In response to Mr. Bellafiore's post:
1)
-I agree that any fresh graduates looking for trading positions should follow Mr. Bellafioreâs advice and seek a desk that is a fit both ways. In a bulge bracket or otherwise.
-I just think that there are quite a few prop shops masquerading as firms offering the same opportunities when in fact, they do not. It is the false impression that might be misleading for people looking for an entry level trading position.
-Do form your own opinions about SMB or any other prop firms, information off the forums are public and to provide differing perspectives. A candidate would have to take it all in and decide for himself which argument is more credible. i.e. if you get cheated out of your money, thats your fault and no one else's.
2)
-Testimonials listed on a firmâs website about the same firm that they are employees of lose a little bit of credibility due to biasness I think.
3)
-I have read Mr. Bellafioreâs comments on this board and respectfully do agree with some of his comments.
-There isnât a problem with working with reputable prop shops like âfirst new york securitiesâ (and they pay you at the very least when you are a trading assistant/trainee) as opposed to a bank, but candidates should know the difference between the two.
-I personally know of people from banks quitting to join prop shops because of what Mr. Bellafiore said, that they wanted to keep more of what they make, but let me form the argument for trading assistants. Your career decisions are different once you are at a director/VP level in a bank.
-For someone who shuns the big corporate brand names, I find it curious to see him throwing statements peppered with ivy league names as a means to impress/validate his firm.
-As impressive as his head trader sounds, working at Goldman Sachs could mean a multitude of things, I wonder if he left a front office trading position to write his own black box because he didnât want to work for GS, and THEN went to work for SMB? Or was he in the back office? Sounds suspicious. But none of this can be proved in any case.
-Nothing wrong with being entrepreneurial, I just hope that bright young minds out there wouldnât be misled into taking a entry level position with prop shops thinking that it is a âshort cutâ route or that it offers superior training to bulge brackets. In actuality, both experiences are vastly different. And I think you give up too much if you make the decision to head towards a prop shop.
4)
-I donât know about other people posting about SMB, but I wouldnât consider what I wrote about SMB âcheap shots.â Again, if I were Mr. Bellafiore, I would let my market performance speak for itself rather than spend time on forums posting such messages without any ability to back them up with proof.
- I hope that my comments will never be misconstrued as a deliberate way to âhurtâ the reputation of prop shops, but rather to serve as public information for potential prop shop trainees who are looking for a perspective different from the one supplied by their potential employers.
- Some prop shop operations might not be as obvious as renting a room from a hotel ala boiler room style.
Joseph
PS: I have no biasness towards SMB Capital, and I do not work at a prop firm. I just have had experiences with prop shops and banks, took in the relevant information they fed me and processed it to make a decision which to join. Through my experience, I realized the need for more people speaking up to explain what prop firms do and if what they promise are congruent to reality. For example, many prop firms do not offer compensation to their trainees, SMB would be one of them (watch wall street warriors and this fact is painfully clear), but many shops still advertise a âsalaried positionâ, and again, SMB is one of them through a job posting targeted at college graduates. PM me for a link for proof.
