off shore has gotten way too risky.
Prop shop USUALLY produces new costs though (profit split). Who wants to raise their expenses?
Cheaper commissions? IB is cheap enough for me.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
$25,000 minimum for daytrading needs to be changed
- Thread starter Nostradamus357
- Start date
off shore has gotten way too risky.
Prop shop USUALLY produces new costs though (profit split). Who wants to raise their expenses?
Cheaper commissions? IB is cheap enough for me.
Quote from CQNC:
Now that was a convincing retort.
compared to what? Talking about stuff you seem to have zero experience with?
IB is just a fraction more expensive than the firm I was trading through (remote) about 4 years ago. Not to mention, it's handled by a firm that is registered and insured.
Why doesn't the SEC just change the damn rule? It's that simple.
Quote from athlonmank8:
compared to what? Talking about stuff you seem to have zero experience with?
IB is just a fraction more expensive than the firm I was trading through (remote) about 4 years ago. Not to mention, it's handled by a firm that is registered and insured.
Why doesn't the SEC just change the damn rule? It's that simple.
yeah, this conversation is over. go pick a fight with someone who gives a flying fuck about your opinion.
The $25,000 minimum is the 'entrance fee' to daytrade.
Anyone who daytrades is consider to be a professional and competing with the market makers who make a living daytrading.
Just like if you work for bank or financial advisor you have to pay professional data fees.
With brokers, who make money from commissions, banning daytrading for small account under $10,000 means less commissions.
Anyone who daytrades is consider to be a professional and competing with the market makers who make a living daytrading.
Just like if you work for bank or financial advisor you have to pay professional data fees.
With brokers, who make money from commissions, banning daytrading for small account under $10,000 means less commissions.
Quote from Nostradamus357:
I'd like to get a discussion here about the recently passed (2001) legislation restricting those with less than $25,000 from pattern daytrading.
It's in my opinion that an adjustment at the least should be made where a waiver or maybe even a test of sorts could be administered in place of this *all-inclusive* rule.
My argument is based on the fact that these markets can have alot of chop to them which is induced by several reasons including high FT for which the majority comes from prop and other institutional firms. If you ask me, it's almost a perfect circle for proprietary businesses in that I believe it has a great affect on their churn and burn business models. My focus here, however, isn't on hft as there are many reasons for choppy markets, but they do have an influence.
If I place a trade with an intention of holding for a longer period than a day, and the market turns against me, naturally I'm going to want to minimize a loss so I will close out to avoid. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't want to get in again that same day which I will do once it appears settled, but now, I have a *daytrade* racked up on the 5 day period.
With the ultra-low commissions nowadays and the changed landscape from the late 90s, this regulation doesn't protect me as it originally was intended and makes it difficult to trade responsibly.
Does anyone else feel this way, and is there a possibility that this could get amended?
This Rule benefit the House, Broker and encourage fraud from fly-by night prop firm. After all it might have been bought and paid for by the people in the industry.
Where else beside the US where this rule being use? given the structure of the market and PDT rule in the US. Equity Day trader being driven from Equity Market to other more risky venue...Future and Foreign Prop and Exchanges where they have less experience and protection against Fraud.
There are 3 way the Market can move. It doesn't give ____ how much capital you have...so please drop all the BS about the PDT and made the Market a fair place for entry for everyone in the US....The rest of the World seem to believe so...they have no PDT rule.
Cheer!
Where else beside the US where this rule being use? given the structure of the market and PDT rule in the US. Equity Day trader being driven from Equity Market to other more risky venue...Future and Foreign Prop and Exchanges where they have less experience and protection against Fraud.
There are 3 way the Market can move. It doesn't give ____ how much capital you have...so please drop all the BS about the PDT and made the Market a fair place for entry for everyone in the US....The rest of the World seem to believe so...they have no PDT rule.
Cheer!
It's an exchange rule like and descretionary rule.
The decision is made a by few market makers and the SEC has no input to validity of the decision.
That is what happens when the exchange rules are made by a few power groups.
Brokers who make mony solely on commissions lose hence all brokers now do prop trading or trade their own accounts.
All the HFT programs are market maker and broker dealers.
That is what you get when the exchange is controlled by a few major participants or a few market makers. The NYSE or the entire US market is controlled by five players. It's an oligopoly market. Now with DB buying NYSE, the controll of the market is even fewer hands.
$25,000 is peanuts to professionals who make money from the market. but it is the fairness of the rule that is the problem. and the principle of the rule. most retail accounts don't have more than $10,000. Most prop firms only need $5000.
The whole point was to restrict retail accounts from daytrading.
The decision is made a by few market makers and the SEC has no input to validity of the decision.
That is what happens when the exchange rules are made by a few power groups.
Brokers who make mony solely on commissions lose hence all brokers now do prop trading or trade their own accounts.
All the HFT programs are market maker and broker dealers.
That is what you get when the exchange is controlled by a few major participants or a few market makers. The NYSE or the entire US market is controlled by five players. It's an oligopoly market. Now with DB buying NYSE, the controll of the market is even fewer hands.
$25,000 is peanuts to professionals who make money from the market. but it is the fairness of the rule that is the problem. and the principle of the rule. most retail accounts don't have more than $10,000. Most prop firms only need $5000.
The whole point was to restrict retail accounts from daytrading.
Quote from Nostradamus357:
I'd like to get a discussion here about the recently passed (2001) legislation restricting those with less than $25,000 from pattern daytrading.
It's in my opinion that an adjustment at the least should be made where a waiver or maybe even a test of sorts could be administered in place of this *all-inclusive* rule.
My argument is based on the fact that these markets can have alot of chop to them which is induced by several reasons including high FT for which the majority comes from prop and other institutional firms. If you ask me, it's almost a perfect circle for proprietary businesses in that I believe it has a great affect on their churn and burn business models. My focus here, however, isn't on hft as there are many reasons for choppy markets, but they do have an influence.
If I place a trade with an intention of holding for a longer period than a day, and the market turns against me, naturally I'm going to want to minimize a loss so I will close out to avoid. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't want to get in again that same day which I will do once it appears settled, but now, I have a *daytrade* racked up on the 5 day period.
With the ultra-low commissions nowadays and the changed landscape from the late 90s, this regulation doesn't protect me as it originally was intended and makes it difficult to trade responsibly.
Does anyone else feel this way, and is there a possibility that this could get amended?
Quote from Handle123:
I might be wrong, but I think "they" passed this rule cause folks were getting shot inside brokerages. Those who are underfunded tend to be more emotional about losing money and often find out their fantasy of easily going to make profits are a bit tougher than they envisioned. We now live in a world that so many don't have the balls to say it was their own fault as to why they lost and rather blame it on someone else, like the brokerage they were trading at. I think the rule is good, it forces many who shouldn't really be trading as in underfunded to either save up or look to trade in a longer term fashion till they acquire more experience.
My experiences have shown me that underfunded traders often can't purchase data to do backtesting, lack backtesting skills, and have read a couple books and have no real trading skills. I detest hearing so many lose all there money repeatedly cause some vendor sold them a bunch of lies and fantasies.
This is somewhat correct. I was daytrading stocks back before the PDT rule was being "enforced". There have always been restrictions against daytrading stocks, but brokerages never enforced them. My broker, Scottrade, was fined $800K for not enforcing the PDT rule.
Both the SEC and NASD were receiving mountains of complaints via email about being ripped off in one fashion or another from newbs who were daytrading. This was a big factor in writing the new rule and actually enforcing it on the brokers. If you were a government beauracrat you would get sick of recieving the same whiny emails hour after hour each day from pikers complaining that market makers were manipulating stocks and ripping them off. A friend of mine at the time who was a newb actually sent charts of Micron Technology to the SEC several times pointing out some imagined intraday pattern that "proved" "market makers" were manipulating the stock. MU was an NYSE stock and traded under the specialist system back in that day. It was that kind of moronic behavior that pushed regulators to clamp down.
And yeah, the shootings didn't help either.....