Well I'm glad I don't live around that area. 200k a year, man that's what I call high end. I'm originally from Australia and yes it gets expensive in cities and a 100k combined income minimum for a couple is getting by. But to need to have 200k a year coming in man Mike you're living large. You must be VIPing it at those Yankee games
LOL. Dude, u better hope Joel doesn't get on your case.
Let me tell you how to get your account to 50k fast:
Start with 100k + "I'm gonna be a flippin' millionaire in a year baby" = 50k account really soon.
There are two big problems that I see when people start talking about 'Can I trade for a living on $x?!'.
Firstly, their trading return estimations are dodgy. They just assume they can trade with some astronomical return (6% a month -> 101% pa) with zero variance. Sure, *some* people can make 100% pa *some* years. But not many do it consistently. And even fewer do it consistently in retail spot forex, with its massive leverage and ridiculous trading costs.
If you dont have a solid dataset of your trading with your mean return and standard deviation, then you probably shouldnt be trading for a living, since you are essentially flying blind. Can you survive with a -2 SD month? Even the best traders have these, often. How about a -3sd year? How much can you lose before your account size becomes untradeable for your circumstances?
Secondly, they completely screw up the expense side of the equation too. They forget or seriously underestimate the impact of taxes. They lowball their expenses. They dont even know what inflation is, let alone how it affects their returns and future needs. They dont allow for emergency funds. What about superannuation? Or the hospital when your (inevitably hot) wife gets herself pregnant? Kids college tuition? And they almost never allow a margin for their account to grow at a sufficient rate after all these expenses to shelter them from variability in their income stream. Lose 50% of your account one year, you need 100% the next year just to break even.
People just wanna rush into things and quit their job, but they rarely have enough experience are almost ALWAYS undercapitalised. Amatuer traders, especially tech daytraders, are almost always severely undercapitalised.
Dont get me wrong, I see the appeal - no more 14 hour days, no more sitting on the train with a bunch of people that dont shower, no more 3 peice suits in summer, no more bosses yelling at you in both ears, no more stupid procedures that you mustnt question. Those are all pretty tempting. Oh, and you dont have to wear pants. That's a big plus too.
But, imo (though I think I am unconsciously stealing this from something I read from Fiji), those are all symptoms of having a rubbish job, or one that doesnt suit you personally. Trading for a living shouldnt be 'an escape'. You should really only do it because it is what you really want to do. I dont know if I am making much sense here, but most people I talk to who want to 'trade the markets' are running away from a bad job, not running towards their dream job (which is trading). Otherwise, you are just leaving one job for another, riskier, one.
The short version? If you are asking in internet forum if you, personally, can trade for a living... then you cant.
*edit* No one 'trades' fundamentals, in the true sense, in the short term. The transition from voting machine -> weighing machine is erratic and often lengthy. Most of what people think are 'fundies' are really just newstrading. Usually uninformed newstrading, since the news was incorporated into price long before you got it.
When you have to shoot, shoot. Dont talk.
