Prop Trading Firms - Note On Threatening Regulatory Developments

[gam1111]

After listening to the conference call, I realized that we need more evidence that the NASD is changing their position on regulating prop firms for more than 10 years to putting them all out of business.

So far I understood they are going after the worst prop firms on a case by case basis.

 

[ken__0]

seems the minds of a few are trying to control the livelyhood of many.
with that being said , the simplest solution is not to hold sub firms to absurb retail regulations, but rather their own new more in line regs.
my suggestion is simple. the sub firms must register itself as such allowing the sec to do what they do take them/individuals to task for failure to pay violations etc etc....the max leverage would be 10/1 . licensing of its employees mandatory along the lines of a ser 7.
payouts % decisions left to the people with money at stake.
just my thoughts on the matter

 

[jasmine1]

Quote from Don Bright:

Whoa, whoa, no "pooled" $$ here. Tradrers use our money, we don't need the traders money for RegT or anything else.

(Just keeping the rumor mill at a distance).

Don

You use (need) the trader capital deposits to limit your risk.

 

[HunterGatherer]

two words... grandfather clause.

 

[Rearden Metal]

Quote from ang_99:

Reardon metal is an echo trader I believe who is close with management, maybe he could shed some light on this from echo's perspective.

You have to understand, my mind doesn't work the same way as most people. While all the other frogs just sit there and let themselves boil to death, I don't do that. I don't calmly think of ways to adapt myself to the latest gov't oppression- I get <b>enraged</b>, unhinged, and unstable. I'm one of the few people who actually notices that the U.S.A. is collapsing all around us, rapidly transforming into something that more closely resembles the U.S.S.R. I just can't handle that very well.

 

[Don Bright]

Quote from jasmine1:

You use (need) the trader capital deposits to limit your risk.

As in any business, those who choose to make profits, must risk something...we take the risk of anything lost over the basic token deposit money, while using $millions of ours.

The "deposit" money still belongs to the trader unless they happen to lose it, and it "grows" as they make it without us taking any of the profits. Sounds pretty fair to me (and all the traders).

All the best,

Don

 

[listedguru]

Anyone else hear anything new regarding this? I heard several rumors tossed around but not sure what to make of them. Anyone find out anything new on the greentrader conference call? I was unable to tune in

-Guru

 

[mushinseeker]

The silence of the pro firms here is deafening....

 

[riskarb]

A large firm sent a memo to all of its traders outlining the NASD/SEC decision to move to a retail 4:1 intraday req for the "deposit" prop model.

I am sure there are a dozen guys on this board who've received the memo. I received the info from two independent sources.

 

[trader76ab]

Riskarb, you seem most knowledgeable about this topic. What did that firm memo you mentioned say exactly? Does it say that even if traders have a series 7 they still will only get 4-1? That eliminates so many strategies...