Discussion in 'Prop Firms' started by RogerBlank, Oct 15, 2002.
just wanted to mention that Rob is out until next week .. so you will have troubles calling him
I knew it was an emotional motivation. There didn't appear to be much other than that going on.
The guy asked a simple question, even as I reread it there is nothing there but a simple question. I don't see anything like spreading misinformation on it. And I can attest that the answer is not found on the website. It is a valid question.
Yes , fortunately Rob is very helpful as is Jeff. Perhaps some people don't feel the need to call the partners with every little question. Maybe , some people think there might be an answer given on the ET board that is populated and supported by Echo.
In fact then, from now on, anyone with any question about Echo should not post it on ET, they should call Rob Keller. And tell him JCM2 and skibum sent you.
Maybe I am guilty of a little unnecessary emotional outburst, but come on this is no innocent, just seeking info question if it takes two threads to get it answered.......
This stuff is posted about, hashed over, and re-hashed all through out this website and typically ends with somebody bashing pro firms.
As far as calling the partners, hey if echo's site is so unclear that our buddy RogerBlank can't get this 1 cent versus 1.3 cent question straight in his mind, the partners would probably want to know how to better communicate their rates on the website.
Why all the ruckus over .3 cents?
Personally, I found that I traded better with a higher fee structure since this made me much more selective in my trades. I wrote about 70% FEWER tickets than I did when fees were minimal which resulted in less stress, higher net profits AND lower transaction costs!
just wanted to re-state from an earlier post that it is not 1.3 cents per share.....it is .7 +.3 = 1 cent per share... it is just broken down this way on the sheets....i think if a trader traded 2 million shares a month that additional .3 cents would cost him $6000....worthy of a ruckus, imho!!!!!!!!!
That's cause RogerBlank is probably Beaburt, as well as the other assorted aliases. Chalk up another positive PR session for PhilM at Andover.
Good point. You are probably right.
I stand corrected. RogerBlank is not PhilM at Andover. Thank you for the information, reliable party who shall remain nameless.
Separate names with a comma.