Correct, the Chicago and Detroit trading floor are managed and ran by JC Trading Group. They are not CTG branches, even though CTG lists them on their website.
Give it up SGTSLOTTER.... You dont know what you are talking about... 99% payout is standard and legal. Been with CTG for 7 months now and have always been paid out on time and all calls answered immediately. Top notch firm. I have traded with two other firms, both top notch. One was true prop and Assent which also paid out 99%. CTG is in full compliance. Stop with your 99% isnt compliant BS man. Your wrong.... But you've been writing that slander for a year now so I bet you'll continue. I have read the same Reg 18 you have. We are licensed professional traders wirh FINRA licenses. Were are in compliance. Stop posting this sh## and learn to trade. Any trader who is making money wouldnt bother writing the stuff you write. Case in Point. I make money and only post on the weekends.. Too busy during the week celebrating my wins or preparing for tomorrow.....
always beware when people just tell you to 'go away'. they seem a bit desperate to push this under the rug. Here is the quote from the memo: "A split which provides all or virtually all of the P & L to the trader is likely a red flag that the account is a customer account." (near the top of page 2) Here is the link to the memo: https://www.cboe.org/publish/regcir/rg10-101.pdf And buddy, Assent was a FINRA broker dealer. And Assent sold to Lightspeed before this memo came out I think. But b/c they were Finra, they wouldn't be subject to this specifically. (Check Finra 10-18 for their rules.) If CTG is a FINRA broker dealer, then you can refer to the Finra memo. As far as I know, CTG is part of WTS which is a CBSX firm. That means you should be being treated as a customer, upping the net capital requirements of the firm, being offered SIPC insurance, and minimum 25k in the account. Oh yeah, have fun with your retail customer 4 to 1 leverage. Again, CTG, or anyone with 99%, buyer beware. Or just don't be an idiot and call the freaking CBOE. There is a name and a number at the bottom of the memo with the actual real live compliance person to ask. If you have a choice of going right to the source or listening to this poster on Elite Trader... Just pick up the phone and then ignore this junk.
not a basher about propriety trading firms. but try to know as much as I can. do not want bad experience with propriety trading (some I know definetely is just scam, sugar it with propriety trading, some I know are true propriety trading). very helpful discussions
Correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it, the firm has to retain profits but the CBOE hasn't made any statements regarding individual traders, right? That would mean, you can provide 99:1 to one trade and 50:50 to another as long as the firm's policy is not to offer 100% or 99% to every trader.
SgtSlotter has no idea what he is talking about. First, the link he references is a circular, not a law or a CBSX rule. There is nothing that can be "illegal" about it. It is guidance. If it were a rule it would be in the CBSX rule book....which it is not. It even uses the term "guidance" in the memo. Almost every CBSX BD I have talked to pays 99%.
This payout issue has been discussed extensively on other threads. The statement in question is as follows: "A split which provides all or virtually all of the P & L to the trader is likely a red flag that the account is a customer account." Of course, CBSX firms don't have customer accounts, only members who trade the firm's account, so they payout simply cannot be 100%. The phrase "all or virtually all" is subject to interpretation. Obviously, 99% is NOT 100%, but neither is 98%, or 97%, etc. As the op mentioned, it's only a memo providing guidance, it has no effect of an SEC rule or regulation. If and when there is rule regarding any potential maximum split, there's no doubt it will be posted all over these boards, just as when there was the announcement of the new 56 exam.
You are exactly right ScalperJoe...SgtSlotter just shows his ignorance once again by saying 99% is "outlawed".
I have read many of Sgt Slotter's posts regarding props, with some valid arguments presented, however regarding the payout cap, we're just rehashing a non-issue. Even the head of CBOE agrees that the issue is yet to be determined, lol! (I called, as the name/number is clearly stated in the memo).