<p>
[quote]
you know what's more perculiar is that females are better traders than males
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I haven't seen any studies done which point to this direction. The fact that there is just one female trader on the list actually refutes this statement (trading skill is directly proportional to earnings).</p>
<p>I do not believe there is any direct relationship between trading prowess and gender. However, there are definitely parallels between psychological makeup and trading skill. </p>
<p>I suggest taking a look at the Market Wizards series. Several of the biggest traders/HF managers nowdays were interviewed in the 80s and it talks about their psychological makeup, war stories etc. They are still trading today so rest assured several of the names on that list will also be trading 10-15 years in the future (unless they blow up).</p>
<p>dfca, what I read was that females were better traders than males due to a larger temperance, less arrogance, more patience, etc. Some of you are going to going to jump on me for this, but the reason I still remember it so well is because it was also so suprising. However, this certain area of Business has always been a male-dominated area and is now largely changing to a more equal ratio. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact that there is just one female trader on the list actually refutes this statement
[/quote]
Yes, that's why I said it was perculiar. </p>
<p>--</p>
<p>I'm wondering if those trading on the list will stay on primarily because they like it or just the lure of money.</p>
<p>Right. That's why across the board in Business females have begun to even out the percentage. Am I saying it's equal now? Far from it. It's happening though. With B-Schools attempting to accept more females, this is just a scenario that is going to occur.</p>
<p>Okay, I have come to the conclusion that trading depends tremendously upon one's mathematical aptitude. It has been proven in studies that while women are generally smarter than men, there is greater variation in male intelligence and mathematical aptitude, hence that is why the BEST and SMARTEST mathematicians are males. Thus, I believe that the very best traders out there will always have a higher male representation than female.</p>
<p>I agree that mathematical aptitude is a huge issue upon trading, but psychologically, do females have an advantage with higher patience? The question is, is the slanted ratio of males/females in trading due to past prejudice that females can't do trade well or is it due to the fact that females really can't trade well? </p>
<p>I've seen the studies where it declares males are inherently better than females at math, however, with the ever increasing ratio of females/males in colleges, the percentage of females/males are shifting in EVERY white-collar work force.</p>
I've seen the studies where it declares males are inherently better than females at math, however, with the ever increasing ratio of females/males in colleges, the percentage of females/males are shifting in EVERY white-collar work force.
[/quote]
Look, it doesn't matter if there are more women than men in colleges. If you're goal is to become a trader, then you need to be the best of the best.</p>
<p>In other words, you don't give a crap about being in the 95th, 96th percentile....because the work and effort you pay to become a trader isn't measured by percentiles. It's measured by rank. Are you number one...or are you number two (first loser).</p>
<p>You're not concerned with ratios of women to men....you're only concerned with being the winner.</p>
<p>Look. None of us here are even traders. As I stated in posts, I have absolute no interest in being a trader. I'm more curious about the statistics and of certain traits that are occuring.</p>
<p>As I've stated I'm wondering how this list will change in years to come, how if and or may females will begin to be seen into this list. I'm not pursuring a feminist point of view; rather pursuing a curiousty I have about the change in years to come.</p>
<p>I have to agree with polo on this one. Its simply a matter of being better. The styles are also very different. Your discretionary trader will have a different style and makeup than your quantitative one.</p>
<p>If you trade equity/cash bonds, equity derivatives, the skills you need will be fast arithmetic in your head and good discipline. Honestly, there is no major that gives you that and it's just learn through sitting down and working on it. If you're concerned about getting to "Wall St." sit down and start trading stocks/FX. Play around on a demo account for a bit, but realize that a demo is -nothing- like real trading. Once you actually watch a real P&L your emotions kick in and mastering that is good trading discipline. Of course, if you could always just program your whole system out... but mine is too discretionary. Based on economic releases, market pulse, etc.</p>
<p>Anyway, if you want to trade OTC derivatives/exotics you need a strong mathematical background or you wont even understand the dynamics of your trade.</p>
<p>With equity derivs> Depends on the complexity of the position being put on. Spreads can be as complex or as simple as you want to make them. </p>
<p>I do agree though, I have been trading equities, FX, some options for a while and you really do get to understand what a position of a trader entails. If you put some of your own money down then you understand what sort of a risk appetite you have and whether being a professional risk taker is for you or not (a trader). </p>
<p>I took a look at that Columbia program. What sort of requirements is needed to enter that program? Did they release a curriculum yet (I know they announced it pretty recently)?</p>
<p>The major is similar to the operations research major with "Intro to FE", "Pricing Models for FE", "Applications Programming for FE", "Applied FE", along with two electives thrown in. It looks like a real solid program, the only other one of which I know of being at Princeton, which I can't transfer to. </p>
<p>If you look at the application, it isn't too formal and I think that given good grades in my first year (I'm transfering one), and my experience with proprietary technical indicators should make me their ideal candidate - someone who has a demonstrated skill and interest in the discipline. But it doesn't look too selective, just that they want to filter people who they know can handle it. </p>
<p>Yea, risk really is the killer. The key is to think about everything as chips, or in my case, pips. :)</p>
<p>You did that all by yourself. I could care less, but only a little. I merely alluded to the truth at the core of non-personal pronouns and what they stand for.</p>