Due diligence, why? Here's why!

Discussion in 'Prop Firms' started by Don Bright, Oct 12, 2006.

  1. By the way Don, I appreciate it. Some belligerent traders here seem to like to have a prominent target to criticize, but as a remote trader with a small group outside of communications with management and other traders, I don't get information like this or other exchange/trading news as easily.
     
    #11     Oct 12, 2006
  2. Thanks a lot, I really appreciate hearing from some of the "good guys" here on the board.

    All the best,

    Don
     
    #12     Oct 12, 2006
  3. Can I guess? Bright Trading! i win, I WIN!
     
    #13     Oct 12, 2006
  4. IF the link of the previous poster is accurate, then the firm in question is a hedge fund and does not operate in the same mileau as the Brights, Echos,etc. I don't quite understand the association.
     
    #14     Oct 12, 2006
  5. #15     Oct 12, 2006
  6. Sorry for the confusion. Apex is correct, that was trading system author (and ET poster) Conway.

    That judgment has nothing to do (AFAIK) with the trading firm Don is talking about. I just posted it because I saw it on the SEC litigation page and thought it might be of interest to ETers.

    Good luck to all. :cool:
     
    #16     Oct 12, 2006
  7. Don,

    I don't understand why you won't say if it it is a prop firm or not? You didn't even acknowledge my question? I understand not giving out names, but this a bit much. :confused:

    Dan
     
    #17     Oct 13, 2006
  8. Not hedge fund.....XXXXtrading.

    Don't want to get into legal wrangling, I'm just pointing out that everyone should do their due diligence.

    Don
     
    #18     Oct 13, 2006
  9. Yes, prop firm....sorry, missed the question I guess.

    Don
     
    #19     Oct 13, 2006
  10. was perusing this site and came across
    http://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2006/34-54481.pdf
    "On July 26, 2002, CBOE issued a Statement of Charges against Ho, in which CBOE alleged that, on numerous dates from June 1999 to October 2001, Ho “engaged in an on-going course of verbal and physical conduct intended to harass, threaten and intimidate” members of his trading crowd and that he subsequently threatened a member of the trading crowd who had provided testimony against Ho during CBOE’s investigation. Represented by counsel, Ho submitted an offer to settle the charges against him, which CBOE formally accepted in a decision issued on October 21, 2003 (“2003 decision”). According to the terms of the settlement agreement, Ho neither admitted nor denied the allegations against him but accepted sanctions for his conduct that included a censure, a $15,000 fine, completion of an anger-management program, abstention from service on any CBOE committee for one year, and an eight-week suspension."

    holy schneikies--- i heard there was a lynchmob over there?
     
    #20     Oct 13, 2006