3 ms·
The ratios for these calculations only include participants. There are seven billion humans, the vast majority of whom are either not old enough to trade or not
by dsacco 10y ago
The ratios for these calculations only include participants. There are seven billion humans, the vast majority of whom are either not old enough to trade or not in regions where they can actually participate in trading (in the speculative, not investing sense). Of those even eligible to trade, most do not engage in it in any kind of intentional capacity, let alone professional.
There are not seven billion traders. At any time in the United States the number of funds is in the thousands. Adding in other countries, and being generous with the term "trader" (or "investor", "fund manager", etc), I would be willing to agree that there have been millions over the past two decades (the same time frame as some of the track records I've mentioned). What does that leave us with? We're still orders of magnitude away from the successes we observe emerging due to chance. The numbers just aren't there.
- rhizome 10y agoI'm not a stats or even econ nerd, but could the numbers shake out if you counted all of the participants since the market was created?
- dsacco 10y agoHm...theoretically? The thing is, the broad zeitgeist of extremely profitable strategies changes over time. James Simons and Warren Buffett might as well be in different fields for how different their day to day work and peripheral market behavior were during their careers. That might be confounding, because on a long enough timeline all job functions become obsolete and have to change. Other than that though, sure. Unfortunately it would be really difficult to examine empirically, which is why I use a 20-30 year slice of time.