That's what I was thinking. Maybe an excessive bandwidth usage fee for the active traders. Take the time to figure it out and there are ways for the sub-llc owner to recoup these lost wages w/o the use of a commission override.
I agree - the person or group running a sub-llc SHOULD be able to charge some type of fee for the service/location they provide, without hassles from regulators that miss all the big stuff in the markets and focus on the stupid stuff.
Do you guys have any idea how much money a guy makes on over-rides? I'll open the curtain for you, a good manager can pull in 50k to 100k a month in over-rides. You think he can make that much on a bandwith fee? LOL.
Go ahead, laugh (as opposed to the ubiquitous teenage texting slang - LOL) but watch - you'll start to see these sub-llc owners coming up with creative ways to recoup the overrides. But that's not the real problem they face - like you said earlier, who's going to put their own money up now to fund this type of operation. I think one of the key things to come out of Tuco was the acceptance of deposits. Look at Tuco's now well-known figures: they had 10MM on deposit to support some 300 traders. Who is going to do that? Other than Don, who here has that?
It might just be easier to get everyone regis. and do it legit???Then trying to play all of these games.
a question for maverick-under this new scenario,if a trader takes all the exams he needs ,how is leverage treated going forward at an Assent for example -will it be 2-1 and 4-1 pattern day trade OR will the 20 and 30:1 be allowed thanks