms?

 

E.g., retail traders cannot copy the trading techniques of HFT firms, but at least they have a fighting chance to copy swing trading or "certain" investing techniques.

 

Note: I say "certain" in the latter sentence, as the investing techniques of Buffett - to which the poll relates - are not that easily to copy... the various books describing his "value investing" style do not reveal in detail how he developed the foundations of his huge fortune. I've read once an interview with someone who followed his paths for many many years (forgot who it was) and this person said that Buffett made his fortune mainly by taking controlling interests in companies and influencing the way the businesses are run, which is basically the private equity model of investing; hence, difficult to copy by retail investors (yes, he must have been successful before in order to be able to buy controlling interests). Maybe there is even more to it, but what I'm saying is that there is more to it than just 'buy what you understand' and 'buy cheap' (I'm simplifying here) and you'll get rich... Not saying though, that this is a bad idea to invest like that, but many authors writing about Buffett's style sell it like everybody can do it... this sells the books much easier than telling everyone that it's "slightly" more complicated than that...

 

I agree with what you're saying about the institutional/retail dichotomy. In fact, as far as HFT is concerned, even being 'institutional' is far from sufficient - the HFT firms basically make money by milking the liquidity provided by other institutions.

 

However, Buffet may be almost uniquely imitable amongst investors . . .

 

All institutions are required by the SEC to report long equity positions within 45 days of the end of each quarter using the 13F form. So shortly after Buffet/Berkshire buys shares in a company you can do the same. This wouldn't work for tracking a fund with shorter holding periods - they might already have closed out the position before the end of the reporting window. But Buffet's holding periods are famously "forever".

 

You can retrieve any fund's holdings by visiting the EDGAR database here:

 

Filings & Forms

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with what you're saying about the institutional/retail dichotomy. In fact, as far as HFT is concerned, even being 'institutional' is far from sufficient - the HFT firms basically make money by milking the liquidity provided by other institutions.

 

However, Buffet may be almost uniquely imitable amongst investors . . .

 

All institutions are required by the SEC to report long equity positions within 45 days of the end of each quarter using the 13F form. So shortly after Buffet/Berkshire buys shares in a company you can do the same. This wouldn't work for tracking a fund with shorter holding periods - they might already have closed out the position before the end of the reporting window. But Buffet's holding periods are famously "forever".

 

You can retrieve any fund's holdings by visiting the EDGAR database here:

 

Filings & Forms

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

 

You are right about that. But doing that won't make you a billionaire within the next 40-50 years (he will be gone soon anyway and nobody knows whether his successor(s) can maintain the returns he was able to generate), i.e. his returns were much higher at the beginning of his career than they are now. Not saying that it does not make sense to copy his positions, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what does everyone think? Do scalpers collect enough pennies throughout the day? Or do the swing traders make more compounding their position?

 

MMS

 

Thanks for brainstorming! For me, both can make significant money. variable is time and price, but controllable factor is you. The contest is in the future.

 

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Scalper trades with lower risk whereas the Swing trader has larger risk (Stop Loss) - so it is highly dependent on the risk tollerance of the trader.

Some scalpers can make +500% in 3/4 weeks and others struggle to make 25% in a week.

Swing traders can place trades on several charts and make good profits, perhaps not in a week but certainly over a month.

The pressure on a Scalper is enormous - that is why they, for my money, are the traders who can make the most.

No one can say with any certainty who makes more money over a given period, but short term potential it is the Scalper who will win out - but at a stress cost.

I always say, if you can trade the DOW, you can trade anything.....

TEAMTRADER

TL.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

for me the issue is the scalability will limit you.

Otherwise....who one scalper might make more than a swing trader for the same amount of money......until you change the amount of money.

 

 

this is really the essence isn't it?

 

A competent trader will make the most money by trading the smallest time frame that can accommodate their account size and time allocated to trading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A competent trader will make the most money by trading the smallest time frame that can accommodate their account size and time allocated to trading.

 

As you reduce the timeframe though, and the average profit along with it, your costs (spread, slippage, commission, exchange fees etc) remain pretty much fixed per contract/unit.

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best of the best ( Buffet, Soros, and similar) make on the average 25-35% per year over long term ( over their life time as traders). You have to keep that in mind when some claim 100% or more return, bcos it is not going to last ( if it is even true). Anyone can have a good run, for a while and project that long term, but it is not realistic.

 

Just imagine if you can do 500% a year... In short time you would be able to buy universe thanks to compounding effect :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember as a child debating with my buddies who was the best baseball player.

 

Then I grew up. :shrug:

 

And eventually the discussion lead to why one was better\different than the other ... and hopefully you remembered that lesson the next time you were on the field. And don't you have fond memories of being a kid? Growing up sometimes sucks doesn't it?

 

MMS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And eventually the discussion lead to why one was better\different than the other ... and hopefully you remembered that lesson the next time you were on the field. And don't you have fond memories of being a kid? Growing up sometimes sucks doesn't it?

 

MMS

 

i did laugh at Suntraders comment however - never loose that sense of imagination, awe and wonderment MMS :) and even worse dont grow old before your time and become a grumpy old man claiming - it was better in my day......WALOR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.