I do not think a company can be around since 1992, have over 400 traders and 40+ offices if it is that crappy. Could be the experience differs from office to office? I am about to send my Series 7 sponsor papers but who to? Debating Echo, Bright, L & W, Schoenfeld and confused like hell with all the one way rhetoric/comments. Of course Echo just merged with Van Buren. Can the real traders with experience at multiple firms, please stand up and be counted.
My usual comments, DO NOT ASK an anonymous message board. Walk into the offices of firms you are considering and check them out yourself. Robert
Let me offer some theories... 1. people who complain about service used to be traders there who for 1 reason or another left. Maybe they lost $ and were forced out. Maybe they had a disagreement over their managers over size limits, thermostat of the room, decaf or real coffee in the office. 2. Possible competitors who hide under these elitetrader handles who pretend to be ex-traders. 3. People who attended their workshops or seminars and got put off by one of the brothers condecending comments about NASDAQ, pro vs. on-line yahoos. 4. Profitable traders who have found a different firm and for found that firms software,etc are a bettter fit for them and as such have nothing to lose by trashing Bright even though Bright offers 98% of what they now have. 5. Jealous people who wished they had the foresight to assume the role of the 'house' by offering the infastructure to let other people fulfill their dreams of becoming a pro trader. disclaimer: Used to be with Bright as remote so never had the pleasure or displeasure of being around the brothers. Bottom line opinion: One of the top 3 pro firms that offer a combination of rates, software, stability and competence.
imho, beware of the overused "must have lost money" excuse to deflect certain criticisms. if someone representing a firm sidesteps an issue there is probably a very good reason for it. my first firm in "the business" was one hell of a wakeup call, i wish i'd had the benefit of this board back then.
Make your decision on the individual branch office, not the overall firm. Check out the office in person and spend a day there. Figure out what you want from the firm -- Leverage, prices, training, or something else. Then, find the firm with the best fit. I lived with an onerous contract in order to get the training that has made me a lot of money and in order to not have to put up money. In the short run it cost me a lot, but in the long-run, I am a profitable trader with the confidence to make money in any market. There will always be complainers at any firm. Some have valid points some sdon't. They are worried about their situation. keep your head down and worry about yours. Do the research. As Rtharp says, don't rely on these message boards, find out yourself.
Amway has been around a lot longer than 1992, has many more representatives, higher revenue and a worldwide presence. Does that make them a better company than Bright? As others have mentioned here, if you want to post this question here in a serious manner, you have bigger issues than which firm to select. The topic has been beat to death weekly for several years on these boards. Use the search function.
This is a breed of business that obviously lends itself to playing the averages, and I don't mean just the stock market. The traders churn the stocks, and the firms churn the traders. I have heard an office manager at a small brokerage firm say "throw a lot of shit against the wall and see what sticks". That about sums it up for most firms right there. It seems to me that a key element that changes the whole nature of the situation is whether or not you are trading the firms money. "Trader Vic" , the guy who wrote the book of the same name, worked as a proprietary trader in the beginning of his career. He talks about getting screwed by several firms before he got the best deal of his career trading on a 50/50 split of profits and losses without any fees and trading with only the firms money. He tried many different deals, and he was/is a very talented trader, and he determined through much effort that the 50/50 split trading the firms money was the best deal. That is a far cry from the 100% payouts that I hear about. Think about it, if you are getting a 100% payout then you are a brokerage customer plain and simple. It is common sense and yet nobody seems to want to admit it.
Exactly true. Any firms that derive 99+% of their revenues from desk fees, commissions, training seminars AND require a deposit to apply against trading losses is pretty much out to screw you.