TM let me just say that I am not threatening legal action at this time. I still like trading on the hammer and do not need to go anywhere. I am just saying that knowing that the people on the management side are smart well advised people who have a lot of reasons to want to keep their business running smoothly, I doubt they are going to surrender a business model edge to Don and ECHO. I haven't even address the legal questions, nor will I at this time. But lets just say I do not see this as a clear cut case for either side.
As I have stated previously, prop traders' capital must be in a firm for a specific period of time to be treated as firm capital. That is indeed an SEC rule. Any intimation that this is a loophole to withhold members' money is sheer puffery (i.e. utter nonsense). Contrary to what anyone else says here, that is the simple fact. LLC members are just that--members. Members have to follow the rules of their agreements. As to the party who says Sungard doesn't meet your business partner qualifications, who are you kidding? This is an S&P 500 company. Do you only do business with smaller firms? In any case, a membership with Assent IS NOT an account with Sungard. It's a membership with Assent. Just like Bright or any other LLC, your money is not SIPC insured unless it is in a retail account. Here's a solution for anybody on this thread: Go to www.assentclearing.com. Pull up the forms menu and read the agreements. They are there for the whole world to see. They are not some closely held secret as with some other firms.
question: the Prop is only for 7 and 55 traders....but if you are a retail person and put up say 10k ( and have no license)...i don't think you can use it for net cap.
As a point of friendly discussion, the member's capital only has to be kept If it is used in the Net Capital calculation. If the Firm has enough capital to designate $$ for return of capital, then the rule does not apply. You were here long enough to know that as well as I do. So, in essence, we are both right.....If a firm doesn't need the traders money, then they can return it to the trader at any time. (To be honest, of all the things to worry about, this is low on the totem pole)....Good Luck Mr. Profit!! Don
let's see.... Sungard got it right with so many other endeavors... Sungard wasn't right for the continued Andover model.... Assent was the net result..... I guess you represent Andover/Assent, and have their spin on it... I guess what really matters to those who started/commented on this thread is/are: 1) what were those differences 2) why did they matter so much 3) what makes the model so hard to partner to? basic explanitory questions like that, that basically add to credibility without tipping your inside hand on things... but something far more credible than just the blanket statement just made.... after all, you're talking to traders who are for the most part very intelligent (when spell checker works )
I am not sure who the traderprofit works for or what his agenda is but it forces me to write this. Don is right. All LLC's I have been with have stated they have the excess capital and have returned traders money when asked. It was the poorly run B.S. fly by night screw the trader type operations that had to keep traders' money for a year. (This is my opinion and why I never traded at those firms). When I joined Andover they stated that it was never a problem getting your money out. It was then represented clear as a bell that Assent was the exact same thing as Andover, just a name change. And that because of Sunguard we were all in a better financial position. Consequently telling me that it was in the agreement for all the world too see is really irrelevant to point I have been making (between the lines) and the facts of the situation that began this thread. Traderprofit needs to understand the law and the context of the excess capital situation-- and the exceptions to the rule of the writing controls the agreement, before he starts giving legal sermons. This is not meant to be a personal attack on traderprofit just his statements and the the implications that are made therefrom. I felt compelled to write this to protect my position.
Traderprofit of course is partnered with Assent (as he has stated). He is also an ex Bright Trader who happens to be "one of the smartest people I have ever met"....he, my brother, and I stay in touch and have lunch whenever possible. I think he is simply speaking the the "Company Line" with no malice or deception. Love and Peace!! Don
Coomabaya my Lord , Coombaya, ( every body, hold hands) Cooombaya my lord, Coombaya, Sniff!...I think im going to cry God bless everyone!
I am not "partnered" with Assent. I am "married." I am just not a "married put" Anyway, this thread has gotten too serious and I'm not giving legal advice, just stating that people should expect to be held to their agreements.