I trade about 2-3 million shares/ month or about 100-150K shares/ day on average. In a volatile market, I trade around 4 million shares/ month. I am profitable and have about 15K to put in my account (more money is tied up in real estate....) Anyways, I just wanted to see what the best commission rate that I could get right now? I would require at LEAST 100x leverage, as I put out multiple orders as part of one of my strategies and I don't want any margin issues on the open orders. I take very little risk and am very quick to cut losses, so the issue of "oh, this guy wants all this BP with only 15K down, what if he blows up??" is irrelevant. Believe me, I hate losses but I always have the discipline to cut a position when it costing me money. Also, my trades are primarily very short term and I seldom carry overnights. So, what is everyone else getting with this kind of volume?? If you are a firm and want to make an offer, please do so by PM. Thanks for the input and good trading to all. NYSEscalpa
Rates should be no less than .005 for any traders. The problem in this business right now is that firms are operating on thin margins. Look no further than Worldco for a company that didn't make it. As a trader you should be looking for a solid firm that can make money on you also. Who do you think has the capital for you to trade 100X. It doesn't just appear. I comes from someone looking to make a return. At rates lower than .005 they are not making a return good enough to justify the risks. I wouldn't worry about rates, I would worry about your capital and your trading skills. A good trader looks to make 200K+ in a year. What is a few 1000 bucks to be at a bad firm. You always end up getting what you pay for. Hope that helps....
I have to disagree completely. What you have written makes little sense Thin margins does mean the company is in a bad situation. It makesa company to be a price leader. Look at Dell and Wal-Mart. Saying that you should be paying no less that 0.005 a share is the same thing as saying you should not be paying less than $2,000 for a computer. So, Dell's PC's at 600 means that Dell is going out of business and will not live up its end of the bargain. Dell's margins are ultra small - volume makes it up. What you have said is a justification of people who can't compete with the likesof Dell and Wal-Mart. And we know where they ended up. Charging higher rates may justify extraordinary software, extraordinary training and possibly extraordinary frindge benefits that are priced in. It does not justify the companies making a large margin. A company that charges half a cent a share is getting a lion's share - and the higher the commissions, the more difficult it is for the trader to make money, especially in today's market environment. It is true, that for some extra-ordinary traders (those who do not trade on order-flow and the like), that take big swinging positions and make a lot of money - yes - a few $1,000.00 will not matter. They want to be with a well capitalized firm. For that, however, they can trade thourgh Goldman Sachs, or Merryl. Most traders, however, do not kid yourselves, make much less than your stated 200k. They make between 40 and 100k, if they do make it. And for someone who makes 50k a month a few thousand a month here and there is a difference between being able to make rent and take a Hawaiian vacation. Moreover, your reasons behind the demise of worldco is completely wrong. Worldco never charged low commissions by far! They're demise is attributed irresponsible risk control, irresponsible expansion, balooning overhead and the crookedness of management as a whole. Worldco took on people, they lost more that what they put in (5k in - 30k losses), let those people go, and then after the tradersw went through other firms (like Andover, Genesis, Hold), took them back and they lost 30k more. This is not a first instance either! Moreover - it has to do with insane leverage. I guy with less than a poor track record will come in and get 100:1 leverage and loose it. I would rather watch out for companies who offer insane leverages to almost anyone - that can tip you off that there may be a problem. Andover, before being bought did that - to get more traders to increase their volume to make their business more attractive to Assent. But that is a separate story. Paying no less that 0.005 commission is ridicilous. Finding a solid firm is important. Good luck!
As an office manager I would not be willing to give you the bp without building a relationship first. If I understand you correctly, you want 1.5 million in BP (lol) ..... you probably could lose $15k just to get into a position. it's irrelevant because you say so??? I understand the need to put out multiple orders but 1.5 million. come on. The industry has applauded traders who really haven't done shit (not that you haven't) but there was a time when offices were dying just to fill seats and would believe anything a trader says. Not sure about other offices but ours is concerned with risk. In that....... we don't want any. $1.5million BP with only $15 000 to cover any losses. get serious. Start small.......build a relationship (in other words PUT UP NUMBERS, then make demands)
you got too many idiots on these boards lookimg for 100X leverage who will eventually blow themselves up and maybe the trading firms who price their commissions on marginal cost rather than average cost. worldco was a firm with this philosophy. worldco should have let the primma donnas go and shoud have made its money off the middle level trader.
Actually you get what you pay for. For anyone that knows PCs, DELL is a piece of shit product. Same thing about Walmart, it's cheap crap product. You get what you pay for and as a hardcore scalper, speed & quality is very important. What you have said is a justification of people who can't compete with the likesof Dell and Wal-Mart. And we know where they ended up.[/QUOTE] Hmm that is faulty reasoning. High end PCs are a much better business than selling cheap low end crap to lower middle class debt ridden America. As for Wal-Mart, well look at Kmart. Same model, but Kmart made other mistakes. Charging higher rates may justify extraordinary software, extraordinary training and possibly extraordinary frindge benefits that are priced in. It does not justify the companies making a large margin. A company that charges half a cent a share is getting a lion's share - and the higher the commissions, the more difficult it is for the trader to make money, especially in today's market environment.[/QUOTE] Half cent is not lion's share. Moreover, your reasons behind the demise of worldco is completely wrong. Worldco never charged low commissions by far! They're demise is attributed irresponsible risk control, irresponsible expansion, balooning overhead and the crookedness of management as a whole. Worldco took on people, they lost more that what they put in (5k in - 30k losses), let those people go, and then after the tradersw went through other firms (like Andover, Genesis, Hold), took them back and they lost 30k more. This is not a first instance either! Moreover - it has to do with insane leverage. I guy with less than a poor track record will come in and get 100:1 leverage and loose it.[/QUOTE] Noooo, actually this was discussed in a different thread. Worldco was coming down quite low on rates for their profitable high volume traders almost eliminating any possible profits for the firm. Combine that with expensive leases, shady management & overblown costs. Since NYSEscalpa sounds like he does some serious volume, I say he should not pay more than $.005 per share. But if the rate starts going below $.004, you will see why. You get what you pay for.
I, too, dispute that commissions are always proportional to quality. With things like self-clearing, intelligent management, extensive use of automation, etc., some firms are able to reduce their costs dramatically. Also, I question exactly what the original poster and some who followed up really mean by 100x leverage. In another thread, I wrote: ---------------------------------------------------- >Quote from brokerboy: >i guess your saying 10 to 1 for people without a 7 right because >i get at least 100 to 1. Can someone clarify something that I've been troubled about? People talk about these huge leverage factors and it makes me wonder if we are really talking about leverage or just open orders. That is, if you have a $25K account, are you really able to trade 27,000 shares of IBM @ $92/share (~$2.5M position)? Or do you really mean that you're able to put out $2.5M in opening/closing/envelope/market-making orders, only $100K-$250K of which can get hit before you have to cancel (or have cancelled) the rest of the orders? ---------------------------------------------------- Clearly, in the first case, there is a cost of capital and risk, but the second case can be done with no more than usual leverage for the positions that actually get filled, and as little or as much risk that the firm and trader agree on. To me, this is not "100:1 leverage".
I understand a firm's concern with risk controls but I don't take huge losses- I'm a scalper and exit positions rapidly. I'm not going to get into what I do on a public forum, but lets just say its low risk/decent-high reward, high-probability. To those who have responded to my inquiry by PM, thank you, you've been helpful and we will be in touch. By the way, GSCO, theres more money to play with than $15K- I have other assets/investments, but I understand your statements when you don't know much about me. I've got no problems starting out small for a little while to prove myself and my strategy if it gets me what I need. But I'm sure as shit not going to push 100 lots for 3 months.
open orders dont cause margin calls, its the cumulative open positions at the same time that causes margin calls