I had 60 to 1 leverage being registered with and trading directly thru Assent...remotely. Obviously deals like that are a result of your negotiations with the various Assent branch managers. They have to believe that you have enough common sense to use leverage like that wisely and not be prone to reckless behavior. I never used that much leverage and for most new traders 20 to 1 is more than enough, but be aware that you can get good deals going directly thru the various licensed firms.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
friend said assent now requiring llc consent form
- Thread starter monstercat
- Start date
Quote from 5Pillars:
The llc would extend leverage greater than 10 to 1 in the old model as the llc owner would be responsible for losses of traders within his group (so the llc owner can set higher risk parameters if they wanted - at their own risk).
You don't need to go through a sub LLC to get better leverage.
Quote from 5Pillars:
Good to know - thanks for that information. I thought non-llc Assent was around 10 to 1 for most traders.
So does Assent do 100% payout (the Austin office for example)?
Some branches limit you to 10-1, some others will give you more.
Can't speak for anyone else, but my branch is 100% payout (I'm not in Austin).
I also had 100% payout as a remote trader.
Just remember...even with licenses you are a customer, so press them hard for a good deal and if they will not give it to you, go elsewhere, even if that means remote trading vs using a local office.
Just remember...even with licenses you are a customer, so press them hard for a good deal and if they will not give it to you, go elsewhere, even if that means remote trading vs using a local office.
assent pays fed funds minus 1 on free cash balance which is a very good rate. when the fed funds were 5.25% they were paying 4.25% which is high. i've also done the treasury gig with
with assent but the problem is i like to hold a lot of things overnight at times and the 90% gig screws it up. assent is a great co but they got to work on there short list. tons of things they're charging for like leh or bsc are free at many other brokers . i mean its become a joke when even though they don't charge i must borrow hd or ge
with assent but the problem is i like to hold a lot of things overnight at times and the 90% gig screws it up. assent is a great co but they got to work on there short list. tons of things they're charging for like leh or bsc are free at many other brokers . i mean its become a joke when even though they don't charge i must borrow hd or ge
I've read all the documents in the Tuco case, several other websites as well as 10 or so posts in the Prop forum here. This post is the most informative and gets to the meat of the issue that Sub LLC's are facing. Thanks Mav
With no commissions and no deposits, there is no reason for a sub LLC to have a new trader come on board. These were the guys that were fooled into paying a "training" fee on top of outrageous commissions. They failed before they even hit a key. There is however still incentive for a sub LLC prop firm to have traders with earnings that exceed the commissions threshhold that was agreed upon with the sub prior to reorganizing.
There are plenty of traders who want the leverage, can manage the risk, but do not want the fees and hassle associated with a license. They also prefer not to tie up 25k in a retail account. For these people, a % payout agreement with a bonus factor could prove to provide them with a significantly similar monthly payout. The sub LLC would take the risk of having traders with no deposit on record and mitigate (not eliminate) that risk with back office tracking of positions.
In the attached example I have four traders with vastly different volume and efficiency. Two of the traders in the example would most likely have their deposit refunded and their account closed. The other two still provide a potential value to the sub.
There really is no good way to deal with a losing trader, a new trader, or a trader that has not overcome the previous thresshold of fees charged through winning traders. I don't believe that the desk fee in my example would be permitted to vary by "employee." Let me know what you all think, I haven't stopped thinking about coming up with 25k for a retail account since I first heard about Tuco.
With no commissions and no deposits, there is no reason for a sub LLC to have a new trader come on board. These were the guys that were fooled into paying a "training" fee on top of outrageous commissions. They failed before they even hit a key. There is however still incentive for a sub LLC prop firm to have traders with earnings that exceed the commissions threshhold that was agreed upon with the sub prior to reorganizing.
There are plenty of traders who want the leverage, can manage the risk, but do not want the fees and hassle associated with a license. They also prefer not to tie up 25k in a retail account. For these people, a % payout agreement with a bonus factor could prove to provide them with a significantly similar monthly payout. The sub LLC would take the risk of having traders with no deposit on record and mitigate (not eliminate) that risk with back office tracking of positions.
In the attached example I have four traders with vastly different volume and efficiency. Two of the traders in the example would most likely have their deposit refunded and their account closed. The other two still provide a potential value to the sub.
There really is no good way to deal with a losing trader, a new trader, or a trader that has not overcome the previous thresshold of fees charged through winning traders. I don't believe that the desk fee in my example would be permitted to vary by "employee." Let me know what you all think, I haven't stopped thinking about coming up with 25k for a retail account since I first heard about Tuco.