Get started

Returns

Getting Paid? With the USD/TRY Carry Trade?The USD/TRY has one of the highest Roll Over Interest out there should you choose to take on this highly volatile pair. It isn't so much that it is volatile, it has to do more with price just moves one direction, and that is up. The way we want to go is down (short) or at least sideways (ranging). Why is this interesting? It is because the Rollover Interest for going short stands at a whopping annualized rate of 28.94%. With 1:4 Margin Requirement for trading a standard lot on the TRY (based off the broker I use), $25,000 could earn me $28,940 yearly, which would be a staggering 115% return at the end of the year. Compounded, I would be a multimillionaire in no time, Buying up yachts, private jets, gourmet food, luxury cars, a pony that shoots lasers, Space X Starship, and countless other items. But hold up, is there a downside or something that makes this too good to be true? Yes, there is price movement as well as changes in interest rates as well as capital in the account. Having only $25,000 in the account, going full throttle and placing one huge position is sure to activate a margin call within seconds (as price can move thousands of pips against you quickly) and/or cause you to lose more than you put in. Now, we don't want that. You would need to have at least double the amount in the account in order to allow for price movement. The return would be halved, but making over 50% yearly isn't too bad either, is it? With price movement, the USD/TRY (I just call it the TRY), price moved higher over 57,000 pips in 2022, and over 100,000 pips in 2023; that is $18,240 and $32,000 respectively. Interest have just reached 45%, so things definitely would not have been good. Now, with funds in your account, not to many of us have $25,000 lying around to utilize in the markets, nor do we want to just tie up $25,000 into something really risky. Yet if used correctly and price does stabilize, then the TRY carry trade could payout (similar to the EUR/HUF). What could be done to reduce the risk? For starters, position sizing. Don't use the full force of your account and go "YOLO." Manage expectations. With a $25,000 account size, only getting into a position at around $3,750 (which is about 15% of the account used and a 15k position), would be around $3,650 return, which would be about a 14.6% return (still not bad. How many people can do this). If things go sour and price does move up at the end the year by 100,000 pips against you ($0.05 move per pip), that would be -$5,000 reduced to $1,350 because of the gained rollover interest (which would be only a 5% hit to your account instead of 20%). Putting some hedges in could also reduce some of the risk. Additionally, research and analysis, this could push you to make a more informative speculation on if getting into the pair is a good idea. Furthermore, to really ensure you don't lose any money, is to not get into the pair at all. For myself, I am utilizing around 41% of my Forex account in this pair, about 14% of my overall accounts. There are hedges in place to reduce the impact of price moving against me as well as my position being small enough to not cause any traumatic moves, even if price moves 100,000 pips against me (of course don't want that to happen). The decision is also made to stay in this pair for the long term or until there is some major changes. There is additional funds in reserves if needed, if things don't go well, in order to put another plan into play to get out of my positions in an orderly fashion. You all have some great trading out there.
Education
by DollarSaenz
2
Flawed concepts: returns & log-returnsConsidering we are almost in 2k23 (Merry Christmas btw xd), obsession with returns & log-returns is hilarious: 1) It implies sampling, which is info loss by definition, I don't even wanna mention that most don't even bother with proper one-point estimates of dem datapoints, dem just use Close prices; 2) Then the differencing process itself, whatever the lag is, implies info loss, higher the lag - higher the info loss. I can totally get it people doing it 30 years ago when getting data was a problem, but now? As I said in "there's only one strategy" post and in other previous post, what you see on your chart is aggregated (binned) trading activity, a real-world process that can be later 'modeled' with math or algorithmized. Ultimately, doesn't matter on which one of some correlated assets it's happening, prices move up when there's a consistent wave of buying volume (buy market orders & aggressively placed bids), and prices move down when there's a consistent wave of selling volume (sell market orders & aggressively placed asks). Gas intakes, like nitro bro! The same principle propagate on every resolution, only the bin sizes are different. Returns disregard all this, they show you prices magically jumping one time step after another. Not understanding all this is in modern days is what I call a textbook-scientist/library-guy/paycheck quant syndrome. These people know a lot of stuff, read a lot of stuff, remember a lot of stuff that you can google in 2 minutes, they can calculate fast, remember all the primes for some reason, but can't create anything demselves. And usually, their understanding of a complex system stops on a model they've found in a paper, usually a bad one, but they don't get the principles how & why smth works. They are like these people who have huge muscles they like to stare at and show to others, but when it comes to entering The Octagon it ain't really helps. They don't improvise, adapt and overcome, if something is not in a book, they're stunned. It's all easy to fix tho: open your mind, start trusting yourself and start to use your own head for thinking. Understand that it's all about information, and in most cases every1 has the equal access to the most important info, and if not, the info can be inferred. Everything is connected in the Universe. If not returns/log returns than what? VD, volume delta/log volume delta, if the volumes are legit, or at least are "ok", like on BABA stock. IVD, inferred volume delta/ inferred log volume delta, if the actual volume data is incomplete, like on ES futures. You can google how to calculate volume delta yourself, ima tell you how to infer it, it's simply Close minus Open. Don't believe? Check for yourself, open a nice vehicle where volumes make sense, calculate both VD and IVD, check dem correlation. Unlike returns & log returns, Close minus Open not loosing any info, ain't no sampling & differencing happening. Was it really so hard to figure out? It was in front of your eyes for at least 20 years, Open prices been publicly available for while, and electronic trading platforms started to appear around that time. Oh, if you care for gaps some reason, you can take IVD and add the same logic as is used in so called "True Range", these are the bar sizes that take gaps into account. Use the same logic with IVD. On the chart you see 4 studies, top-down best to worst. These things suppose to quantify changes in direction/slope/gradient, see for yourself which one worked better, pay attention to the highlighted period marked with vertical lines. 1) Lol, simply a weighted mean on Close minus Open datapoints, one line of code essentially, works exceptionally; 2) A dead simple seasonal differencing, for some reason called "Momentum", one line of code, worse, but super easy to calculate; 3) Non-weighted average over log returns, harder to calculate, but the result is the same as number 2 xd, so even worse; 4) Macd, even more funny stuff goes inside, numerous parameters, smoothed for some reason (smoothing is info-loss by definition), much worse. The easiest one line of code study worked better, because it simply uses more information. Just wanna mention it again, if you trade manually you need none of these, you simply look at the charts and your embedded organic neural network sees it all instantly. If your embedded organic neural network doesn't know how to do it, read all other posts, they explain levels & waves, it's all you need. The whole game is about information.
CME_MINI:ES1!Education
by gorx1
Performance distribution of retail investors and hedge fundsMy thoughts about performance. This kind of info is not very available so I have to do some guesswork. We that spend all day in front of the computer expect to get better returns than 10% a year. But we have no idea what is possible and where we "rank" compared to others. All academics look at ever is day traders, yes 99% of day traders lose money and 1% earn peanuts while taking huge risk, we get it. And sometimes they look at passive investors. Cool. But no one ever says anything about active investors or Forex speculators, just that "on average active retail investors outperform", how wonderful, the average, yes I'd call myself the average normie definitely LOL! And regulators are even worse, all they care about is protecting dumb money and scaring people away from day trading. The french "market authority" on television was literally screaming "flee Forex it is dangerous, you should fleeeeeee!", I kid you not. First we look at retail investors. So the french "market authority" (AMF) looked at FX & CFD brokers representing about half of the individual FX & CFD investor population. 14799 persons in the 2009-2013 period. They found that over 4 years close to 90% of traders lost money. This is another of their deceptive tricks. It's just as with science these days, the data says something, the abstract says the opposite. So according to the extremely biased french AMF OWN DATA: - 30% of traders are in the "0" column, and according to their own data there aren't that many traders with tiny accounts, so ~30% breakeven. - They refuse to give any % result, some may be recalculated by overall we do not know, therefore I will assume it does not look as bad (or they'd show) - 5% of all investors make 2/3 of the losses, or at least half - 1% of all investors only are actually making significant returns (and 2/3 of the total) - As always day traders that destroy the stats are mixed with the rest - Most "winning" traders are barely above 0, making just a few hundreds to thousands a year www.amf-france.org From other sources and the AMF sort of confirms this, we know that: - Losers (especially big losers) that stick to investing, the ones that never give up never surrender in the face of adversity, the courageous ones with "heart", ye these guys, their losses get bigger and bigger actually. - Most winners continue to win and their profits get bigger. Here page 19, this is for stocks, we can see the net monthly market-adjusted returns of 62,439 households a large discount brokerage firm from January 1991 to December 1996: - On average, as they keep hammering us with, they underperform the market by 0.14% (each month!) - The average individual investor gross returns are slightly above the S&P 500 index returns (page 3) - The average individual investor net returns are slightly below the S&P index returns (about 91% of the S&P) - The S&P returns a bit less than 1.5% monthly - The worst of the worst managed to return -20.85% below index monthly, probably a permabear day trader or something - The 1st percentile is at -4.86% below market, 5th at -2.45%, and 25th -0.73% - The 99th percentile is at +4.44%, 95th +2.15%, 75th +0.50% - The best individual investor got 48.35% above market MONTHLY - The best individual investor difference between net and gross is minuscule, obviously it is not a day trader, probably some lucky investments - The gross median return is at -0.01%! faculty.haas.berkeley.edu So it seems this is how it goes, a normal distribution: We do not have that much info, and what little there is is rather hard to find, and hidden behind mountains of trashy scams "how much money can I make day trading join my course". I really only care about my own performance but it's always interesting to see how it's all distributed, what is possible, etc. For some reason I am interested in patterns and statistics. Funny. The info does not get shared a lot. Based on research and what gets exchange it seems most "traders" are VERY interested in money and "lambos" and very few are interested in stats, patterns, numbers. Ye I mean what do stats and figures have to do with investing right? It's not about some numbers it's about how much money you can make trading on a phone and what you will do with all of that money right? Honestly if we eliminate day traders that already make up at least 2/3 of FX investors, and all the lambo trolls that hate numbers but "it's ok I manage my emotions", it's not 10% making money but 30% at least I am sure, and 10% making decent money (enough to start a real career). Would be nice if they could just once separate day traders and look at FX investors with a time horizon greater than 1 day. All we can do is guess more or less, obviously more than 10% of these make money, but has to be less than 50% very probably. 10 to 50%, that's pretty wide. Probably in the 20-40 range, that's all I can say with high certainty. Hedge funds next. Hedge funds were doing great in the 90s and Morgan Stanley has a doc about them here: www.morganstanley.com Page 6 we can see discretionary funds making 18% a year with a max drawdown of only 5%. For all strategies except perma-bear the max drawdown is smaller than the annual returns. With all the regulations and harder market (and little fixed income) the results today are probably not as good but I do not think they are extremely different either. My guess on how hedge funds fulfill their max drawdown obligations is they place most the money somewhere safe (92% of the whole in case of an 8% drawdown) and then they risk the entire 8%, they might give a bit of it to each of their traders that go aggressive, and if they return 100% on the 8% that's an 8% return overall. I'm pretty sure that's the idea. But they might not freeze the entire capital and go 10X leverage, maybe they do something more complicated, with 50% in cash/bonds, 30% in "safe enough" investments, and 20% in high risk active trading with a max drawdown of 25% on these 20% (so 5% overall). The definitely do something like this, have to. The serious ones at least. The S&P returned 17.2% with a max drawdown of 15.4%, and page 4 we can see again a normal distribution: - The median directional return yearly was 16.3% (0.9% below market!) and median max drawdown 28.5% - The 75% percentile made 20.5% (3.3% above market), remember retail 75ers were 0.50% above mkt monthly - The 25% bottom only make 11.1% which is 6.1% below market for the year - Stock selection has similar drawdown and the returns of the 25, 50, 75 are 12, 17.2, 20.9 - There are no giant losers or giant winners but there aren't 66000 funds, and they have restrictions - In particular So actually pretty similar thing. The major difference is around 15% of the retail stock investors lost money in a raging bull market and no hedge funds did (except the few bears I guess). Otherwise, same normal distribution but with less extremes for hedge funds, they're more compact around the center (market).
Education
by MrRenev
1
How much to risk per trade? Returns and drawdowns.Between 1990 and June 2000 the median hedge fund (there are not that many that started in 1990) had an annual return of 16.3% and max drawdown of 28.5% according to MORGAN STANLEY. Keep in mind the 2/20 destroys profits. (16.3%*1.25)+2% =  22.4%, and 28.5-2 = 26.5%. So what the median fund actually did I I did not mess it up was get 22.4% return a year and a max drawdown of 26.5%. Of course that drawdown is the worst over a 10 year period. The S&P 500 has an annual return of 17.2% and max drawdown of 15.4%. What is interesting is to look at the details, for example the few specialist credit between 90 and 00. The smallest return one had this to show: 11.5% annual, -4.9% max down. The biggest return one had this to show: 17.4% annual, -19.4% max down. More returns but with much more drawdown. Here is the paper: www.morganstanley.com A portfolio of hedge funds, since they're not all completely correlated, would do much better than the S&P500 in particular on the drawdown side. Renaissance says their medaillon fund uses an average of 12.5 leverage and takes 8000 trades at the same time 4000 short & 4000 long to reduce risk even more. If this is true it means going in each position with 0,15% of their account. Not sure how far their stop is but has to be less than 10% of a share price, this means a risk of 0.015% per trade at most, now since there are 8000 at the same time it would be 8000 times more than this, but since there are shorts and longs it sorts of evens out and who know what their real risk is? All we know is it is very small that's for sure. But leverage costs money, and what RenTec did was since their risk was so small and they do a ton of volume, they partnered with banks that offer them extremely cheap leverage. And then they averaged 66% a year in the past 30 years, with a fund capped at 10 billion. The secret is diversification, it reduces dramatically risk which allows for better returns. But we have to come up with this diversification, not easy to find another good place to invest in, another good uncorrelated strategy. And when we find those additional sources, we are not RenTec we have to pay a big price for leverage so we cannot just scale it hard. Certain "strategies" will help reduce risk but they also cap returns much and leverage is not free so it might not be worth it depending on the person. I just want to take a look at a few non-managed "low fee" "safe" no brain funds. Examples for the 10-year period ending January 31, 2017: Vanguard LifeStrategy Growth Fund (MUTF:VASGX) has a Maximum Drawdown of 47.6% and annual return of 4.7%. UBS Global Allocation Fund (MUTF:BPGLX) has a Maximum Drawdown of 48.7% and annual return of 2.6%. This fund has the rather unappetizing combination of low return and a large Maximum Drawdown. LoL this is so bad. And all the grandpas are loving it, they think they found the holy grail and pat each other on the back. Add to this the fact that most people withdraw at the worse time... Over the same 10 years period the S&P500, returned an annualized 7.024% dividends reinvested (4.8% otherwise) with a max drawdown of 57.8% From 2000 to 2020 (september) it had annualized returns of 6.23%. From 1871 to 2019 it returned about 9% (dividend reinvested) - 6.8% if we adjust for inflation, with a max drawdown of Adolf Hitler & Auschwitz the ultimate price. So we're about in the average with 6%. Growth is slowing down (demographics, tech limits, earth limits...) so we will probably average less than 6% in the future. From 2007 to 2017 the top strategic DIY portfolio recipes had returns of ~typically 11% with max drawdowns of also about 11%. Ray Dalio pure alpha 2 has returned 11.5% / yr in the last 20 years and max drawdown I'm not sure I think it was 8% recently and much less before that. Those numbers are hard to find seriously... But well we get an idea of how far it can get pushed. An article from 2017: "Investors earned an average of 4.67% on mutual funds over the last 20 years (Source: www.creditdonkey.com)" of course there is no mention of drawdown because who cares am I right? Mutual funds are not for the best & brightest of investors. Big risk is not a magic trick. "Big risk" does not mean "big return but with big risk". It means NO returns. It means losing with a winning strategy 😂.
Education
by MrRenev
1
The REAL reason 90% fail.I already posted that the average trader at a big broker (FXCM) had a negative expectancy. Their risk rewards are around 0.5-0.6 with winrates of ~ 60%. This means for each dollar they make they lose 1.22. Their Profit Factor is ~ 0.82. 4 lose 6 wins each win is $30 each lose is $55 ==> Profits = 180 Losses = 220. So this explains why the average loses. But not every one makes those mistakes. And someone might learn from them, or even just flip a coin. Why do so few cut it? Simply "emotions" and never learning and all the things "trading educators" throw at us? Come on, apart from the very worst, if someone gets hit enough times he will learn his lesson and want to do the opposite. And we know there are plenty that blow up and keep coming back, regardless of negative results. Why is it as high as 90%? What more could there be to it? Let's look at this data that was provided. We can see the GBPUSD ATR was around 80 pips. FXCM Data: Traders captured profits on 59% of all GBP/USD trades. Yet they overall lost money as they turned an average 43 pip profit on each winner and lost 83 pips on losing trades. Losers are 1 ATR (they hold for the whole day / 24 hours on average), Winners are half an ATR (held for half a day on average) We can see the EURUSD ATR was around 100 pips. FXCM Data: We see that EUR/USD trades were closed out at a profit 61% of the time, but the average losing trade was worth 83 pips while the average winner was only 48 pips. So about the same as GBPUSD, the average losers is around 1 day, the average winner half that. Spreads are at least 1 pt and 0.01%, I think they were not much higher back then. On some pairs (that they trade on the same time horizons), spreads go up to 0.05% - for a similar ATR. For gold spread is 0.03% but the ATR is a bit higher. So typically, if we bring everything to 1% ATR, the spread is around 0.025%. Let's say we have a daytrader, he has no edge, positive or negative, so his expectancy is to breakeven. He has a small account and doesn't want to be here for the rest of his life grinding, so he uses 10 leverage. We ignore the fact that using leverage reduces his expectancy. He takes 4 trades a day. This is far below what most "day trading educators" do. In a period of 3 months he has taken (around 65 days) 260 day trades with a breakeven strategy. 0.9975^^260 = 52%. So he lost 48%. For info: The problem is not spreads and commissions, they are fine... Alot of day trading educators go for stocks, with spreads of 1%. And commissions of $10 (5+5) on their 10,000 orders (0.1%). They are using more zero comissions now, but they pay it in slippage, just worse fills generally, and bigger spreads. Educators take like 20+ trades a day (on their demo accounts). At a gentle, over optimistic 0.25% loss on every trade to fees, in 2 months (45 days) with 20 trades a day this is what happens: 0.9975^900 = 0.10. Down 90%. Or did they find the holy grail that gives them a big expectancy to counter the cost AND a ton of setups at the same time AND they take a ton of trades a day so clearly they aren't doing massive research each time? Usually even if you can get a good expectancy then you will get less setups. The better the profit factor (winrate and risk reward), the lower the number of opportunities. So they have the absolute holy grail. A large expectancy. They get a ton of signals. And little effort since they can at most spend a few minutes analysing to get this golden setup. So we could call it easy and no brain. Hmmm, an easy no brain super expectancy strategy, that fires signals every few minutes... Ye sure. And it keeps working, no one found it. And they are teaching this to every one for a few hundred or thousand bucks. THE holy grail. Yep, sure, why not. Seems totally legit. XD What if you were to take 1 trade a day, stop and target 0.50%, with 53% winrate, that's a winning strat: 53 wins 47 losses. 10 leverage. Spreads of 0.02%. 100 trades in 4 months. (0.998^100)*(1.05^53)*(0.95^47) = 0.975. Lost 2.5% on a winning strat. MORE MORE MOAR. To go faster. Only thing that will go faster is you'll lose money faster. With 52% winrate. (0.998^100)*(1.05^52)*(0.95^48) = 0.88. Can quickly go wrong... A difference of 1 winner becoming a loser ruins it. If you are curious, my own average loser, it varies alot so I don't know for sure, but 40 points is typical, so same as their average winner. Average winner is 200 :) About 2 daily ATR is what I get on average on winners. A little over 1 to a little over 3. I would like to have bigger winners, and spend more time analysing fewer currencies or commodities, focus more on babysitting winning trades than exhausting myself looking and looking and searching, my goal if possible is to increase my time horizons. But anyway, spreads and losers are just small costs that stack up, but winners pay for that, and spreads don't reduce my winners by 10%. You might think "hey in prop firms they day trade alot" Well here is my answer: A) They are using big money to make money. They are not making 500% on 50k accounts. More like 1 to 20% on hundreds of millions. If you start small and want to grow this does not help. B) They have alot of advantages they pay for (faster connection to exchange, they can negociate costs, prime brokerage, top research/info, etc). C) They are going down under ALL THE TIME. D) Most famous funds with best returns are quants, long term investing, swing/position trading hedge funds. Not day trading prop firms. E) You ever seen a prop trader results? $50,000 net profit. Wooo nice. Gains: 800,000. Losses: 550,000. Commissions & fees: 200,000. Bleuarg. Not counting other costs... Solution ==> 1- Bigger winners. Small winners means that 10% or even more of it can vanish to fees. The bigger, the less impact fees will have on it. 2- Look more for high quality, high odds setups, spend time being a detective doing your research, and then be a sniper 1 bullet 1 kill, not some pleb holding a machine gun over his head and firing at random. 3- Gains won't "compound faster" by reducing time frame. Losses will. Haven't heard of any famous trader that was buying and selling every few hours. Pick a timeframe high enough so that you have time to study setups, get high quality ones once in a while, and spreads don't make much of a difference. You can't grow faster by going in bigger, or more often. Simple maths. Only thing that will improve results, is... tada! Improving. Less is more.
Education
by MrRenev
1
1 reason why institutional money will NEVER go big on PonziCoinWe compare a BTC baggy speculator to a largely diversified fund. We assume risk rewards are the same and on 1 side the BTC baggy takes 2 huge trades over a 2 year period, the diversified fund has 200 positions in total, in bacthes of 10 that are held approximately 10 weeks each. This is quite similar to reality. I also compare the 2 time BTC gambler to a speculator that takes 10 smaller trades instead of 2 huge one, and demonstrate that even this small difference makes a HUGE difference result wise (spoiler: he makes 75 times as much money). 45% to make 125% once/once 100* 0.45 to make 100*1.25 0.45*2.25 = 1,0125 (amazing) For the smart speculator the formula (0.9955^100)*(1.0125^100) is incorrect it assumed every trade is compounded. Let's look at a speculator that holds 10 position at once. Because (1+x)*(1-x) = 1 - x² < 1, and the bigger the loss the harder to comeback (lose 1% only need to make 1.01% - 1% more only to breakeven, lose 50% need to make double that (100% more) to breakeven), I'll affirm without going into too much details that: The best case scenario is in each batch of 10 trades the speculator wins 5 loses 5 The worst case scenario is the speculator loses all trades in 10 batches of 10 in a row & wins 10 of 10 in a row. Best case scenario, he makes 20 times 0.9775*1.0625=1,03859375 (0.45*5=2.25 and 1.25*5=6.25). Note how this is already more than the amazing Bitcoin total returns. 20 times this compounded is => 1,03859375^20 = 2,13. Worst case scenario 10 times 0.955 then 10 times 1.125 => 2,049. The diversified speculator doubled his money. The dumb moon chaser that got "the bull run of his life wow such big % best performing asset" broke even. I just want to bang my head on the wall when I hear "best performing asset". There was a guy on tv that said this. OF COURSE he also smiled like an idiot. OF COURSE he made no sense zero logic. OF COURSE he uttered the incredibly stupid sentence "If I knew how to predict the future I would not be here I would be at the beach". I can compare it to a third, that only takes 10 trades in total in 2 years. Risked 9% each time to make 25%. 0.91^5*1.25^5 = 1,9044. Almost doubled his money. Of course most Bitcoin dumb money is not risking 45% to make 125%, they are risking 100% to make "moon". I wonder what returns they believe can give them (all by the way) 100% back. Oh but of course "it will never happen". They will grow old holding their bags to zero and vanish into oblivion. And let us not forgot that idiotcoin does this: And let us not forget that idiotcoin price action shows INFERIOR setups to what we regularly see elsewhere. I assumed for this that baggycoin had as good risk rewards, but here we can see this is not the case. This is just 1 example but it is always like this... So things are actually even worse... Nice, wait months and months of flat price action for this crap? When there are much better opportunities based on the weekly chart too on a DAILY BASIS? "Uuuuh but price only went up 4% my retardcoin went up 8900%" - Mathematically illeterate simpleton that also has no clue about leverage (if he really wants a one time big number due to mathematical illiteracy). And since all crypto are correlated and alts are unpredictable, no self-respectable fund is going to go more than 1, maybe 2 percent, in crypto. Oh I said self-respectable, not that would be zero percent. I mean the crazy ones. If big money comes in (Soros) it is either small (Rothschilds that are trillionaires put 100k in emmm do BTC baggies know what percentage this is? They probably have more spare cash in their pockets), OR they are in to extract as much money from baggies as fast as they can (Soros broke the bank of england). There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for professionals that want to make money to go in BTC buy&baghodl. They can make more with less risk. They also know this is an unethical ponzi scheme and often have a reputation to protect. But I won't get started on other reasons they will not throw money at retail "believers". One day they will realize that the people pointing & laughing and calling them idiots were not just joking but meant it, and they were not 'just mad they missed out', and it will hurt hard. They are going to fall from so high. It will be like the 6th elements, they will realize they were the suckers all along. I preped my pop corn and I cannot wait. Going to be very amusing.
BITSTAMP:BTCUSDEducation
by MrRenev
5