Bright Trading's new payout model
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
- Status
Okay are you retarded, I can't believe i'm replying to this jibberish...the class B and JVC (call it A), are completely independent from eachother. Obviously bright wants to have the trader trade the B while in jvc so that they can earn income from commissions and haircuts, etc., but the point of the jvc (which also earns income through commissions and capital charges) is to facilitate the structure for traders that weren't making any money.
For traders that were, it's another style or 'profit centre' for those willing to take the time and effort into doing it, but if they lose money or make money they can continue to trade their class B like they always have...So why does bright require a deposit? Well jesus christ if you allowed anybody into this program, there would be even less incentive to do well and the losses would really pile up. I hope that clears it and we can move on, this has been discussed ad nauseum.
Quite the opposite - we merely want to know if they qualify to learn the program, the automation, the homework and interaction required...just like any other partner in a business would do. We are allowing entry into our World of successful trading, and want this to be beneficial for everyone. They can keep all their "normal" trading in the other account.
You're trading a "normal account" - you then qualify for a zero downside risk account based on our what our top people are doing...those same people help you learn the program, you will the (hopefully) learn enough to both make money in JVC account, but use this training to make money in your "normal" account - which is already happening.
Don
I was comparing a 100% payout / 2.00 or 3.00 per 1000 model to a 80% payout / 0.20 per 1000 model. Not Bright in particular. The trader has a choice between the two models (and perhaps additional models) by virtue of the choice of trading firm that he makes.
That makes it even worse for the 100% payout / higher commish model.
That has to do with some of my analysis. I still think that 90% of these traders getting better rates with retail would still be much better off with a firm that offers 80% and 0.20/1000, as shown in the break-even point calculation.
So I guess I found another angle here. According to this link, from the first 10k made, 2k goes to the software developers. Then another 50% goes to Bob. I don't see anything wrong with this per se. You basically are looking for a way to monetize your software and give a kickback to the developers. I suspect before you were giving them some kind of cut on the commissions but with rates having to be lowered you needed to find a new way to pay them. Hence the JVC program.
http://www.stocktrading.com/jvc.html
"When account reaches $10,000 positive, $2,000 will go to program developers, and the other will be split 50/50 between trader and Bob."
http://www.stocktrading.com/jvc.html
"When account reaches $10,000 positive, $2,000 will go to program developers, and the other will be split 50/50 between trader and Bob."
Do you expect the programmers to work for free?
The JVC program is really simple. There is a very successful stat arb group within Bright. Bob will back its traders who follow this strategy. You can only trade minimum size in the beginning limiting Brights risk. If you make money they will let you increase your size. If you don't you are shown the door.
I really don't understand why this is so hard for people believe.
I got started in this business with a similar arangement in 2000 except my commisions never went down while bright brings theirs down to cost incrementally.
- Status