I know a lot of big hitters that post here. That had nothing to do with what I said. I said he is not that kind of guy. In other words, do you understand context? The type of guy that really gives a flying f*ck what people think about him and wastes hours of his day reading what people say about him and then posing as an alias to talk about himself and what a great guy he is. He is not THAT kind of guy. Don't be so easily offended. LOL.
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.
My Experience at a Prop Firm
- Thread starter pineman
- Start date
I know a lot of big hitters that post here. That had nothing to do with what I said. I said he is not that kind of guy. In other words, do you understand context? The type of guy that really gives a flying f*ck what people think about him and wastes hours of his day reading what people say about him and then posing as an alias to talk about himself and what a great guy he is. He is not THAT kind of guy. Don't be so easily offended. LOL.
Quote from Don Bright:
Hi Hydroblunt - my brother and I look at this differently, in that we were so thrilled with the same deal (from the other side, on the exchange) that we wanted to attract more of the entrepreneurial type trader (the kind we were close to on the trading floor).
The first large group of our traders came from the various exchanges, and these guys would never consider giving away part of their profits in lieu of putting up a few bucks.
Makes sense. Have you guys ever tried out or considered trying out an incubation true prop, with the experienced guys being mentors? Just curious.
A reputable prop firm never pretends to 'hire' their clients for so-called 'jobs'.
Only the sleaziest of firms ever do that, and you should be <b>glad</b> they do! It provides everyone who's paying attention with a useful 'tell' to help you immediately separate the reputable firms from the chop shops.
You wrote: <i>"What i dont like is brokers pretending like they are prop firms, and doing business under those pretenses as part of the ruse to retain traders."</i>
That's like saying: "What I don't like, is the way sleazy con-men always call me 'buddy' or 'my friend', when I'm clearly not their friend at all, but just another mark."
Why should you <b><i>mind</b></i> that the most dishonest players out there have a nice easy 'tell' that quickly reveals their true nature? I don't mind it at all!
Only the sleaziest of firms ever do that, and you should be <b>glad</b> they do! It provides everyone who's paying attention with a useful 'tell' to help you immediately separate the reputable firms from the chop shops.
You wrote: <i>"What i dont like is brokers pretending like they are prop firms, and doing business under those pretenses as part of the ruse to retain traders."</i>
That's like saying: "What I don't like, is the way sleazy con-men always call me 'buddy' or 'my friend', when I'm clearly not their friend at all, but just another mark."
Why should you <b><i>mind</b></i> that the most dishonest players out there have a nice easy 'tell' that quickly reveals their true nature? I don't mind it at all!
Quote from Mom0/pH0x:
i don't disagree, what my point was that the trader also owes the 'prop' firm nothing... and further, that if you put up your own risk capital IT'S NOT A PROP FIRM, it's a leverage providing BROKER! to expound, these leverage providing brokers should not be treating traders as if they are somehow employing them, or as if the trader is somehow obligated to them, they AREN'T an employer, they are the EMPLOYEE! the trader has HIRED them for the SERVICE they provide... if a trader puts up risk capital then the trader is the boss, if not, and the firm provides him with the capital, and perphaps a salary or draw, THEN and only then is the firm the boss and the trader then does owe the firm the commitment of a dedicated employee, otherwise the firm is the one who should consider ITSELF lucky because said trader chose it's service over others... if you somehow derived from my response that i meant 'prop' firms owe traders some such thing(i dont know how you could) then you were mistaken, what i dont like is brokers pretending like they are prop firms, and doing business under those pretenses as part of the ruse to retain traders...
can anyone guess what percent of "Prop" traders at independent
firms ( not investment banks ) in equities and futures are making
< 100K
100K - 250 K
250K - 500K
500K - 7 fig.'s
these days ( on a yearly basis )
and also compared to the nasdaq bubble days ?
heck ... I do not think even in those days there were so many
traders making 500K and up
though probably there were alot of folks making 100K and up
firms ( not investment banks ) in equities and futures are making
< 100K
100K - 250 K
250K - 500K
500K - 7 fig.'s
these days ( on a yearly basis )
and also compared to the nasdaq bubble days ?
heck ... I do not think even in those days there were so many
traders making 500K and up
though probably there were alot of folks making 100K and up
In futures arcades and prop firms where the trader gets a desk, screen trades, and pays overhead/commisions out of his profits, and then splits the rest with the house, and trades only the firm's money and is not required to contribute his own:
From what I've seen, 80-90% are within +/- 10k of breakeven after one year. That's net profit on the entire year, not each month. If they havent left after a year, an extremely small percentage of those that keep doing it will steadily improve, but the majority of those that are profitable after the first year will fail to remain consistently profitable and will either give back their profit and go debit on their account or just flatline.
Whats really unfortunate is that it takes most a year or so to realize that this is no way to make a living, largely because they stick it out due to the ownership telling them that "the first 6 months won't be profitable and is for learning", or that they will not make much for the first year, but that the upside is tremendous if they can be good.
From what I've seen, 80-90% are within +/- 10k of breakeven after one year. That's net profit on the entire year, not each month. If they havent left after a year, an extremely small percentage of those that keep doing it will steadily improve, but the majority of those that are profitable after the first year will fail to remain consistently profitable and will either give back their profit and go debit on their account or just flatline.
Whats really unfortunate is that it takes most a year or so to realize that this is no way to make a living, largely because they stick it out due to the ownership telling them that "the first 6 months won't be profitable and is for learning", or that they will not make much for the first year, but that the upside is tremendous if they can be good.
Quote from SethArb:
can anyone guess what percent of "Prop" traders at independent
firms ( not investment banks ) in equities and futures are making
< 100K
100K - 250 K
250K - 500K
500K - 7 fig.'s
these days ( on a yearly basis )
and also compared to the nasdaq bubble days ?
heck ... I do not think even in those days there were so many
traders making 500K and up
though probably there were alot of folks making 100K and up
Quote from SethArb:
can anyone guess what percent of "Prop" traders...
Back in the bubble era, I'd say about 5% of Schonfeld traders were taking home 7-figures or more. About 15% took in 6-figures or higher. Roughly the same story at Worldco, right Mav?
In today's lean times, those numbers are much, MUCH lower.
Quote from Rearden Metal:
Back in the bubble era, I'd say about 5% of Schonfeld traders were taking home 7-figures or more. About 15% took in 6-figures or higher. Roughly the same story at Worldco, right Mav?
In today's lean times, those numbers are much, MUCH lower.
That sounds about right. In the height of the bubble all our top 30 traders were making well into 7 figures. I knew this because our top 30 guys had their numbers published for all the firm to see after the close. That was about 5% of our guys. The other 15% that were profitable were making around 6 figures to maybe mid 6 figures. The rest never got checks, at least not on a consistent basis.
When I left in 2002, the top 30 numbers that were published everyday dropped substantially. In 2000, the bottom of the list was about 25k, the top was around 150k to 250k (a day). But in 2002 the top 30 list started at around 1500 and peaked at about 25k or so. That's a huge drop off. If they were still around today, I'm betting their numbers would be half what those 2002 numbers were.
Quote from TonyYayo:
In futures arcades and prop firms where the trader gets a desk, screen trades, and pays overhead/commisions out of his profits, and then splits the rest with the house, and trades only the firm's money and is not required to contribute his own:
From what I've seen, 80-90% are within +/- 10k of breakeven after one year. That's net profit on the entire year, not each month. If they haven't left after a year, an extremely small percentage of those that keep doing it will steadily improve, but the majority of those that are profitable after the first year will fail to remain consistently profitable and will either give back their profit and go debit on their account or just flatline.
Whats really unfortunate is that it takes most a year or so to realize that this is no way to make a living, largely because they stick it out due to the ownership telling them that "the first 6 months won't be profitable and is for learning", or that they will not make much for the first year, but that the upside is tremendous if they can be good.
That's about right. Most these guys on salary or draws at futures prop never make it. Trading futures is by far the toughest instrument to trade. I would say stock is the easiest, followed by options, then futures and spot FX.
Most people simply do not have the right genetic makeup to trade futures. It doesn't matter if the prop offers training or not. Futures work against almost everything we naturally believe. I'm talking about discretionary futures traders now, not spreaders.
The guys trading the fixed income spreads probably had a better chance at longevity.
This is why I have been on this thread questioning the prop firm blame game. It's analogous to a wanna be actor in Hollywood that is blaming his agent for not getting any acting work. The problem is, whether you are Al Pacino or John Doe, your shot at stardom is slim to none, regardless of your agent. Blaming your agent, Hollywood, the studios, etc for your failures is simply not genuine on your part.
Same goes for prop firms. The odds of success are terrible no matter where you are. Sure, no one wants to get screwed on commisions, bad equipment, terrible work environment, etc, but that is NOT the reason why you failed. The first step to making it in this business is your ability to be honest with yourself. Until you do that, the prop firm does not even enter into the equation.