It’s quite refreshing to see this quoted post, not so much because she is a woman (I’m not s3xist, and openly admit that all women I know are better with money than I am), but more so because it’s now becoming a theme that Fibonacci is a myth and a non profit generating approach here on BP [and other FX forums].
I personally never got the point of finding Fib levels beneficial over that of standard price related S&R levels (although the correlation was certainly apparent).
I guess this is proof that what works for one individual (and what works very well for an individual according to her article) can be the worst approach for other individual traders.
Females who want to do any home based work forex is best for them .Some effort and practice will make them a good trader . Then females will also make money as male can because in forex just skill is count not gender.
I really find no logic behind this. I mean, it is not about MALE or FEMALE, it is about dedication, passion and ability. I wish success for those who have these attributes, I don’t care if it’s a man or women, I just believe the person with ability deserves success no one else. However, Forex in general needs a lot of successful traders because there are far too many losers sacrificing themselves for big players!
Sadly, when it comes to the financial sector (but not only) true meritocracy fails women and ethnically diverse groups because the gender and/or ethnicity they are born with is in itself a barrier EVEN BEFORE their individual merits.
There are tons of articles on this topic, a few of which I have included in this thread, but if you even read something ike this https://www.diversitylink.co.uk/resource262/1.html it would be enough to make you see why there is an argument for engineering change through quotas, as some Scandinavian countries have done. Some people argue that quotas belittle women and/or ethnic groups, as though they were incapable of successfully getting to the top without a helping hand; others feel that until you rely on the goodwill of, say, the financial companies in the FTSE100 to ‘do their bit’ for diversity within their (mostly) white/male boards, then nothing much will be achieved beyond some well-meaning gestures and promises to do more.
The FT brought out a special edition a couple of years ago called ‘S e x and the City’, which investigated the improving but overall still incredibly women-negative environment in London’s financial sector…
We all know that there IS a problem: coming to a solution is the question.
Her website does seem to be built around selling a service, rather than a professional FX trader - just an observation. She even provides American Express cards!!
Probably. Her Linkedin profile says that she is in real estate, so her forex trading is probably a small sideline.
Raman Gill’s curriculum, on the other hand, is much more oriented toward finance and her profile page seems much more detailed (again, you would have to see her P/L).
I very highly doubt that more female traders is going to change macroeconomics so significantly that the bubble/burst aspect diminishes even a little. Traders are no more responsible for bubbles forming than they are for when they burst. Therefore changing the gender makeup of traders is unlikely to make any sort of change to that cycle.
So I have a difficult time believing the premise of the article.