Short our stock? It's you naked short sellers that have runied the industry, LOL..... Sure, overall profits are down, but with so many firms just "going away" I don't worry much.....and FWIW, the family trading, Bob primarily, and the other 5 of us, has more than compensated for it the last couple of years. Our biggest "adapting" is the zero risk JVC program with nearly 175 traders in it right now. All with "normal" accounts and this second account with no downside and a 50% upside with automated programs that run on the same computer without interfering with their "normal" trading. So, each trader has multiple revenuje streams with the same initial deposit. We have always been able to disagree respectuflly...as we do with off-floor futures trading for "newer" people off the CME floor. Similar points with options...the floor guys aren't writing any checks to upstairs traders IMO. I think there is a more level playing field with equities, especially cost wise. My brother pays a small "cap" for his emini's, I pay (don't laugh) $4.00 round trip...hard to compete. (Although I still make some money with the e's). We are working harder than ever to help make the traders profitable. Going forward, if someone is losing consitently, he will cease to be a Bright Trader - we are insisting on them putting in the effort needed - much like the "trup prop" that seems to be where we are all heading. At this point we don't want to resemble a "one stop shop" for all products and certainly don't want to keep a bunchof non-performing traders on the books....that would be un-wise in upcoming years. Don Edit: Did you say "OTC" above? We've always traded Nasdaq stocks...that "label" was min-interpreted a decade ago simply because OTC stocks didn't have Opening Only orders, LOL. We have always traded the Naz, just differently....and, yes, of course in pairs as well as individual.
Wow, I'm in the process of joining Bright as we speak. I'm signed up for the Sept class and just got my registration packet friday--currently studying for the Series 7. Needless to say, I'm a bit dismayed to have found this out on an online forum. Now I'm not sure what to do. On the one hand, the JVC program, I guess, is intended to somewhat make up for this. But my understanding of it is that it is restricted to "approved" pairs trading activities. This makes me think about poker, for example. Even a good poker player, if faced with a 20% rake, would have a hard time making any money. To extend the analogy, though, such a player might have a backing deal to get the ball rolling, but I don't know. 80% at 40/80 is better than 100% at 2/4. The problem here is that you have all of the risk, but less profits. In the Tharp lingo, your "R" multiple will come down for whatever strategy you're using. I'm very much on the fence. I feel that going with this now will be essentially rolling the dice, staying retail will be safe, but with less upside potential. I'd love to hear some other thoughts...
So Don, what's the deal here? You are now taking 20% and keeping the current commission structure? If not, what's your new base commission rate?
We lowered our rates in anticipation of all this. Max is now .005 for a 200k month trader...shares above 1,000 are .003. Goes down as volume goes up of course. And, as mentioned before...you can qualify (150 or so have already) for a second account, zero money up, automated program and keep 50% of the profits as well. The way I look at this second account is like sitting at a black jack table and guy sitting next to you says "hey, do you mind if I give you half my profits, no downside? " LOL. Hmm? Not too bad IMO. The other major GS firms already doing this,. Don
So let me do some simple math here. A trader that does one million shares a month and let's say makes 500k net a year. This trader is going to save 12k in commissions but lose 100k in profits?