By the way Don, I appreciate it. Some belligerent traders here seem to like to have a prominent target to criticize, but as a remote trader with a small group outside of communications with management and other traders, I don't get information like this or other exchange/trading news as easily.
Due diligence, why? Here's why!
- Thread starter Don Bright
- Start date
By the way Don, I appreciate it. Some belligerent traders here seem to like to have a prominent target to criticize, but as a remote trader with a small group outside of communications with management and other traders, I don't get information like this or other exchange/trading news as easily.
Thanks a lot, I really appreciate hearing from some of the "good guys" here on the board.
All the best,
Don
IF the link of the previous poster is accurate, then the firm in question is a hedge fund and does not operate in the same mileau as the Brights, Echos,etc. I don't quite understand the association.
That would be Mark Conway, the coauthor, with his HF partner, of Professional Stock Trading: System Design and Automation. I once found it a very nice resource for specific ideas as well as code, even if you're not into Tradestation.
Sorry for the confusion. Apex is correct, that was trading system author (and ET poster) Conway.
That judgment has nothing to do (AFAIK) with the trading firm Don is talking about. I just posted it because I saw it on the SEC litigation page and thought it might be of interest to ETers.
Good luck to all.
Not hedge fund.....XXXXtrading.
Don't want to get into legal wrangling, I'm just pointing out that everyone should do their due diligence.
Don
Quote from dandxg:
Don,
I don't understand why you won't say if it it is a prop firm or not? You didn't even acknowledge my question? I understand not giving out names, but this a bit much.
Dan
Yes, prop firm....sorry, missed the question I guess.
Don
was perusing this site and came across
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2006/34-54481.pdf
"On July 26, 2002, CBOE issued a Statement of Charges against Ho, in which CBOE alleged that, on numerous dates from June 1999 to October 2001, Ho âengaged in an on-going course of verbal and physical conduct intended to harass, threaten and intimidateâ members of his trading crowd and that he subsequently threatened a member of the trading crowd who had provided testimony against Ho during CBOEâs investigation. Represented by counsel, Ho submitted an offer to settle the charges against him, which CBOE formally accepted in a decision issued on October 21, 2003 (â2003 decisionâ). According to the terms of the settlement agreement, Ho neither admitted nor denied the allegations against him but accepted sanctions for his conduct that included a censure, a $15,000 fine, completion of an anger-management program, abstention from service on any CBOE committee for one year, and an eight-week suspension."
holy schneikies--- i heard there was a lynchmob over there?