former Tuco traders
- Thread starter ab443
- Start date
Read it again, I did not say I think Don is happy about the Series 7 requirement, I said I think he'll agree that since it has been around though the general quality of the people joining Bright has gone up since there is now a mental hurdle involved.
I agree with you, if they did away with the test I'm pretty sure he would shed no tears.
Don???
who cares if they use firm money? thats the firm's business.. not anyone elses.
look.. this isn't about protecting the traders.. look at Tuco... they are milking those deposits as we type. it is about competition.
you speak of more rules to come? LMAOOOOOOOOO wake up people... stop being so stupid.. you are hurting me with your incompetence.
EXACTLY! And since our leaders only do something about things in the news, that's why they passed the Series 7 rule then.
Just like now that we are dealing with the aftermath of a real estate bubble, soon we will have a whole ton of new laws related to mortgage brokers, banks, and the like. That's how they do things.
I am not a fan of heavy regulation nor government intervention, I am sickened by all of our tax dollars bailing out people who I beleve full and well knew what they were doing.
However, we need to have some laws in place to stop the crooks. Sounds like you want a place where anyone is free to kill, steal, rape, and pillage and there is no recourse for that. Move to Zimbabwe or somewhere similar if that's how you roll.
For me, I like smaller government, less regulation, but I do want some level of protection against downright crooks. The Tuco guys from what I know were honest guys, so this does not apply to them, but if sub-LLCs were allowed with no oversight at all you better believe we'd be hearing horror story after horror story about crooked firms walking off with people's money.
I don't see how I can be classified as wanting a "nanny state" just because I believe that it is ok for a few rules to be placed on a company that handles millions of dollars of other people's investment and retirement funds to protect against fraud and misuse of those funds.
No, doesn't require a test. Requires membership on a stock exchange. I trade stocks for a living, hundreds of thousands of shares a day, and make a good living at it, how horrible is it that I don't mind paying $500 a year to be a member of a stock exchange?
I actually think it's cool, you go so many places where you tell people you are a daytrader and they go "ooooh, must be rough" or some other crap because they had some retarded uncle blowout his retirement in the 90s, it is nice to say back, "Actually it's great, very different than what you hear about, I am a member of the exchange and trade half a million to a million shares a day." - then watch their faces as they realize you are in a whole different world than the crazy uncle. Chicks especially love the "Member of an Exchange" part, if you are single try dropping that line on the next girl you hit on and you'll see that membership has its priveledges.
So if the unregulated firm tells you the money is in your account, but is actually using the money for daily office strippers and Ferraris, it is ok because that is their business? And whose business is it when they spend it all and close up shop telling you "Sorry, what we told you was BS, we actually bought a bunch of Coke and snorted your savings up our nose."? Is it finally someone other than the firm's business?
Sounds like you started your career as an Enron energy trader.
You must be joking, I made a lot more money when all the stupid money was taking the other side of my trades. Oh man were those the easy days or what, I'd have them come back and take the other side of my trades anytime they like if it were up to me.
But in the end you do feel bad for them, it's like the whole candy from a baby thing, enough babies got sent home crying that they had to step in and say, ok no more taking babies' candy. Maybe 1 in 100 babies could hold their candy sure, but the rest was winding up in good traders' mouths.