Swift Trade Canada/Hong Kong

[MichaelJ]

I have been following this back & forth and I must agree with this point.

If there is some trader at Swift or any other firm grossing +100K per month, they should be constantly & rationally weighing the options of where they should trade based on maximizing the value to themselves.

To merely speculate (as I have no idea really), would it not be logical to assume that trading firms would cut special deals with their top traders to keep them?

Quote from madmunny:


...the ones grossing 150k a month....have probably run the numbers 10 zillion times and have all some to the same conclusion.....Swift gives them the best deal for the way they trade....if not...then obviously they would just walk across the street to a different firm that pays them 90% of their profit...

 

[newguy1]

"k...now about swift not makin any money if a trader doesnt make money.......if a trader makes $0 in a month.....the only money swift makes is 16.8 cents per trade......."


Can you expand on this?

For example. I'd say that at hlv, your ticket is 2 bucks roundtrip, irrespective of size. Some people sit on the bid with some absurd 50k order waiting to get filled....do the math and your rate is something outrageous.

Now other folks might do something more normal...like a 5k order...now your commish on that is entering something most firms could match if your volume is up there. ..something like .004.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Those are two examples I've given where someone not working at HLV could understand why staying at HLV may or maynot be the best situation. I would tend to agree that for the little guys doing 5k, you're probably not going to find a shop that will give you that .004, because your volume just won't be high enough....at least not sitting on the bid/offer all day on an lu/nt.

Now can you give a few reasonable examples of why a succesful swifttrader would stay at the shop instead of shopping elsewhere?

I"m just having a hard time understanding the 16.8 cents deal. Because it would seem (at least to most people) that swift makes a different amount off different traders...unless of course everyone at swift does exactly the same volume...ect..

 

[madmunny]

Quote from newguy1:

"Do you see what I'm getting at? Those are two examples I've given where someone not working at HLV could understand why staying at HLV may or maynot be the best situation. I would tend to agree that for the little guys doing 5k, you're probably not going to find a shop that will give you that .004, because your volume just won't be high enough....at least not sitting on the bid/offer all day on an lu/nt.
I"m just having a hard time understanding the 16.8 cents deal. Because it would seem (at least to most people) that swift makes a different amount off different traders...unless of course everyone at swift does exactly the same volume...ect..

k.....i'll try one more time to explain this to you......every Swifttrader gets charged the same fees regardless of how much volume they push......so say for example if one trader trades 10 million shares and does 700 trades a day...he/she pays the same fees as someone who trades 100k shares a day and only trades 100 trades that day.......swifttrade does not make their money off of traders volume or number of trades....they make their money by takeing a % of the traders profit.

The only fee swifttrade charges its traders is the 16.8 cents per trades and 100 dollars a month computer rental fee....thats it....all other fees charged to swifttraders are charged by outside bodies such as SEC, ECNS, or the exchanges themselves.

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO........example time.....a new trader makes 100 trades each of 100 share lots and at the end of the day nets 0 dollars......swifttrade makes $16.8 off of this trader.....now a more experienced trader makes 500 trades a day with a share size of 10,000 shares but at the end of the day also nets $0....swifttrade made 84 dollars.......

now run this scenario with your beloved hlv and see how much they would charge their traders and that is the difference between the two companies.

is one better than the other....i dont know....again...depends on the trader and how they like to trade.....but trust me....just as you sit there and wonder why any trader would stay at swift when they could get a higher cut somewhere else......some trader from swifttrade is calculating how much more money they would be making if they did switch firms......and all i can tell you is that very very very very very very very very very very few leave swifttrade for another firm because of the better payout %.

Swifttrade obviously is fully aware of firms that pay 90+% to their traders and have created a formula where the payout system at swifttrade is just as fair if not better than these other firms or else they would lose their top traders.....you people just see the higher % and then close your minds to everything else...try thinkin of the whole picture not just the % payout.

does that make more sense?????????

 

[Szeven]

I think everyones problem with swift (that trades there) is that the cut taken by the BM is way too high.

Now madmunny you can correct me but i am under the impression beck takes 30%, the trader gets 35-65% based on their monthly proft and trader status (although most make 35-40%), and the BM gets the rest.

What exactly does the BM do to earn this money? Thats the question i want to know.

And as for no other firms that can compete... there are plenty in canada right now that are good. Swift is just lucky that lots of good traders style depends on 16.8 cents commish which is tough to find (but findable). Another factor is that when you have traded no where else, and you get comfy in your special spot in the office and your color scheme and your friends etc, you dont want to leave the womb and do something drastic like sit at your apt in your PJ's for some remote company.

I think swift is a fair deal because they spell it out clear as clear, and if you really wanted you could go somewhere else. The fact is most dont for the above reasons in my opinion

 

[madmunny]

Quote from Szeven:

Now madmunny you can correct me but i am under the impression beck takes 30%, the trader gets 35-65% based on their monthly proft and trader status (although most make 35-40%), and the BM gets the rest.

What exactly does the BM do to earn this money? Thats the question i want to know.

k.....the way it works is....the trader gets his cut first.....so that changes from trader to trader...newbies get 35%....top guys get 60% (give or take).........what is left over is split evenly between Swifttrade headoffice and the Branch the trader trades at.......this is only true for Canadian branches....the cut is different for international branches and i dont know those numbers exactly but probably something close to the canadian branches.....

Now as for what does the Branch do to earn their cut......the person who opened that branch payed for the rent of the building, bought the computers, monthly fibre cable connection, ect.... and they are responsible for all loses the trader encurs......so if there was another terrorist attack and the market halted tradeing and when it reopened all stocks had dropped 40%....all losses are the branches loss........so if a trader managed to lose 120k in one month and just walked away.....thats a loss the Branch takes....not HO..........so....HO supplies the millions in BP....the branch covers all losses.........

its like car sales.....ford makes the cars......car salesman sells the cars....so why does the person who owns each individual dealership deserve their cut.....cause they are the ones takin all the risk....and the ones puttin up the money to get the dealership up and running to give the carsalesman their jobs...

The Branch owners put up the money to open the branches....and they want their cut to get a return on their investment......just like HO and just like the trader.

 

[FCCT]

Quote from madmunny:

ok...this is the second time you have argued with me over the 0 liability thing......and i bit my tongue the first time.....but when you say something stupid twice i have to say something.......

According to your theory you beleive 0 liability means if a trader loses money one month they shouldnt have to pay it back next month if they wish to continue trading......so lets see....if i lose 5k one month.....but make 5 k the next month....swifttrade should take the whole 5k loss the first month but still pay me my percentage of my earnings the next month?? Obviously if you want to keep trading, any losses you incurr one month have to be covered before you start getting paid.......however......if in one month there was some major catastrophe and you were on the wrong side of the market and you managed to lose 20k.....you have two choices....keep trading to earn that money back so once its paid back you can earm money for yourself....or walk away......hence...you have 0 liability.

RedInk is correct, say Trader A makes 20k swift dollars in a month, so he is entitled to his cut of say $8500, that is the traders money, but held in swift for one month.
If that trader loses 5k or any amount the following month and quits, he should get the $8500 no questions asked.
PB has scammed traders in the past, not paying out all that is owed. IF your paycheck is at risk...then its not zero liability.

 

[mschey]

Quote from FCCT:

RedInk is correct, say Trader A makes 20k swift dollars in a month, so he is entitled to his cut of say $8500, that is the traders money, but held in swift for one month.
If that trader loses 5k or any amount the following month and quits, he should get the $8500 no questions asked.
PB has scammed traders in the past, not paying out all that is owed. IF your paycheck is at risk...then its not zero liability.

BS.....this is how the scenario likely plays out. Some guy makes money and knows it is his last month so he starts taking bigger risk....afterall he has nothing to lose. If he wins great more money to take home...if he loses...the office eats the loss. This system ensures that the trader doesn't make an airplane trade, that's why they set it up that way. One rogue trader can do alot of damage in a matter of minutes.

 

[Red_Ink_inc]

Quote from madmunny:

ok...this is the second time you have argued with me over the 0 liability thing......and i bit my tongue the first time.....but when you say something stupid twice i have to say something.......

You completely misunderstood my 3rd paragraph. Go back and read it again.

Please tell me where or when I said (for example) if a trader is negative $3,000 in September that that debt should not roll over, with the trader beginning October negative $3,000? Of course it should.

It's pretty shocking to think that you're a branch manager and don't know how some branches (not all) deal with traders who decide to leave the firm with a negative balance. ........ If you think a trader who ended September with an $8,000 cheque coming to him can suffer your negative $25,000 'catastophe' in October, then decide to leave the firm and still collect that $8,000 you're dreaming. This has happened to many different traders and their branches kept their cheques for the previous month. In correspondance the branches told these traders they were being held LIABLE. Maybe you'd eat the loss but don't assume others would.

As for your second point re the 4k guys. A guy grossing $4k gets 35% of that ($1400) less $100 for a desk fee, less entitlements ($130 approx if he/she has 2) for a total of $1160 or 29%.

Swift gets the same 35% ($1400) plus the desk fee ($100) plus the mark up on entitlements (other firms charge way less for entitlements). Which I wont factor in for a total of $1500 or 37.5%.

Ignoring the fees is a mistake as it's real money that you pay and they collect. For a trader at 10k the differences in percentages are closer together ...... 32.7% (trader) vs 37.3% (swift). So a trader at 4k is paid 3.7% less. When you're struggling to get by, I would think that extra 3.7% would be nice.

On to your third point. About Swift only making 16.8 cents a trade off a trader who grosses zero. Again you fail to factor in the fees. A trader with 2 entitlements and 1 desk fee needs to gross $700+ (at 35%) to get himself to zero on the month. Sure other firms charge these same fees but they arent nearly this much.

Fourth point, Obviously the guys grossing 150k a month are living quite well regardless of the %. I was talking about the 8k a month guys. The 150k guys with a few notable exceptions are doing thousands of trades a day arbing Millenium and need Swift.

Red

 

[madmunny]

Quote from FCCT:

RedInk is correct, say Trader A makes 20k swift dollars in a month, so he is entitled to his cut of say $8500, that is the traders money, but held in swift for one month.
If that trader loses 5k or any amount the following month and quits, he should get the $8500 no questions asked.
PB has scammed traders in the past, not paying out all that is owed. IF your paycheck is at risk...then its not zero liability.

Its also BS due to the fact that the check for 8500 (it would actually be 7500 but we will stick with 8500 just for this scenario) is processed by HO half way through the following month and mailed out long before the second month is over so HO would have no idea that the trader is going to lose that 5k that month....and the trader would get the check at least one if not two or three days before the last day of the month.......

so please....stop makin up bullsh$t stories when you really have no idea what the hell your talkin about cause you just look like an idiot when someone can prove your full of sh$t.

 

[Red_Ink_inc]

Quote from mschey:

BS.....this is how the scenario likely plays out. Some guy makes money and knows it is his last month so he starts taking bigger risk....afterall he has nothing to lose. If he wins great more money to take home...if he loses...the office eats the loss. This system ensures that the trader doesn't make an airplane trade, that's why they set it up that way. One rogue trader can do alot of damage in a matter of minutes.

Ms you're correct the trader IS liable. However that isn't the arguement. The argument is wether the trader is liable or not. Madmunny is saying the trader has 0 liability when the trader clearly does. As many have been held 'liable'.

Red