vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Could he have succeeded by simple investing in Berkshire? Probably. But then how many people say that in hindsight about them or Amazon or Google, or any number of other stocks that turned out similarly? (grin) Taking people's money and parking it all in one stock doesn't make you a genius, and that's how Bernie wanted to be viewed. To accomplish that, he needed to find the opportunities nobody else saw and be the one to get there first. Unfortunately his personal crystal ball was wrong, and rather than taking his lumps by admitting it to his investors, his pride and ego led him down a path of deception that I'm sure he had every intention of making right if he could. The problem was, that moment never came. Keep in mind one thing: The $64 billion figure everyone cites isn't money that really existed in the first place. That number is what Bernie claimed his fund was worth, and it is not the amount he actually defrauded people out of. His actual cash intake was probably somewhere in the $20 billion range over that time. Everything else beyond that was nothing more than the fictionalized returns he was claiming to get for his clients. It's what they thought they had in the bank with him, rather than what was really there.
Disclosure - I love Jack Bogle. Jack basically invented the index fund, and as a result, let the common investor have an opportunity to choose a long term return of (S&P-.05%) instead of losing nearly 2% that many funds in that day charged. The use of index investing has saved investors many billions of dollars.  The 1% round trip, total cost to buy/sell, was common. Fees for trading have since dropped. I happen to use Schwab who charges $9 for a trade. On $100,000, this is not .5% ($500) but less than .01%. I think it's safe to say that billion dollar mutual funds are paying even less for trades that I do. I believe Jack's example here is a combination of old data and hyperbole.  The cost is not so much for the trades, per se, but for the people managing the fund. An index fund has a manager of course, but it's pretty much run by a computer.
I've never heard of such a thing, but seems like if such a product existed it would be easily manipulated by the big trading firms - simply bet that trading volume will go up, then furiously buy and sell shares yourself to artificially drive up the volume. The fact that it would be so easily manipulated makes me think that no such product exists, but I could be wrong.
"Your inference in #1 is incorrect.  The million dollars he has contributed is going to be part of the assets of the fund.  This is common practice and is a way for the founder to express confidence that the fund will make money.  He wants you to come up with a model that he can then use to trade those assets.  Presumably he will give you some money if he uses your model and it works. Regarding #2, there are lots of ways of getting data.  Sometimes you can buy it directly from the exchange.  You can also buy from vendors like tickdata.com.  There are lots of such vendors.  Since he makes a big deal about saying it's expensive, I'm assuming he is talking about data at relatively high frequency (not daily, which would be cheap).  Stock data is still not bad.  Complete US data would be a few thousand dollars (maybe 20K at the most).  For someone sitting at home with no capital, that's a lot of money, but for a hedge fund it's nothing. As an institutional investor, your broker will give you a data feed that will provide all prices in real time (but not historically).  If he's been in operation a while, he could have just saved the prices as they came out of the pipe.  I don't think that's the case here, though, based on how young he is and how little money is involved. In short, he paid for some data and has ""encrypted"" it in such a way that he can legally share it for free.  Supposedly his method preserves the structure so that you could write a trading model based on the encrypted data and it would work on real data.  Once you have a good trading model, you sell it to him and he will use it to trade his million dollars and whatever other money he is able to gather."
"Be wary of pump and dump schemes. This scheme works like this: When you observe that ""From time to time the action explodes with 100 or 200% gains and volumes exceeding one million and it then back down to $ 0.02"", it appears that this scheme was performed repeatedly on this stock. When you see a company with a very, very low stock price which claims to have a very bright future, you should ask yourself why the stock is so low. There are professional stock brokers who have access to the same information you have, and much more. So why don't they buy that stock? Likely because they realize that the claims about the company are greatly exaggerated or even completely made up."
Is there any truth to this, or is this another niche scam that's been brewing the last few years? While it may not be an outright scam, such schemes do tend to be on borderline of scams. Technically most of what is being said claimed can be true, however in reality such windfall gains never happen to the investors. Whatever gains are there will be cornered by the growers, trades, other entities in supply chain leaving very little to the investors.  It is best to stay away from such investments.
You are probably right that using a traditional buy and hold strategy on common equities or funds is very unlikely to generate the types of returns that would make you a millionaire in short order. However, that doesn't mean it isn't possible. You just have to accept a more risk to become eligible for such incredible returns that you'd need to do that. And by more risk I mean a LOT more risk, which is more likely to put you in the poorhouse than a mansion. Mostly we are talking about highly speculative investments like commodities and real estate. However, if you are looking for potential to make (or more likely lose) huge amounts of money in the stock market without a very large cache of cash. Options give you much more leverage than just buying a stock outright. That is, by buying option contracts you can get a much larger return on a small movement in the stock price compared to what you would get for the same investment if you bought the stock directly.  Of course, you take on additional risk. A normal long position on a stock is very unlikely to cause you to lose your entire investment, whereas if the stock doesn't move far enough and in the right direction, you will lose your entire investment in option contracts.
Trading is NOT zero-sum game, it is negative sum actually. In fact all people's money is getting swept by commissions and fees. If you don't have The Plan (which includes minimizing commission losses), you win some (not a lot), then you get big positions, then market crashes, then all your money is gone.  You will start noticing that commissions are real, only when you get market crash. Prey that you get heavy losses (-10% of portfolio) before some (giant) market crash. Getting good lesson by small price is better then high price (-30..50%). Piece of advice. There is small exchanges that do NOT charge you for operations, taking only market spread ($0.01) as commission. They do so because they do not have big population and they trade mostly by using automatic market-makers (which means there is no way to buy 10% of Apple there).
First, I want to point out that your question contains an assumption. Does anyone make significant money trading low volume stocks?  I'm not sure this is the case - I've never heard of a hedge fund trading in the pink sheets, for example. Second, if your assumption is valid, here are a few ideas how it might work: Accumulate slowly, exit slowly.  This won't work for short-term swings, but if you feel like a low-volume stock will be a longer-term winner, you can accumulate a sizable portion in small enough chunks not to swing the price (and then slowly unwind your position when the price has increased sufficiently). Create additional buyers/sellers.  Your frustration may be one of the reasons low-volume stock is so full of scammers pumping and dumping (read any investing message board to see examples of this).  If you can scare holders of the stock into selling, you can buy significant portions without driving the stock price up.  Similarly, if you can convince people to buy the stock, you can unload without destroying the price.  This is (of course) morally and legally dubious, so I would not recommend this practice.
"There is a site that treats you like a fund manager in the real market, Marketoracy, http://marketocracy.com/. Each user is given 1 million in cash. You can have multiple ""mutual funds"", and the site allows use to choose between two types of strategies, buy/sell, short/cover. Currently, options are not supported. The real value of the site is that users are ranked against each other (of course, you can op out of the rankings). This is really cool because you can determine the real worth of your returns compared to the rest of investors across the site. A couple years back, the top 100 investors were invited to come on as real mutual fund managers - so the competition is legitimate. Take a look at the site, it's definitely worth a try. Were there other great sites you looked at?"
"The stock market is not a zero-sum game. Some parts are (forex, some option trading), but plain old stock trading is not zero sum. That is to say, if you were to invest ""at random"", you would on average make money. That's because the market as a whole makes money - it goes up over time (6-10% annually, averaged over time). That's because you're not just gambling when you buy a stock; you're actually contributing money to a company (directly or indirectly), which it uses to fund activities that (on average) make money. When you buy Caterpillar stock, you're indirectly funding Caterpillar building tractors, which they then sell for a profit, and thus your stock appreciates in value. While not every company makes a profit, and thus not every stock appreciates in true value, the average one does. To some extent, buying index funds is pretty close to ""investing at random"". It has a far lower risk quotient, of course, since you're not buying a few stocks at random but instead are buying all stocks in an index; but buying stocks from the S&P 500 at random would on average give the same return as VOO (with way more volatility). So for one, you definitely could do worse than 50/50; if you simply sold the market short (sold random stocks short), you would lose money over time on average, above and beyond the transaction cost, since the market will go up over time on average. Secondly, there is the consideration of limited and unlimited gains or losses. Some trades, specifically some option trades, have limited potential gains, and unlimited potential losses. Take for example, a simple call option. If you sell a naked call option - meaning you sell a call option but don't own the stock - for $100, at a strike price of $20, for 100 shares, you make money as long as the price of that stock is under $21. You have a potential to make $100, because that's what you sold it for; if the price is under $20, it's not exercised, and you just get that $100, free.
If there's one potential buyer for a stock who thinks it's overpriced but has potential and would be worth $9.50, but that person only has $950 to spend, and nobody else thinks the stock would be worth more than $0.02/share, then until people sold a total of 100 shares the price would be $9.50, but after that the price would drop instantly to $0.02. There would be no ""cushioning"" of the fall. If the person with 1,000 shares was first in line, he'd get to sell 100 shares for $950 to the aforementioned seller, but would be unable to get more than $18 for the remaining 900. A major danger with markets is that markets which are perceived as liquid attract people to the buying side, while those which are seen as illiquid repel people. The danger in the latter is obvious (having people flee a seemingly-illiquid market will reduce its liquidity further) but the former is just as bad. Having people flock to a market because of its perceived liquidity will increase its liquidity, but can also create a ""false price floor"", causing demand to appear much stronger than it actually is. Unless real demand increases to match the false price floor, the people who buy at the higher price will never be able to recoup their investment."
There's many different stories of robinhood going back to the middle ages, but if you're talking about the disney movie where he's a fox then yes, but he's robbed hundreds of rich people to give money to the poor, most not part of the king's government.
Heh, not surprised.  Stock investing is very much like gambling to most people I've known, whether they admit it or not.  They invest by hunches on what will go up or down, or tips from their gardener, etc.
(yes, this should probably be a comment, not an answer ... but it's a bit long). I don't know what the laws are specifically about this, but my grandfather used to be on the board of a company that he helped to found ... and back in the 1980s, there was a period when the stock price suddenly quadrupled One of the officers in the company, knowing that the stock was over-valued, sold around a third of his shares ... and he got investigated for insider trading.  I don't recall if he was ever charged with anything, but there were some false rumors spreading about the company at the time (one was that they had something that you could sprinkle on meat to reduce the cholesterol).  I don't know where the rumors came from, but I've always assumed it was some sort of pump-and-dump stock manipulation, as this was decades before they were on the S&P 500 small cap. After that, the company had a policy where officers had to announce they were selling stock, and that it wouldn't execute for some time (1? 2 weeks? something like that).  I don't know if that was the SEC's doing, or something that the company came up with on their own.
"You will almost certainly be able to sell 10,000 shares at once. The question is a matter of price. If you sell ""at market"" then you may get a lower price for each ""batch"" of the stock sold (one person buys 50, another buys 200, another buys 1000 etc) at varying prices. Will you be able to execute a single order to sell them all at the same price at the same time? Nobody can say, and it's not really a function of the company size. The exchange has what's called ""open interest"" which roughly correlates to how many people have active orders in at a given price. This number is constantly changing alongside the bid and ask (particularly for active stocks). So let's say you have 10,000 shares and you want to sell them for $100 each. What you need is at least 10,000 in open interest at $100 bid to execute. By contrast let's say you issue a limit order at $100 for 10,000 shares. Your ask will stay outstanding at that price and you'll be filled at that price if there are enough buyers. I you have a limit sell order at $100 for 10,000 shares the strike price of the stock cannot go to $100.01 until all of your sell orders are filled."
I have a free account on http://optionshouse.com/ that allows me to invest fake money into different stocks and test their tracking software. It is free and easy to do, just create an account there and they give you $4000 (fake) to invest in the stock market. They do this so that you can test their tracking and other assorted tools, in hopes that you'll choose to invest your real hard earned money with them.
It's not primarily more people investing. In the 1980s stock exchanges went from open outcry trading floors where all trades involved actually exchanging pieces of paper to electronic trading. Once that happened, it wasn't long before most trades were executed by computer programs rather than human beings, turning stocks over rapidly for very short-term profits rather than long-term investment, greatly increasing  the number of trades (and also increasing liquidity for the actual investors; it's by no means all bad).
"Many online brokers have a ""virtual"" or ""paper"" trading feature to them.  You can make trades in near-real time with a fake account balance and it will treat it as though you were making the trade at that time.  No need to manage the math yourself - plus, you can even do more complicated trades (One-Cancels-Other/One-Triggers-Other)."
"I think, the top three answers by Joe, Anthony and Bigh are giving you all the detail that you need on a technical sense. Although I would like to add a simple picture that underlines, that you can not really compare day trading to long-term trading and that the addictive and psychologic aspect that you mentioned can not be taken out of consideration. The long term investor is like someone buying a house for investment. You carefully look at all offers on the market. You choose by many factors, price, location, quality, environment, neighborhood and extras. After a long research, you pick your favorites and give them a closer look until you finally choose the object of desire, which will pay off in 10 years and will be a wise investment in your future. Now this sounds like a careful but smart person, who knows what he wants and has enough patience to have his earnings in the future. The short term investor is like someone running into the casino for a game of black-jack, roulette or poker. He is a person that thinks he has found the one and only formula, the philosopher's stone, the money-press and is seeking immense profits in just one night. And if it does not work, he is sure, that this was just bad coincidence and that his ""formula"" is correct and will work the next night. This person is a pure gambler and running the risk of becoming addicted. He is seeking quick and massive profits and does not give up, even though he knows, that the chances of becoming a millionaire in a casino are quite unrealistic and not better than playing in a lottery. So if you are a gamer, and the profit is less important than the ""fun"", then short term is the thing for you. If you are not necessarily seeking tons of millions, but just want to keep your risk of loss to a minimum, then long term is your way to go. So it is a question of personality, expectations and priorities. The answer why losses are bigger on high frequency signals is answered elsewhere. But I am convinced in reality it is a question of what you want and therefore very subjective. I have worked for both.
I have a father who is worth a few million I could eventually borrow from for my own trading but IB from the way my friend described it seemed like an easy way to make 500 k with brainless excel sheets etc.   After hearing yours and multiple peoples opinions I agree with you.
Yes the stock market is 'rigged' to some extent but if you are good at game theory then you can predict the direction of bias and therefore take advantage of the 'rigged' nature of the market. Eventually enough people become aware of the bias and then the people who are manipulating the market have to change their strategy. This is just how the market works though its always worked this way it has just become more and more sophisticated.  look at it this way if you control billions of dollars in equities then you have to manipulate the market to give you a favorable price. If you dont manipulate then day traders and speculators will drive up the price of a security before you can even get your money in.  So the big players try to manipulate the market and the small fish try to predict the manipulation. Welcome to the jungle
Yes, there are very lucrative opportunities available by using financial news releases. A lot of times other people just aren't looking in less popular markets, or you may observe the news source before other people realize it, or may interpret the news differently than the other market participants. There is also the buy the rumor, sell the news mantra - for positive expected information (opposite for negative expected news), which results in a counterintuitive trading pattern.
It really depends. I mean, did he *actually* get hundreds of thousands of dollars, or did he go bankrupt? Did the IRS actually come in demanding cash, or was it a scam? Are the funds for the transaction being held in escrow? Were they transferred to the wrong bank? Why isn't your dad lawyering up over this? Etc. etc. etc.
Arguably the money made or lost on the particular stock in question wouldn't have happened without the story. The AIs are just taking advantage of market conditions caused by the story. The person who planted the story bought the stock prior to the story being dropped and sold before the stock dropped back down, which is illegal.
An old buddy of mine used to trade penny's and supposedly made a killing. Was taking trips all over the country, bought a place at the beach, always had NBA tickets to the best games. Later found out that he was actually selling drugs instead and was basically making nothing on the penny stock trading.
"Generally, yes. Rather than ask, ""why are these guys so cheap?"", you should be asking why the big names are so expensive. :) Marketing spend plays a big role there. Getting babies to shill for your company during the super bowl requires a heck of a lot of commissions. Due to the difficulties involved in setting up a brokerage, it's unlikely that you'll see a scam. A brokerage might go bankrupt for random reasons, but that's what investor insurance is for. ""Safeness"" is mostly the likelihood that you'll be able to get access to your funds on deposit with the broker. Investment funds are insured by SIPC for up to $500,000, with a lower limit on cash. The specific limits vary by broker, with some offering greater protection paid for on their own dime. Check with the broker -- it's usually on their web pages under ""Security"". Funds in ""cash"" might be swept into an interest-earning investment vehicle for which insurance is different, and that depends on the broker, too. A few Forex brokers went bankrupt last year, although that's a new market with fewer regulatory protections for traders. I heard that one bankruptcy in the space resulted in a 7% loss for traders with accounts there, and that there was a Ponzi-ish scam company as well. Luckily, the more stringent regulation of stock brokerages makes that space much safer for investors. If you want to assess the reliability of an online broker, I suggest the following: It's tempting to look at when the brokerage was founded. Fly-by-night scams, by definition, won't be around very long -- and usually that means under a few months. Any company with a significant online interface will have to have been around long enough to develop that client interface, their backend databases, and the interface with the markets and their clearing house. The two brokerages you mentioned have been around for 7+ years, so that lends strength to the supposition of a strong business model.
Is that really true though?  He brought in via hedge fund when the stock was multiples more in 2004.  He loaned it a bunch of money, many billions.  He gets the Sears commerial real estate via Seritage but anyone who seen commercial real estate lately knows the market is flooded with excess square footage, retail is being stomped in general, and that Sears/Kmart strip malls in many cases aren't the prime areas anymore.  I can see him making out better than the average Stockholder who keeps on holding onto it but nowhere near recuperating his investment.  In fact, the average guy could and would have dropped it long ago with an simple website login, these big investors don't have that luxury of dumping stock on a whim so they go down with the ship.  http://fortune.com/2017/03/31/sears-eddie-lampert-net-worth-hedge-fund/