With your business, I was actually on your side if you would take the time to be less defensive about what this Jeff guy is saying about you and your brother and rest of your family. I was also taking the free shot at Goldman Suchs. Apologies to Mr. Paulsen.
I was laying the blame (although sarcastically) for this industry's woes on the traders themselves and the firms like Worldco that gave such high payouts and low commissions that they "forced" other firms that were trying to make a living while also treating the trader reasonably out of business. A business relationship needs to be TWO sided or it will fail in the long run.
In the late 90's the trader had too much of the upper hand in the relationship and the owners caved because the smaller margins both commission and payout were still large enough because the trader was making money, lots of it.
When a trader can make money relatively easily, he does larger volume and it feeds on itself. I know I did. It is now back down. A trading firm is only profitable if its traders can make money even if they payout 100% and get none of the profits or if keeps on bringing in new traders. If a trader is not making money, then he will do less and less volume. Now, in the early 00's the margins are too thin to operate without the firm being of significant size. I think what is going on here is a classic business school case study of how an industry matures. Consolidation and lower margins. Hopefully, my six years of college weren't wasted.
If a firm pays out 100% of the P&L, no matter how you market it, either the firm doesn't want the risk-reward of its own traders or it is a customer in disguise relationship. Both are fine if everybody understands that, regulators included.
I for one am impressed with your firm doing so well with the 40 office leases and the 100% payout and the thin margins on which you are forced to operate. Everyone here loves to take potshots at you, but you are still standing. That must count for something!
New
...but tired.