firms with best intraday buying power to Money up ratio?

[Maverick74]

Don,

Have you ever heard of a prop firm "pretending" to hire anyone? Mo on one of the other threads seems to throw out this accusation repeatedly that there are prop firms out there that pretend (whatever that means) to hire someone.

I really have no clue what this means. I have worked for firms before where I sit down with head of human resources and the head of trading going over my employment contract which consists of salary, bonus, benefits, etc, that all goes along with someone being "hired". It was pretty straightforward.

When I went to trade for a prop firm, there was none of that. It was very obvious that I was trading my own capital and that I was not being "hired" to work for them. Am I the only person on this board that is smart enough to know if I'm actually being "hired" for a job vs joining a firm? I can't be right Don? What the hell is Mo talking about? Don, can you please shed some light on this for me. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[FXTraderWill]

Quote from Maverick74:

Don,

Have you ever heard of a prop firm "pretending" to hire anyone? Mo on one of the other threads seems to throw out this accusation repeatedly that there are prop firms out there that pretend (whatever that means) to hire someone.

I really have no clue what this means. I have worked for firms before where I sit down with head of human resources and the head of trading going over my employment contract which consists of salary, bonus, benefits, etc, that all goes along with someone being "hired". It was pretty straightforward.

When I went to trade for a prop firm, there was none of that. It was very obvious that I was trading my own capital and that I was not being "hired" to work for them. Am I the only person on this board that is smart enough to know if I'm actually being "hired" for a job vs joining a firm? I can't be right Don? What the hell is Mo talking about? Don, can you please shed some light on this for me. Maybe I'm missing something.

These guys are hiring.

http://lynxtrading.com.

You just need to put down $5k.

HLV is, too.

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from FXTraderWill:

These guys are hiring.

http://lynxtrading.com.

You just need to put down $5k.

HLV is, too.

OK, I looked all over that site and I can't find anything on that web page where it says they hire you. Did I miss it? I mean I went to college and everything and I have been on many many interviews so I'm very familiar with the process of interviewing for jobs, submitting resumes, and actually getting "hired". Can you please point me to the part where it says they will actually "hire" you? Thanks.

 

[Hydroblunt]

Quote from Maverick74:

OK, I looked all over that site and I can't find anything on that web page where it says they hire you. Did I miss it? I mean I went to college and everything and I have been on many many interviews so I'm very familiar with the process of interviewing for jobs, submitting resumes, and actually getting "hired". Can you please point me to the part where it says they will actually "hire" you? Thanks.

http://www.lynxtrading.com/b_employment.html

Dude come on. It says "Employment" in big bold letters.

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from Hydroblunt:

http://www.lynxtrading.com/b_employment.html

Dude come on. It says "Employment" in big bold letters.

Yes, I saw that and that is misleading for sure. But obviously people are "employed" there. I mean I'm sure there are girls that are secretaries there, risk managers, administrative people that actually are "employed". I just don't see the part where it says they "hire" traders. I'm not defending them, don't get me wrong. They should have a separate page like most trading firms do for guys that actually are on salary like IT people, back office, etc. Then have another link for traders. To that we agree. But unless you have never worked for somebody ever in your entire life, I still don't see the part where it says they actually hire you, pay you a salary, benefits, etc. I see none of that. So yes, I would for a second be confused by that employment link, but anyone with an IQ over 50 would realize, or should realize that this is not a salary job. Correct?

 

[Hydroblunt]

Quote from Don Bright:

For the most part, and please correct me if I'm wrong, pairs strategies that our people take part in do tend to be a bit capital intensive, and most firms, regulated or not, don't have the money to allow these strategies.

Yes, the way you guys do it, it does require capital and often several day holds, if not longer. Some of the pairs are very thick and require SIZE to be worthwhile. Most other firms are not geared toward this, while Bright is. Some guys with the capital and track records can get the special arrangements from almost any firm but not most.

But it's not the only way to trade this concept, it's not even necessary to play pairs but still use the same concepts of mean reversion, correllation and RV. Sometimes it's the commission rate that is more relevant rather than the Buying Power. Depends, like the saying goes, more than one way to skin a cat.

As for whether the firm is "a licensed contractor" or not, makes no difference in terms of reliability or reputation. More than enough examples of both types doing the shady deeds. From my viewpoint, being NASD licensed brings no advantages, only extra costs & regulations. If the unlicensed one can give me the same deal as the licensed one, there is absolutely no reason for me to choose the latter. It's about the relationship with the LLC and the whole deal. The NASD licensed part is checkmark in the minus box not the plus box.

 

[Don Bright]

Quote from Maverick74:

Don,

Have you ever heard of a prop firm "pretending" to hire anyone? Mo on one of the other threads seems to throw out this accusation repeatedly that there are prop firms out there that pretend (whatever that means) to hire someone.

I really have no clue what this means. I have worked for firms before where I sit down with head of human resources and the head of trading going over my employment contract which consists of salary, bonus, benefits, etc, that all goes along with someone being "hired". It was pretty straightforward.

When I went to trade for a prop firm, there was none of that. It was very obvious that I was trading my own capital and that I was not being "hired" to work for them. Am I the only person on this board that is smart enough to know if I'm actually being "hired" for a job vs joining a firm? I can't be right Don? What the hell is Mo talking about? Don, can you please shed some light on this for me. Maybe I'm missing something.

LOL, it seem that I am typing very similar responses on various threads.....LOL.

"Back in the day" my brother and I (after buy seats on the exchanges) thought it was pretty cool that we could put up a small amount of risk capital ($20K or so), and then "use" (vs. abuse), what is now, Goldman Sachs money to trade with. This allowed us to engage in strategies that actuall work(ed) vs. the more "gambling" strategies of picking "stocks" or "direction" --- this worked very well for us, and we duplicated that business model back in 1992...and now have hundreds of traders who benefit from this...without having to buy seats or anything.

"We have no trader/employees" - we have independent traders who are able to use our capital, take advantage of our exchange/clearing firm long term relationships...and keep 100% of their profits.....

I have never "hired" a trader....heck, why would a good trader want to give away his profits to someone for the mere lack of putting up a few bucks? It's not like the money put up is "gone" or a franchise fee or anything...it still belongs to the trader, still his/her money, still collecting interest.

To be fair, there probably are firms that make false claims of "hiring" people...but, as far as I know, the top firms make no such claim.

I like all the debate....but at some point a simple phone call to me or Mav might help explain things a bit better...answer questions, etc. 702.739.1393 - tell me you've been reading these ET threads.

All the best,

Don

 

[Don Bright]

Quote from Hydroblunt:

Yes, the way you guys do it, it does require capital and often several day holds, if not longer. Some of the pairs are very thick and require SIZE to be worthwhile. Most other firms are not geared toward this, while Bright is. Some guys with the capital and track records can get the special arrangements from almost any firm but not most.

But it's not the only way to trade this concept, it's not even necessary to play pairs but still use the same concepts of mean reversion, correllation and RV. Sometimes it's the commission rate that is more relevant rather than the Buying Power. Depends, like the saying goes, more than one way to skin a cat.

As for whether the firm is "a licensed contractor" or not, makes no difference in terms of reliability or reputation. More than enough examples of both types doing the shady deeds. From my viewpoint, being NASD licensed brings no advantages, only extra costs & regulations. If the unlicensed one can give me the same deal as the licensed one, there is absolutely no reason for me to choose the latter. It's about the relationship with the LLC and the whole deal. The NASD licensed part is checkmark in the minus box not the plus box.

I always make room for the rare exception. If you have someone who allows you to use $millions of their capital, let's you take money out whenever you like, gives you 100% payout, has a great clearing firm with nearly unlimited short stock availability, exempts you from FICA and taxes you on the "triple net" - and can do all this without you needing to take a test (or them being registered)...then, I agree, you have a good relationship.

As far as being "geared" for this, we have traders who simply daytrade, but the availability of capital just gives them more opportunity if they choose to use it.

BT doesn't claim to be the "only" firms with all the marbles, just, perhaps, one of the the most recognizable and secure.

All the best,

Don

 

[executioner]

Don.
your traders profits are their profits correct? and you pay them when they request it cotrrect? why are some people on this forum so negative towards that practice? if you were a mechanic would you want to be paid once per month? traders should be paid at least twice per month...

 

[Don Bright]

Quote from executioner:

Don.
your traders profits are their profits correct? and you pay them when they request it cotrrect? why are some people on this forum so negative towards that practice? if you were a mechanic would you want to be paid once per month? traders should be paid at least twice per month...

Think of it this way....if you owned the "mechanics" garage, and you needed/wanted money twice a week, wouldn't you just ask your accountant to write you a check?

Our traders are businesspeople, running their own business within our framework. If you owned a McDonald's franchise, then you would take money whenvever you wanted, as long as you kept MickyD happy.

Our traders don't "get paid" - they simply ask for a withdrawal, just like you might do at the ATM...if the money's there, it's your money, you take it out as needed (knowing full well that if you leave it in, you are getting interest).

So, yes, I think you have it correct.

Don