Day trader claims $25k-$30k profit without proof

Earning up to $30,000 day trading stocks: a story nobody believes

Living off daily market activity is possible. The user who started this thread in March 2016 states it plainly: four years dedicated to this since age 19, nine months without income until hitting $2,000 in a single month, and between $25,000 and $30,000 in profit year-to-date. A screenshot of the day's trades accompanies the message, with company names redacted. No one verifies it. No one can.

From there come the inevitable questions—broker, training, capital per trade—and soon, the standard accusation: this is just a pitch to sell a course.

How much capital is needed and which broker is used

The profile described is that of a trader contracted by a foreign investment fund: moving other people's money for a percentage. The tool is Sterling Trader Pro, a platform they learned via a short course and then practiced on independently. Stocks only: cash, no leveraged products, futures, or warrants.

The figures involved are substantial. They claim a buying power of up to $2,000,000, though they insist they never use that amount in a single trade: typical positions range from $50,000 to $200,000. They clarify they don't look at dollar exposure, but share count.

According to their own account, the method has no mystery: being in front of the market every day until familiarizing oneself with it and polishing errors. That learning phase cost nine months without income. This part is rarely disputed. The rest is.

The side business: alerts, blog, and trading signals

Shortly after, another user appears claiming to live off trading as well. Their territory is different: indices, commodities, and forex, two years of full-time dedication, and a commission model based on low spreads. On their website, they sell an alert service, though they insist that isn't the business: the fee is, according to them, symbolic, and the real goal is networking with industry enthusiasts.

That detail triggers distrust. It suffices for someone to announce a signal service for the conversation to shift toward an argument repeated by several forum users: anyone with a truly winning strategy doesn't need to sell courses or signals, because with available leverage they would multiply capital without extra effort. The accused responds that they make a living trading and won't give explanations. They add that those who lose money buying IBEX stocks resort to envy as a national sport.

The test nobody performs: live trading

The proposal floating throughout the exchange is simple: stream a session. The initiator offers to do it via streaming, comparing it to video game broadcasts, so orders can be seen placed in real time. The other trader is suggested a webinar but replies they don't know how that format works and prefer being read on their blog. The live demonstration never materializes.

Can you profit buying stocks during an IBEX down year?

The most debated claim: anyone who bought stocks three months ago couldn't possibly have made money, because the start of the year was red, especially in the IBEX (Spain's main stock index). It sounds solid but collapses due to an obvious flaw. One thing is buy-and-hold, quite another is opening and closing positions on the same day.

Some concede the nuance and rephrase: impossible, no; inefficient, yes. Others remind us that markets also move downward, that short selling exists, along with distribution and consolidation phases, and ignoring them doesn't invalidate those who use them. When the discussion stalls, someone proposes the FINRA Series 7 exam as the minimum qualification any self-proclaimed professional should hold. They state it's not advertising and they have no relationship with the entity.

Why spelling ends up being a market argument

In parallel runs a less financial and more acerbic front: writing style. Users ask, with sarcasm, why almost everyone claiming to do this writes as if the keyboard owed them money. From there jumps to a debatable but inevitable thesis: someone not rigorous enough to order four sentences won't be rigorous managing risk. One doesn't imply the other. Suspicion, in a field where everyone boasts results, isn't innocent either.

---

After several uncomfortable replies, the original poster leaves: they claim private messages advised them not to waste time and that the show stops here. Another user who says they live off trading stays, defending their blog and social media against requests for live proof. No one shows a track record with names and dates, which is the only thing that would close the debate. Without that, the next person appearing with a results screenshot will likely get the same reception: two questions, plenty of curiosity, and the standard suspicion. Though occasionally, and this is the uncomfortable part, someone tells the truth.