vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
(NOTE the mere fact of a promotion does not mean that illegal trading behavior is occurring, but it does usually mean that someone else is selling into the liquidity) Another way to make this kind of trading behavior profitable is via the derivatives market. Options contracts are priced solely by the trading price of the underlying asset, so even if your multiple account trading could only at best break even when you sell your final holdings (basically resetting the price to where it was because you started distorting it), this is fine because your real trade is in the options market. Lets say Apple was trading at $200 , the options contract at the $200 strike is a call trading at $1 with no intrinsic value. You can buy to open several thousand of the $200 strike without distorting the shares market at all, then in the shares market you bid up Apple to $210, now your options contract is trading at $11 with $10 of intrinsic value, so you just made 1000% gain and are able to sell to close those call options. Then you unwind the rest of your trade and sell your $210 apple shares, probably for $200 or $198 or less (because there are few market participants that actually valued the shares for that high, the real bidders are at $200 and lower). This is hardly a discreet thing to do, so like I mentioned before, this is illegal in markets where actual company shares are involved and should not be attempted in stock markets but other markets won't have the same prohibitions, this is a general inefficiency in capital markets in general and certain derivatives pricing formulas. It is important to understand these things if you plan to participate in markets that claim to be fair. There is nothing novel about this sort of thing, and it is just a problem of allocating enough capital to do so."
I could be wrong, but I doubt that Bernie started out with any intention of defrauding anyone, really. I suspect it began the first time he hit a quarter when his returns were lower than everyone else's, or at least not as high as he'd promised his investors they'd be, so he fudged the numbers and lied to get past the moment, thinking he'd just make up for it the next quarter. Only that never happened, and so the lie carried forward and maybe grew as things didn't improve as he expected. It only turned into a ponzi because he wasn't as successful at investing as he was telling his investors he was, and telling the truth would have meant the probability that he would have lost most of his clients as they went elsewhere. Bernie couldn't admit the truth, so he had to keep up the fiction by actually paying out returns that didn't exist, which required constantly finding new money to cover what he was paying out. The source of that money turned out to be new investors who were lured in by people already investing with Bernie who told them how great he was as a financial wizard, and they had the checks to prove it. I think this got so far out of hand, and it gradually dragged more and more people in because such things turn into black holes, swallowing up everything that gets close. Had the 2008 financial crisis not hit then Bernie might still be at it. The rapid downturns in the markets hit many of Bernie's investors with margin calls in other investments they held, so they requested redemptions from him to cover their calls, expecting that all of the money he'd convinced to leave with him really existed. When he realized he couldn't meet the flood of redemptions, that was when he 'fessed up and the bubble burst. 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.
"Many people assume that if the price of something is $10 and they have 1,000 of that thing, they should expect to be able to sell them for something around $10,000. Such an assumption may hold much of the time, but it doesn't always. Worse, the cases where it fails to hold are often those where it would be relied upon most heavily. Such an assumption should thus be considered dangerous. In a liquid market, the quantity of a something that people would be willing to buy at something close to the market price will be large relative to the quantity that people would seek to sell in the short term. If at some moment in time one person in the market was willing to immediately buy 500 shares at $9.98 and another was willing to immediately buy 750 at $9.97, someone seeking to sell 1,000 shares could immediately receive $997.50 for them (selling 500 to the first person and 500 to the second, who would then be ready to buy 250 more from the first person who was willing to sell for $9.97). Such behavior would be in line with what many people's assumptions. In an illiquid market, however, the quantity of something that people would be willing to buy near market price could be surprisingly low. This is more often a problem in the marketplace of things like collectibles than of stocks, but the same thing can happen in the stock market. 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.
100% scam. This is classic of mixing real (Exxon) with fiction. This gives credibility to story. Don't give any thing, there is no damage yet. If you take the bait, there are multiple ways to get money from you.
It is not unheard of. Celebrity investors such as Warren Buffet and Carl Icahn gained notoriety by more than doubling investments some years, with a few very stellar trades and bets. Doubling, as in a 100% gain, is actually conservative if you want to play that game, as 500%, 1200% and greater gains are possible and were achieved by the two otherwise unrelated people I mentioned. This reality is opposite of the comparably pitiful returns that Warren Buffet teaches baby boomers about, but compounding on 2-5% gains annually is a more likely way to build wealth. It is unreasonable to say and expect that you will get the outcome of doubling an investment year over year.
So if the stock goes up, the person that already has money would earn a greater percentage than the peon thats actually investing to earn money at all. Fourth, Warren Buffett's fund and George Soros' funds aren't just in stocks. George Soros' claim to fame was taking big bets in the foreign exchange market. The leverage in that market is much greater than one can experience in the stock market. Fifth, Options. Anyone can open an options contract, but getting someone else to be on the other side of it is harder. Someone with clout can negotiate a 10 year options contract for pretty cheap and gain greatly if their stock or other asset appreciates in value much greater. There are cultural limitations that prompt some people to make a distinction between investing and gambling, but others are not bound by those limitations and can take any kind of bet they like."
"The game is not zero sum. When a friend and I chop down a tree, and build a house from it, the house has value, far greater than the value of a standing tree. Our labor has turned into something of value. In theory, a company starts from an idea, and offers either a good or service to create value. There are scams that make it seem like a Vegas casino. There are times a stock will trade for well above what it should. When I buy the S&P index at a fair price for 1000 (through an etf or fund) and years later it's 1400, the gain isn't out of someone else's pocket, else the amount of wealth in the world would be fixed and that's not the case. Over time, investors lag the market return for multiple reasons, trading costs, bad timing, etc. Statements such as ""90% lose money"" are hyperbole meant to separate you from your money. A self fulfilling prophesy. The question of lagging the market is another story - I have no data to support my observation, but I'd imagine that well over 90% lag the broad market. A detailed explanation is too long for this forum, but simply put, there are trading costs. If I invest in an S&P ETF that costs .1% per year, I'll see a return of say 9.9% over decades if the market return is 10%. Over 40 years, this is 4364% compounded, vs the index 4526% compounded, a difference of less than 4% in final wealth. There are load funds that charge more than this just to buy in (5% anyone?). Lagging by a small fraction is a far cry from 'losing money.' There is an annual report by a company named Dalbar that tracks investor performance. For the 20 year period ending 12/31/10 the S&P returned 9.14% and Dalbar calculates the average investor had an average return of 3.83%. Pretty bad, but not zero. Since you don't cite a particular article or source, there may be more to the story. Day traders are likely to lose.
Because swing trading isn't the only reason to buy a stock, and it's not the only way to make money on a stock.  I do not have the expertise to make advice one way or the other, but I personally I feel swing trading is one of the worse ways to invest in the stock market. To answer your specific questions: In the previous post, I outlined a naive trade intended to make $1,000 off a $10k buy, but it was shown this would likely fail, even if the stock price would have increased by 10% had I not placed the trade. Another way to state this is that my trade would disrupt the stock price, and not in my favor at all. So, that means I'd have to settle for a smaller trade. If I bought $100 worth of the stock, that size of a buy wouldn't be too disruptive. I might succeed and get $10 out of the trade (10% of $100). But my trade fee was $8 or so... To summarize, you are completely correct that even hoping for gains of 10% on a consistent basis (in other words, after every single trade!) is totally unrealistic.  You already seem to understand that swing trading on low-volume stocks is pointless.  But your last question was... So how do people make any significant money trading low volume stocks--if they even do? I assume money is made, since the stocks are bought and sold. I have some guesses, but I'd like to hear from the experts. ... and in a comment: Then if no one does make significant money trading these stocks...what are they doing there on the market?  The answer is that the buying and selling is mostly likely not by swing traders.  It's by investors that believe in the company.  The company is on the market because the company believes public trading to be an advantageous position for them to receive capital investments, and there are people out there who think that transaction makes sense.  In other words, real investing.
"Below is just a little information on short selling from my small unique book ""The small stock trader"":  Short selling is an advanced stock trading tool with unique risks and rewards. It is primarily a short-term trading strategy of a technical nature, mostly done by small stock traders, market makers, and hedge funds. Most small stock traders mainly use short selling as a short-term speculation tool when they feel the stock price is a bit overvalued. Most long-term short positions are taken by fundamental-oriented long/short equity hedge funds that have identified some major weaknesses in the company. There a few things you should consider before shorting stocks: Despite all the mystique and blame surrounding short selling, especially during bear markets, I personally think regular short selling, not naked short selling, has a more positive impact on the stock market, as: Lastly, small stock traders should not expect to make significant profits by short selling, as even most of the great stock traders (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen,) have hardly made significant money from their shorts. it is safe to say that odds are stacked against short sellers. Over the last century or so, Western large caps have returned an annual average of between 8 and 10 percent while the returns of small caps have been slightly higher.  I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of ""The small stock trader"")"
Putting 64% of a portfolio in gold and silver is pretty reckless from an investing standpoint. That being said, if he really did buy most of the stocks in 2002, he's probably made a good deal of money off these picks.
Most research on historical returns, points out Mr. Mauboussin, is based on the days when the stock market had twice as many companies as it does today. “Was the population of companies so different then,” he asks, “that the inferences we draw from it might no longer be valid?” So-called factor investing, also known as systematic or smart-beta investing, picks hundreds or thousands of stocks at a time based on common sources of risk and return. Among them: how big companies are, how much their shares fluctuate, how expensive their shares are relative to asset value and so on. But the historical outperformance of many such factors may have been driven largely by the tiniest companies — exactly those that have disappeared from the market in droves. Before concluding that small stocks or cheap “value” stocks will outrace the market as impressively as they did in the past, you should pause to consider how they will perform without the tailwinds from thousands of tiny stocks that no longer exist. The stock market has more than tripled in the past eight years, so the eclipse of so many companies hasn’t been a catastrophe. But it does imply that investing in some of the market’s trendiest strategies might be less profitable in the future than they looked in the past.
The short answer is yes, it is possible to do what these classes claim, however, it is highly unlikely. For every person they can show you that got rich using whatever so called method they are teaching, there are hundreds of people that didn't that they aren't telling you about. What I would recommend is invest in a well diversified portfolio. If you have a higher tolerance for risk then you can make some of that portfolio out of higher risk/reward investments. Maybe you pick the next Apple or Google or Netflix or whatever but that portion of your portfolio should be money that you can afford to lose in case you pick duds.
"Bezos made very little ""money."" But he is very wealthy because of stock grants and options, from his previous years. Banks or brokerage firms will lend him (or anyone else) up to half the value of his stock. In Bezos' case, we're talking about billions. So he could, if he wanted to, cash out half of those billions. If the stock continues to go up (as it has), he will be able to cash out more each year. Imagine a person earning $1 a year in cash with $1 billion of stock, on which he can borrow up to $500 million. That, in a nutshell, is Bezos (with larger numbers)."
Yes, but it's *other institutional speculators* they are exploiting, as I made clear in my message. i.e. they prey on the people who prey on the small investors. The man on the street being upset about it is just completely stupid. It does not affect them one iota.  Also, it's worth pointing out that the amount of revenue generated by HFT is absolutely miniscule compared to all other forms of speculation. The return is somewhere around $1 for every $100,000 traded. So, even when a majority of trades in a market are HFT, a very small proportion of the profits are.
Yes, the current market trend has proved this inspirational quote to a true extent. Investing money into trading and financial market is a hard nut to crack and it requires a thought-provoking financial inspiration for individuals. To earn handsome money, you need to become smart enough to understand the market behavior, market flows and all the associated ups and downs. Now, you are confused. No, you don't need to hold an MBA degree or become a financial expert to learn lucrative investing skills. Wealth Generators is there for you to make you learn all the essentials techniques required to make your hard earned money provide you with the best output which you can never imagine. Yes, optimism and the smart skills are the two pivotal ways to get success over the curvature of the financial twisting. We are considered to be one stop financial inspirations for individuals who wish to earn money by making smart investments. It all has become possible due to years of research and development of our financial veterans and their innovative attitude in developing financial tools. The amalgamation of the computer, communication technologies and our educational financial tools have lowered the risk of investments. With a commitment and optimistic approach, you can earn good money in no time, if you have proper market knowledge. Our experts have done extensive research and they are always updated with the latest insights of the trading and investment markets. We believe that your solid financial inspiration to save your expenses and turning them into handsome profits can make you a wealthy person. So, if you are really willing it, Wealth Generators is there for you, the ultimate source of your financial inspiration.
If you aren't familiar with Norbert's Gambit, it's worth looking at. This is a mechanism using a Canadian brokerage account to simultaneously execute one stock trade in CAD and one in USD. The link I provided claims that it only starts potentially making sense somewhere in the 10,000+ range.
"There is a difference between losing money in the market, and not knowing where the money is. Let's say he invested 2 billion into 1 stock, then that stock drops from $100 per share to $50 per share. Well that is documentable. Corzine claims he doesn't know what happened.   Haven't you ever seen ""It's A Wonderful Life""?"
Yeah, it can be a scam.  Lots of unscrupulous companies try to generate commissions by encouraging frequent trading - I can't recall the term they use right now, but I don't like to use these people for advice.  My bank has 100 free trades per year for each account, which is more than enough for me to never pay a commission.
I don't know about Jeff Bezos in particular but, in general, and with a a few other notorious exceptions like Warren Buffet, billionaires also have incomes (salary, dividends, fees to seat on various boards of directors, etc.) in the millions, not the tens of thousand. That's typically still much lower than their wealth but certainly enough to sustain a comfortable lifestyle. However it's still true that some billionaires have so much of their wealth tied up in a single corporation that they could not practically get it all out at once, if they ever wanted to. But they can still typically sell at least some shares, which is exactly what Jeff Bezos has done to buy the Washington Post for example.
Here is an example for you. We have a fictional company. It's called MoneyCorp. Its job is to own money, and that's all. Right now it owns $10,000. It doesn't do anything special with that $10,000 - it stores it in a bank account, and whenever it earns interest gives it to the shareholders as a dividend. Also, it doesn't have any expenses at all, and doesn't pay taxes, and is otherwise magic so that it doesn't have to worry about distractions from its mathematical perfection. There are 10,000 shares of MoneyCorp, each worth exactly $1. However, they may trade for more or less than $1 on the stock market, because it's a free market and people trading stock on the stock market can trade at whatever price two people agree on. Scenario 1. MoneyCorp wants to expand. They sell 90,000 shares for $1 each. The money goes in the same bank account at the same interest rate. Do the original shareholders see a change? No. 100,000 shares, $100,000, still $1/share. No problem. This is the ideal situation. Scenario 2: MoneyCorp sells 90,000 shares for less than the current price, $0.50 each. Do the original shareholders lose out? YES. It now has something like $55,000 and 100,000 shares. Each share is now worth $0.55. The company has given away valuable equity to new shareholders. That's bad. Why didn't they get more money from those guys? Scenario 3: MoneyCorp sells 90,000 shares for more than the current price, $2 each, because there's a lot of hype about its business. MoneyCorp now owns $190,000 in 100,000 shares and each share is worth $1.90. Existing shareholders win big! This is why a company would like to make its share offering at the highest price possible (think, Facebook IPO). Of course, the new shareholders may be disappointed. MoneyCorp is actually a lot like a real business!
I dont see anything dystopian about this? Half the article is about new millionaires being created by 2021. That is a good thing isnt it? I know reddit is all about forcing millionaires to sell their stocks and real estate so Starbucks baristas and people folding shirts at the mall can make $50/hr and drive Mercedes though. How dare rich people own stock when the stock market doubles!!! The audacity of them to manage their money wisely and work hard to build their wealth.
Prop (proprietary) traders trade using huge amounts of a bank's money (i.e. other people's money) so the reason why they have such low commissions (and they certainly do) is that the firms for which they work negotiate low commissions as the quantities and volumes (as they also trade very frequently) will be high and so the total commission will be very high. There is no such thing as a prop trading account unless you are a big bank with a very large bank roll (tens of millions of USD) so you cannot open one to enjoy those benefits unless you have enough money that you can negotiate your commission with brokers. 25k CAD is definitely not enough money to even start a conversation about those sorts of commissions. note: prop traders are generally banned from trading intraday with their own money by their employers and the law as it is a massive conflict of interests. Those who do and get caught face lengthy prison sentences.
I think the $500mm number was bullshit. A common trick is that a private company will raise $50mm for 10% of the company, and say they're worth $500mm. But then it turns out that the new investors get preferences- like they're guaranteed to be paid back first if the company goes bankrupt, or they're guaranteed to get back the first $100mm of an IPO. Since the company really sold 10% of itself *plus other stuff*, they are worth less than $500mm.   Therefore, I find Ellen Pao's claim that Reddit was worth $250mm in 2015 credible. It is also why I'm suspicious about the $1.7b number today.