Fernando Chague, Rodrigo De-Losso and Bruno Giovannetti obtained Brazilian regulator records covering 19,646 individuals who began day trading mini-Ibovespa index futures between 2013 and 2015, and followed them through 2017.
Of those, 1,551 persisted for more than 300 trading days, being about 7.9 percent.
Of that persistent group, 97 percent lost money net of fees. Only 1.1 percent earned more than the Brazilian minimum wage and only 0.5 percent earned more than the starting salary of a bank teller.
The authors found no evidence of learning by day trading.
Now the finding.
The paper's question is its title, and the question is an intent rather than a technique.
It was tested directly on a population of people who held it, and the answer for 97 percent of those who pursued it hardest was no.
Stating your intent matters because the curriculum can serve most of them well and can only be honest about that one.
This takes about fifteen minutes and produces one sentence. Per O100-01 the diagnostic established what you know, and this establishes what it is for.
Write it without the word money
Because money is the unit rather than the goal, and per part one below the sentence is only useful if it names something you want to be able to do.
Some intents this curriculum serves directly. Holding assets without losing them to a mistake. Understanding what you already own. Not being defrauded again. Building something. Assessing a product before using it. Being able to read a claim.
Some it serves partially. Trading a system with an edge, which per R405 requires validation most people never perform, and per R408-05 an honest hourly rate.
And one it will argue with, per the autopsy: replacing employment income with trading. Per P6 the argument is the study rather than an opinion.
Part one: the population.
19,646 people began. 1,551 persisted beyond 300 trading days:
1,551 / 19,646 = about 7.9 percent even reached that point
Part two: the outcomes among those who did.
97 percent lost money net of fees.
Above the Brazilian minimum wage: 1.1 percent. Above a bank teller's starting salary: 0.5 percent.
Part three: what persistence bought.
The authors found no evidence of learning. Per the autopsy the variable tested was persistence itself, and it did not predict improvement.
Which is the part that matters for an intent. Per O100-05 the plan of trading until it works is the plan that was measured, and per part two the measurement is available before you make it.
Part four: what to write.
One sentence. What you want to be able to do. No figure attached.
Per O100-05 this is compared against what you actually did at every gate, and per R405-01's pre-registration a sentence written now is the only version that has not been fitted to a result.
Fifteen minutes, one sentence, and it is the input to every later review.
Name the capability rather than the outcome. Not what you want to have, but what you want to be able to do without help.
Then check it against the paths. Per the section above, most intents map to a route through this curriculum that is shorter than the whole thing.
And if your intent is the one in the autopsy, keep it and read the number. Per P10 this curriculum does not tell anybody what to want. Per part two it tells you that 1.1 percent of the people who pursued that intent hardest cleared a minimum wage, and that persistence alone did not change it.
Per part four the sentence goes into your record, and per O100-05 the honest brief you read next is the same information at a wider scope.
My intent is obvious, so writing it down is a formality.
It is obvious now and per part four the comparison happens later, when it will not be.
What is true. Most people can state their reason in a sentence immediately, and per the section above the mapping to a path is usually quick.
Why it is written. Per R405-01's pre-registration argument, a reason recalled after an outcome is shaped by the outcome. A sentence stored now is the only version that is not.
And intents drift. Per O100-05 somebody who arrived to stop being defrauded and is now sizing leveraged positions has changed intent without deciding to, which is only visible against the original.
So per P6 the accurate framing: writing it costs a minute and is the only way a later review has anything to compare against. Per the callout, name a capability rather than an outcome.
State what you are here for in one sentence, without the word money, naming a capability rather than an outcome. Most intents this curriculum serves directly: holding assets safely, understanding what you already own, not being defrauded again, building something, or being able to read a claim. One it argues with, because that one was tested directly: of 19,646 people who began day trading, only about 7.9 percent persisted beyond 300 trading days, 97 percent of those lost money net of fees, 1.1 percent earned more than the minimum wage, 0.5 percent more than a bank teller's starting salary, and the authors found no evidence of learning from persistence. That does not tell you what to want. It tells you what was measured before you decide. Write the sentence now, because a later review compares what you did against what you said, and a reason recalled afterwards has been shaped by the outcome.