Quote from Chicago_CTA:
Myhello, I would advise you to sign up with Altegris for free information on CTAs. They are www dot managedfutures dot com. (No, I'm not affiliated with them).
I prefer their site to both BarclayHedge and Autumngold.
By registering with them you get detailed access including D-Docs for various CTAs, etc.
Without registering I am only able to paste a list of the top 40 emerging managers:
http://www.managedfutures.com/top_cta_rankings.aspx?timeframe=1&sortby=ror&filter=Emerging
A small 'e' next to the name denotes emerging (<$50mm); while a 'E' denotes established (>$50mm).
---------------------------------------------
I couldn't help but notice the inscrutable 'jack hershey' posted to our thread. Jack, were you a registered CTA once before? Were you an 'exempt' CTA or CPO? Just curious...
happy trading,
Chicago CTA
NFA does "exempt" those who do not represent themselves as "pros".
Filings do have to be made that "prove" a person is not a "pro". Filings occur via IB's and it is imcumbant on IB's to meet the periodicity and "exent". A lot of gaps are being closed on this stuff.
So I was used to completing forms from NFA via my IBs on a periodic basis. Also on file at all times (with IB) were the authorities I had. The IBs always double checked and kept me out of the pro category.
Thus, I avoided a lot of filing requirements that you have in two ways:
I avoided having client money and I avoided all income from clients.
You cannot avoid, however, being monitored by enforcement agencies for improper and unfair trading practices. I really went through the wringer with repect to this, vis a vis the SEC. My profile trading these collective accounts as a "bundle" where the IB apportioned the blocks among those I had standard POA's for, appeared to th SEC as "insider trading", i. e., it was not possible for me to do what I WAS DOING.
Fortunately, the SEC was extremely methodical in a mistaken manner. It turned out that I could not know and traffic with such a diverse population that the SEC was citing me for. Reason, did not prevail but the persistence of the SEC flagged as they continued to cite, retract and apologize. Not citing became a short cut that eliminated the two follow on aspects.
The sour part of these years was that the IB lawyers would not pursue allowing me access to the SEC, less than satifactory, electronic monitoring software. My interest was to go through it and suggest "fixes" that would "differentiate" trading strategies from real insider trading.
There was also another concurrent theme. IB's coattail trade client strategies that lead the markets. So the SEC was citing my IB for not following the rules that brokers have to follow. The financial industry is oriented mostly to making money on "activity". Coatailing at high profitability for clients was contagious. Sales techniques strayed from objectivity and having a factual basis. It seems that the broker made up stuff that "linked" my trades to other trades or ownership I did or had. One incident required (meaning the SEC required IBM's T J Watson and Tang of Tang industries to have to make a "joint" statement regarding present and future plans. this stupidity in itself made for great trading on a short term basis. MLPFB had to pay fines for "national" story telling all through their office system. It was very unpleasant for me to be "tracked down" by the SEC to get the facts straight. I changed brokers to facilitate disconnecting from authority.
It is hard to explain how skill is used to make money in an industry whose operation is based on sales and commissions. Also there is a tendency for regulatory organizations to have employees who are limited in their scope of processing facts in their particular operating setting.
Today, the humor of the contemporary scene has deepened way beyond Gordon Gekkoness. Imagine, if you will, a brief four year series of AIR's vis a vis the IRS. The length of AIR's is getting longer, their frequency is diminishing and their request for response within a given time is absolutely static. Several pages of an AIR turns into 15 pages with 40 Q's, two levels of subQ's and hunderds of pages of attachments. One year of an IRS team's work is required to generate this non insightful paper. I have two calendar weeks to respond. As as expected they want to know WHEN I will respond when they set a new deadline for me to preserve my rights (I had responded and pointed out the time variations).
This is more than you wish to know, perhaps. It is not a rant or anything like that. this is simply an opservation on what is is like year after year when trading is done that is outside the pale of those who are employed by regulators and when regulation is a very hiumorous thing to behold.
I'm writing a five book suite. The IRS is pissed that I feel like giving them free to those I choose. It is unfair and the IRS is threatening to tax me on my non existent future book sales income. They want, deeply, to know, how I can do what I am going to do.
One of their examples of my unfairness stems from BABAK's blog where I am cited (an 11 page attachment to the AIR) for posting HERE in a manner that is not fair to those who cannot understand what I post.
How can I be fair and treat all persons on an equal level?
The AIR cites 148 pages by Hypostomus in ET. The thread title is "Anti Jack Trading". The IRS makes it clear that I am unresponsive to some people and responsive to others. I never saw the thread before. I think hypostomus is one of the funniest ET'ers to ever set foot here. Now, he knows the IRS reads his every word so they can state I have to explain my unfairness.
I feel like taking Andy Rooney's place on 60 Minutes and do all the federal agencies one by one.
So I am immune to regulation. I keep it that way. I want everyone to be making money by taking the market's offer.
For years and years and years I made it possible for professionals who help those in need to give regular, reliable and FREE help. There is NO way those donations of professional time and a whole lot of other things given to people can be valued and I get taxed for that. There is NO way the tangible stuff I give to others in anyform whatsoever is going to be valued and taxed where I get to pay the tax.
Again this is not a rant; it is just a very very humorous anecdote on the state of our regulators. I do not own a Gordon Gekko shirt and if I did, I do not feel I can be taxed for giving it away.
The IRS wants to know how and where I make money helping others learn to trade. They want to know why I am so unfair in who I help and who I don't help. No one at the IRS wants to learn how to trade.......lol.
Ask me about who is in charge of redacting information provided to the IRS...... lol
Sorry about the long post.... this stuff is just too funny to pass up..
Good luck to everyone in the thread for getting started and keeping going..... If you want a nice feeling, trade for some professionals like psychiatrists, etc... who then can help people who have really gotten a raw deal in life.