CTG / WTS is CBSX - so no FINRA rule supersedes anything CBSX put out. (Plus the CBOE Oct. 11 was after FINRA's rules in April and in response to FINRA's vague memo).
I shouldn't have written 'every other bd', you are right, since Echo is PHLX and hasn't had to switch yet. But every CBOE / CBSX firm I know of has, plus Bright and G-2 (which is PHLX).
Even though G-2 is PHLX, it was forced to switch by its clearing firm, GSEC (Goldman), which is FINRA. Same thing with Bright, which is a Chicago Stock Exchange member (different than CBOE / CBSX). This was also simply because they clear GSEC which is FINRA, who interprets FINRA's post as 80/20 split max.
And PHLX is owned by Nasdaq now, and outsources its regulation to FINRA. (But they still are governed by the PHLX rule book). Thus still the Series 7s needed. But who knows how long they won't be 80/20, 90/10, or 95/5.
Point is, if WTS / CTG is flaunting the rule, blatantly clear in the CBOE memo, it is just another concern to add to the list.
To clear it up, there are phone numbers at the bottom of the CBOE memo. Call them anonymously and ask what they think maximum payouts are. I did.
Of course you want 99 if it is there, but if it isn't legal / compliant, than you saw what happens ScalperJoe. What is worse about this is that the CBOE memo outlines what happens if the accounts are deemed customer accounts as it says if the accounts receive 'all or virtually all' of the split. They (WTS) are going to retroactively be bound to customer net capital rules, not prop ones. When the recalc is done, if they are under their net capital, they get shut. All firms under net cap minimums are not warned, just shut. Then, as with Team Trading, maybe you do or don't lose your money in the end, but it takes a while to get it back.
My simple point is why take the risk without making a 3 minute call to the number on bottom and see if they are just flouting the rules. It seems worth the 3 minutes. Or ask WTS compliance how they don't interepret 'all or virtually all' doesn't cover 99%. Or both.
I shouldn't have written 'every other bd', you are right, since Echo is PHLX and hasn't had to switch yet. But every CBOE / CBSX firm I know of has, plus Bright and G-2 (which is PHLX).
Even though G-2 is PHLX, it was forced to switch by its clearing firm, GSEC (Goldman), which is FINRA. Same thing with Bright, which is a Chicago Stock Exchange member (different than CBOE / CBSX). This was also simply because they clear GSEC which is FINRA, who interprets FINRA's post as 80/20 split max.
And PHLX is owned by Nasdaq now, and outsources its regulation to FINRA. (But they still are governed by the PHLX rule book). Thus still the Series 7s needed. But who knows how long they won't be 80/20, 90/10, or 95/5.
Point is, if WTS / CTG is flaunting the rule, blatantly clear in the CBOE memo, it is just another concern to add to the list.
To clear it up, there are phone numbers at the bottom of the CBOE memo. Call them anonymously and ask what they think maximum payouts are. I did.
Of course you want 99 if it is there, but if it isn't legal / compliant, than you saw what happens ScalperJoe. What is worse about this is that the CBOE memo outlines what happens if the accounts are deemed customer accounts as it says if the accounts receive 'all or virtually all' of the split. They (WTS) are going to retroactively be bound to customer net capital rules, not prop ones. When the recalc is done, if they are under their net capital, they get shut. All firms under net cap minimums are not warned, just shut. Then, as with Team Trading, maybe you do or don't lose your money in the end, but it takes a while to get it back.
My simple point is why take the risk without making a 3 minute call to the number on bottom and see if they are just flouting the rules. It seems worth the 3 minutes. Or ask WTS compliance how they don't interepret 'all or virtually all' doesn't cover 99%. Or both.