What qualification should i get - or should I get one ?

[peakoil]

@ tommorton - fair enough, we'll have to agree to differ, because I still believe any investment educator should have, at the very least, proven themselves in the field (so to speak) with, at least, several years of proven and consistent profits, under his belt.

@ Citytrader: while you disagree with what I've wrote, I most certainly disagree with your position, which I now, with respect, repeat:

"the only people capable of training are traders who have been professionally taught and allowed to trade by a bank or market making firm. i.e the managers have done the work and considered that person capable of running the firms money. "

I disagree inasmuch as such a person can still (that is, despite any formal training) prove himself to be a poor trader/investor, and then eventually be dismissed or moved to b/o etc. I'm confident you're aware that that that's not exactly an uncommon occurrence. And, I can make such a point without having to mention the usual suspects - Nick Leeson. Jérôme Kerviel. Toshihide Iguchi, John Rusnack...

You say too that you "know one trader who puts his good trades on with what he considers to be his "lucky SB house" all he has to do as the end of the year is show his good results!"

But, wait a minute - how is that a relevant riposte to what I wrote? Or, your point about statements being faked? With just a little due diligence, faked bank and/or trading statements are easily unearthed for what they are. And, I never said that just one(!!) year's success, suggested anyone was worthy of teaching others. I was careful to make my point as I did above, for the very reason that luck could be as good as ruled out. Besides, if *IF* your 'lucky SB house' person could ever show at least several *consistent* years of good results, then you might just find that he's onto something...

That being said, in an ideal world, it's at least arguable that the very most ideally qualified person to teach others investing, is very likely the ideal composite of your candidate and mine, that is to say - one who has been both formally trained by a bank or m/m institution AND is also able to demonstrate several consistent years of genuine profits.

 

[CityTrader]

That being said, in an ideal world, it's at least arguable that the very most ideally qualified person to teach others investing, is very likely the ideal composite of your candidate and mine, that is to say - one who has been both formally trained by a bank or m/m institution AND is also able to demonstrate several consistent years of genuine profits.

Haha sounds like my CV. maybe I should go into training...

 

[tomorton]

I confess to a bit of tongue-in-cheek here. I've emphasised elsewhere no successful trader independent needs (financially, socially or personally) to get involved in training. I've also said they should absolutely not get involved in training - there are better value ways to spend your hours than working hard to make a bit more money - the person wo earns most is not necessarily the most successful person.

That said, why shouldn't gonnamakeit get into training? He sounds better than some and can't be much worse than the rest. If he's got limited capital, I am saying invest it in a viable business, e.g. training, don't try to be a trader.

 

[peakoil]

@ citytrader - sure, if you've ever the time and inclination... ;-)
@tomorton - it's best for most of his time that a successful independent keeps going at what he does best. I can't disagree with you on that point. However, many years later, there may come a time in some people's lives when they feel like giving back to others, what they've learned through years of experience.

It's exactly that sort of person whom I had in mind.

Meanwhile, I just don't agree that our world needs yet another... someone who reads the books, passes some tests and regurgitates what he's learned - without putting in the many years of experience needed, to learn what it really takes to make consistent profits. It's legal etc., and of course it's just fine for him to propose to make a living that way (as you say), but I'm also mindful of his potential students, and what they've truly got to gain. Hmmm.

 

[tomorton]

Come on peakoil, anyone driven to start giving back to others only needs to post their strategies and trading rules here - available to all, for free. Now that's giving. Everyone else who's in training is in it for the money or kudos or both and I'm bold enough to say that's a waste of effort for a good earner with a well balanced life.

Whether the world needs another trainer is the concern only of gonnamakeit's customers - if they decide he's selling what they want, let him sell it to them. That's what business is - look at WHSmith - everything they sell is available elsewhere at better price and/or quality: there is no reason for WHSmith if they didn't already exist. But they do sell what people want.

I don't agree that what trading needs is better traders doing training - it only needs average trainers but who have great integrity.

 

[peakoil]

I'm not saying that any single good trader should give up what he's best at. Rather, did I not put it like this?:

"many years later, there may come a time in some people's lives when they feel like giving back to others, what they've learned through years of experience.

It's exactly that sort of person whom I had in mind."

I don't believe I need to explain that sentiment any further. If you still disagree, what more can I say? "Average" persons/trainers lose at investing and trading. We all know that.

edited to say, the worst teachers I ever had in my life (thankfully few in number), were average at best. Methinks that gives away my position...

 

[tomorton]

Yes, OK, I was taking what you said about "giving" literally but only to demonstrate that traders train for poor reasons - either for (more) money or to feel better about themselves or both, and they should look at themselves and see these aren't great reasons. I mean not great for them personally.

I'm pottering about here, just to challenge the conventional mindset that says -
a) only successful traders should be trainers
but
b) successful trainers must be rubbish traders, else why are they selling training?

I say, most trainees will fail even if taught by great traders. Plus, some great traders will be rubbish trainers. So why as successful traders should we discourage anyone who might not be a great trader but might potentially be a great trainer?

After all, look at gonnamakeit's initial motivation - to become better qualified in order to give a better service. Speaks well of his/her integrity I feel.
;-)

 

[peakoil]

Hi again tomorton, this has become quite an interesting discussion indeed. And I must now say, fair play to you for seeing the bright side in the OP's plans.

You've raised some interesting points, some of which I've hopefully countered, yet there are still others which I'm tempted to challenge further, and depending how this thread goes from here, I may just have to return to this discussion later.... For now, please consider that there may well be more reasons why someone would want to teach others, than the polarisation above would have it.

What's more, surely it's, in reality, extremely unlikely that someone who may not be a great trader/investor would also be a great trainer? Hypothetically speaking - to learn painting from Rembrandt himself, or from his reasonably average second cousin, twice removed - who's currently giving painting lessons in the blue skies above. & at a heavily discounted price, I hear ;-)

Meanwhile, those who are consistently doing well, likely know (through years of experience) when to follow the rules; and when not to; When to hold 'em, and when to fold 'em; When to go all in, and when to hold back etc., and it's these sparkling attributes, among others, which are not always so easy to teach, nor demonstrate to students, yet which also, arguably make for the best, and the very most worthwhile lessons. Peace.

 

[tomorton]

Hmmm. Let's explore this.

So, great training should be the (sideline) output of great traders. And there are some really great traders out there, each working with his/her own individual approach.

But where are the world-class trainers? I'm going to say there are so few as to be able to say practically there ain't any. Jack Schwager wrote about market wizards didn't he, not training wizards.

Now we know there are numerous highly effective trading strategies out there but it seems 90% of traders aren't able to learn these, even though their elements are well known, and even if their teacher is a top top trader.

So, we already know there are abundant traders who could and do train, but no training wizards. So why would we insist that a budding wanna-be trainer first go into a different field (trading) and become good at that one? It hasn't worked out well in the past. We would be insane to expect a different outcome from doing the same thing again wouldn't we?

I expect to see gonnamakeit's CV as a trainer appearing here by the minute. Followed by a link to his/her seminar enrolment page.

 

[peakoil]

Re " So why would we insist that a budding wanna-be trainer first go into a different field (trading) and become good at that one?"

Not completely what I was suggesting because, actually, I'd say there's another viable option, which you've glossed over - doesn't the OP have a medical background? If so, why not stick to that, instead?

 

[0007]

Now we know there are numerous highly effective trading strategies out there but it seems 90% of traders aren't able to learn these, even though their elements are well known, and even if their teacher is a top top trader.

The Turtles must be the classic example. As a former trainer (not of traders) I would have suffered acute depression if only 10% of my students were successful. But I suppose on the other hand, if 90% were seriously swelling my bank balance then perhaps that would go a long way to relieving the depression .... ?

 

[tomorton]

The Turtles must be the classic example. As a former trainer (not of traders) I would have suffered acute depression if only 10% of my students were successful. But I suppose on the other hand, if 90% were seriously swelling my bank balance then perhaps that would go a long way to relieving the depression .... ?

I think it would be some compensation, yes. Naturally, we would do this with some integrity - when we say you're paying for 6hrs tuition, that's what we'll deliver: when we say you'll learn all about moving averages, that's what we'll teach.

And although its well known that 90% of would-be traders fail, will that stop enrolments? No of course not. There's no way they'll be discouraged from enrolling. In case they're in the 10%. And that 10% could come from rubbish traders/good trainers or good traders/rubbish trainers.

 

[tomorton]

Re " So why would we insist that a budding wanna-be trainer first go into a different field (trading) and become good at that one?"

Not completely what I was suggesting because, actually, I'd say there's another viable option, which you've glossed over - doesn't the OP have a medical background? If so, why not stick to that, instead?

I now realise I had glossed over it but on the unconscious assumption that gonnamakeit has more ambition for financial rewards than to seek such a post. Else why be on T2W?

Do you mean teaching/lecturing on the medical aspects/impact of/on trading? Interesting.

 

[peakoil]

@tomorton aye indeed, 'twould be interesting if the OP would indeed expand on that point?

 

[tradingtips_4]

I think wealth management or to say a core MBA would be a plus if you want to pursue what you are thinking of. It can be a correspondence course, no need for a regular one. The main thing is to get the degree so that you appear qualified one.
Cheers!

 

[SurtiTrader]

Qualification is not required for trading with Forex, the only thing that is required to become a successful Forex trader is proper knowledge of it and analyzing the market situation.

 

[DT]

thanks....sorry didnt get any emails about replies else would have checked earlier

im actually a medical doctor but have a passion for finance

i regularly give small takes in the mindset for investing / how to invest / etc etc

I think people would be right to question your ability to give any meaningful advice here - you're talking about the 'mindset for investing' - that might be credible if you're say a trained psychiatrist who has studied professional investors/portfolio managers and found some evidence supporting some traits... but that in itself seems a bit suspect in the first place.

I mean if it is chat with a bunch of amateur investors and you're not taking large amounts of their cash for your 'advice' then fair play, it is a hobby/interest in your spare time. If you're trying to turn this advice into a serious part time business then I'd think a bit more about the ethics of doing so - unless you've got significant experience in the area you're lecturing people on then you're likely to end up regurgitating the same dubious 'advice' that is available quite cheaply across online forums and various books aimed at retail traders.

edit having read your second post it seems the other topics you're talking about are essentially a very basic introduction to 'investing' - sort of an overview,you could get a basic qualification that would be relevant to this - CISI Certificate in Investment Management perhaps or the IMC certificate from the CFA institute.

 

[july]

You can learn trading as a side interest

 

[SurtiTrader]

You are right but learning the trading as a side interest you cannot earn much.