Quote from Clubber Lang:
Why do people keep saying this when it's not true?
If you put up your own capital, 100% payout is industry standard.
what do you mean put up your own capital?
having a few greenbacks as risk is not trading your capital
you are trading your capital + firm capital to get leverage greater than 4:1
True, for b/d's there is a 15% haircut, and if you get 6.7 x 1 your still not trading your own capital b/c your piggybacking on firm status and their deposits to meet net capital.
The only exception to this rule is if you do portfolio margining.
So, if are REALLY trading your own capital with no leverage - then, you are getting 100% because you should have your own separate retail account.
In the case of putting up money and getting leverage, 100% was not an uncommon payout, but definately NOT industry standard (plus which industry are we talking about?).
However, in the wake of REFCO, SEC started scrutinizing "prop" relationships because of people like you thinking that you are trading your own capital, plus getting 100% payout - this smells like... a retail account.
But according to Reg(T) (with the PM exception I noted above), you are subject to max 4:1 intraday leverage. And you cowboys getting 20x1 + (or even 5:1 + for lesser adventurous types) are violating the Reg(T).
But the hammer won't fall on you of course, because, hey you thought this is all cool, and the hammer will fall on the firm -they are in effect enabling you to violate Reg(T).
SO! most competent attorneys have said , to possibly avoid this scenario, why don't we, NOT give 100% payout. This way IT DOESN"T SMELL as bad - so there is some kind of relationship.
While it is TRUE - there is no regulation for this, its a business/compliance/interpretation decision for a firm.
99%? 95% 98% is up to them. What I meant by regulatory - was a regulatory concern.
And as I mentioned in my previous firm, the firm may be using this excuse to make a few extra bucks in the % , which could or could not be the case.
But to say there is no validity to the argument is simply un/or misinformed/