thanks for the replies (Gene, Bro59, etc)
Gene, I concur, should a trader not last 12months, then perhaps, regrettably, the stars were not lined up, just so, or the ability and the Bull weren't running in the same parade of Roses ...
(I thought I was clear in stating that my complaint applies to ..)
Months 13 - Infinity, should the LLC member need to deposit additional principal, then those "subsequent" funds (not the initial principal deposit done during months 1 - 12), those subsequent funds would be aged, yet again, another 12 months. Hence each additional set of funds deposited would have a 12 month string following it.
I can't see how that statement could be confused with the initial 12 month deposit issue.
I, as well as any other licensed broker, should be responsible enough, and check with the Phlx and/or the SEC for this specific ruling in writing, and see the wording for themselves. Surprisingly, the SEC only confirmed the initial 12 months issue; the Phlx confirmed the SEC and further clarified, that should the actual house / firm further bind the contract in more restrictive wording, then cavet emptor (if that's the right spelling)...
Hence, my original and subsequent complaint stands on its initial face value. Traders / LLC members beware of your contracts both presently and future ones....
Gene, thanks for the additional coments, and I'm sure that we'll meet in the future...
Gene, I concur, should a trader not last 12months, then perhaps, regrettably, the stars were not lined up, just so, or the ability and the Bull weren't running in the same parade of Roses ...
(I thought I was clear in stating that my complaint applies to ..)
Months 13 - Infinity, should the LLC member need to deposit additional principal, then those "subsequent" funds (not the initial principal deposit done during months 1 - 12), those subsequent funds would be aged, yet again, another 12 months. Hence each additional set of funds deposited would have a 12 month string following it.
I can't see how that statement could be confused with the initial 12 month deposit issue.
I, as well as any other licensed broker, should be responsible enough, and check with the Phlx and/or the SEC for this specific ruling in writing, and see the wording for themselves. Surprisingly, the SEC only confirmed the initial 12 months issue; the Phlx confirmed the SEC and further clarified, that should the actual house / firm further bind the contract in more restrictive wording, then cavet emptor (if that's the right spelling)...
Hence, my original and subsequent complaint stands on its initial face value. Traders / LLC members beware of your contracts both presently and future ones....
Gene, thanks for the additional coments, and I'm sure that we'll meet in the future...
