OK, you can't take deposits and give leverage. You can't allow a trader to daytrade with less than 25k on deposit.
But what, say, if you have a retail account (llc, corp, partnership) with your monies and don't require or accept a deposit from anyone. You "hire" these people to trade your funds. The main account (which all trades are executed thru) does not exceed Reg T or Portfolio Margin rules. You are not acting like a B/D because you are not accepting deposits. How then can Assent or Genesis say to you that how you trade your funds is right or wrong? In this example, is this not a private agreement between the entity (you) and the person you authorize to trade your funds?
And before you mention Tuco, look at all the facts and accusations:
1. They took deposits
2. they extended leverage on these deposits
3. they were non-licensed and was run by a licensed individual
4. they were using other trader's deposits to pay another (take from peter to pay paul)
5. and the override, charging a commission on top of your commission
I can see the first 4, and why the SEC went after them and the speed with which they settled, but the fifth I don't get. It is an agreement between 2 parties outside the NASD or the SEC, especially taken in context with my example above
But what, say, if you have a retail account (llc, corp, partnership) with your monies and don't require or accept a deposit from anyone. You "hire" these people to trade your funds. The main account (which all trades are executed thru) does not exceed Reg T or Portfolio Margin rules. You are not acting like a B/D because you are not accepting deposits. How then can Assent or Genesis say to you that how you trade your funds is right or wrong? In this example, is this not a private agreement between the entity (you) and the person you authorize to trade your funds?
And before you mention Tuco, look at all the facts and accusations:
1. They took deposits
2. they extended leverage on these deposits
3. they were non-licensed and was run by a licensed individual
4. they were using other trader's deposits to pay another (take from peter to pay paul)
5. and the override, charging a commission on top of your commission
I can see the first 4, and why the SEC went after them and the speed with which they settled, but the fifth I don't get. It is an agreement between 2 parties outside the NASD or the SEC, especially taken in context with my example above