James Mitchell

I earned a Master's degree in Finance from a European business school, which sounds more impressive on paper than it felt in practice. The degree gave me the vocabulary (derivatives pricing, portfolio theory, the efficient-market stuff) but not the scars. The scars came later, from the first two years of retail forex, when I lost a meaningful chunk of my savings learning things that no lecturer had bothered to mention: position sizing, the psychology of a losing streak, and how much of what passes for "analysis" online is downstream of someone's affiliate revenue.

Since then I've spent roughly a decade trading forex and CFD markets. The bulk of that has been on my own capital; a smaller portion through prop-funded accounts at the firms most beginners have heard of. I'm not a celebrity trader, I don't post equity screenshots, and I won't sell you a course. I write here because the education I wish I'd had in 2016 didn't exist, and the closest thing (paid courses with $500 price tags and testimonials I couldn't verify) felt predatory.

Three things show up repeatedly in what I publish on Trading Guide:

• The gap between broker marketing and broker T&Cs. The homepage says "low spreads and fast execution." Paragraph 14 of the client agreement says something materially different. I read the paragraph 14 so you don't have to, and I quote it verbatim.
• Country-by-country regulatory reality. "Is forex legal in India" is not the same question as "is your offshore broker legal in India". I care about the distinction because the ambiguity is what gets retail traders into trouble with their own tax authorities.
• Risk management math, not vibes. The 1% rule isn't folklore; it's the output of a specific drawdown calculation. When I teach position sizing, I show the math, not a motivational quote about discipline.

What I don't cover, deliberately: day-trading signals, "secret" strategies, the latest viral indicator, and anything involving a Telegram group. Not because those don't generate clicks (they do), but because they don't match the editorial stance of this site.

Here is the honest workflow behind every piece I publish. I don't pretend to work in 2019. Modern writing involves AI tools, and Trading Guide uses them openly.

Where AI helps:

• Synthesising research: pulling regulator disclosures, organising data points, building a first structural outline from primary sources faster than I could by hand.
• First drafts: once the research is compiled, I often use AI to get a rough structural draft down, so I can start editing rather than staring at a blank page.
• Translations: the site publishes in Vietnamese, Thai, Indonesian, and Turkish. Those are AI-translated from the English original, then reviewed for the key technical terms (regulator names, rates, numbers, broker references) before shipping.
• Spell-check and grammar cleanup, same as any modern writing workflow.
• Illustrations: Winston, hero images, infographics are AI-generated.

Where I stay in control:

• I type at the keyboard. Paragraphs get rewritten in my voice, restructured, or cut entirely. The draft that ships is not the draft the AI produced.
• I fact-check every citation by hand against the original regulator document or broker disclosure. If I cannot verify it, I cut it.
• I let the draft sit at least 24 hours. The sharpest edits come from reading it the next morning.
• I approve or spike every draft. Opinions, broker judgements, and the interpretation of regulatory text are mine, not the AI's.
• Corrections are public. If you spot a mistake, the article gets updated with a note, and the "updated" date moves.

AI is not used to fabricate citations, invent credentials, or simulate expertise I don't have. If a number is cited, I verified it. If a credential is claimed, it's true of me.

If you find a mistake or a stale fact, email the editorial desk. I'd rather be visibly wrong and visibly fixed than quietly wrong.

Honest answer: it's a mix of legitimate financial infrastructure and a long tail of borderline-predatory marketing. The regulated brokers in tier-1 jurisdictions (FCA, ASIC, BaFin, FINMA, CFTC) generally operate within sensible boundaries. The offshore tier (Vanuatu, Seychelles, SVG, some Caribbean jurisdictions) is where most of the complaints I read come from. That doesn't mean every offshore broker is a scam, but it does mean the protective scaffolding you expect in tier-1 markets is largely absent.

The retail loss statistics are brutal and remarkably consistent across jurisdictions: 70-80% of retail clients lose money on CFD trading, according to disclosures that FCA- and ESMA-regulated brokers are legally required to publish. I take those numbers seriously. You should too, not as a reason to quit before starting, but as a reality filter on every "easy money" pitch you'll encounter.

My stance on prop firms is nuanced. They're genuinely useful for traders who can already demonstrate consistency on a small account and who want scaled capital without leveraging personal savings. They're a trap for traders who haven't yet done the work on their own, because the evaluation fee structure rewards the firm regardless of whether you pass. If you're considering one, the question to answer first is whether you'd be profitable on your own capital. If not, paying $300 for an evaluation won't fix that.