Quote from atlastrading:
Worldco had many other problems. Not the least was that they made a fortune since the came into business. Their problems came from a slow market and traders not able to make money. Hold Brothers has other problems. They have given out too many good deals and are working on a skeleton back office. I would not be comfortable doing business there.
Quote from I Missed Boat:
Not accurate. Worldco had plenty of traders making very good money. Don't just repeat the ignorant comments of other ET posters who themselves didn't know what they were talking about when it came to Worldco. But yes, they had leases that killed them.
Quote from Mecro:
Hold is like the low end of all prop firms. They are definitely competitive and keep their costs down which certainly reflects in their office. But there definitely is something uncomfortable about this low cost low end operation. Their traders are profitable though. [/B]
Quote from Mecro:
Nah actually atlast is on the money.
Worldco had quite a few profitable traders but Worldco was barely making anything from them. They gave out such ridiculous deals just to keep those traders, meanwhile taking hits on new and non-profitable traders. They were running traders through like cattle so overall their traders were quite unprofitable.
Hold is like the low end of all prop firms. They are definitely competitive and keep their costs down which certainly reflects in their office. But there definitely is something uncomfortable about this low cost low end operation. Their traders are profitable though.
Quote from giladbi:
cann't it just be that they being much more efficient with their money?
what do you mean by low end? the execution look to me very good. the rest is up to me / you.
i am asking because i also not comfortable. where is the trick if any?
Quote from I Missed Boat:
Sorry, but still not accurate. Worldco's rates were higher than the rates some other firms (like Hold) are offering now. In fact, since Worldco went under, most Worldco traders seem to be getting rates that beat what they had at Worldco (and obviously the traders wouldn't be getting and keeping these rates elsewhere if they weren't profitable traders). And the new traders that were losing money at Worldco had put down thousands to be there, and they were often paying elevated fees. So Worldco wasn't eating any of their losses. Bottom line is that Worldco went under because of stupid leases and gross mismanagement (nevermind that they also knew they were gonna be hit with a big fine and that the ownership was going to be banned from running the firm).