Originally posted by Don Bright
Sure. When a "sub-LLC" is formed, they are like "step child" to the parent firm, and have very few resources. Many of the "sub-LLC's" have simply defaulted on leases and held traders money, etc. These firms are generally just "introducing brokers" with, perhaps as little as $5,000 of capital. Even when the "main firm" has capital, they are not responsible for any of the other entities. On a broader scale, it's like Enron, with hundreds of smaller partnerships that went belly up prior to the main collapse.
There are other regulatory issues, but the main concern is that they are simply part of a "multi-level" marketing plan that makes no sense. If there were a good business model, would not the main firm simply keep control? Why would they need the "sub-LLC" money in the first place, and vice-versa.?
In contrast, our locations are all owned by Bright Trading, and the Managers are compensated based on performance (are not "middle men") and we are responsible for everything.
Hope that makes sense to you...
Don
Don, much appreciated. It's good to get perspectives from owners on down.
