dogballon i diasgree many offices clear everything above .002. many offices themselves are around .002 base then add at least .001 to .0015 per share based on 10 million shares a month for cost. it many big cities the rent to hold 10 traders is at least 4-7k a month then you must add in pt to pt t-1 or t-3's which is another 1-2 k plus all the computers and maintaining them. plust your forgetting 80% will wash out fast so you spend all yoru time training. a new guy coming in should get .005 and 80-90% of his profit and after a year .005 and 100%
so you said that no matter what happens the firm makes money because the trader is generating commissions, but..... 1.) What about the situation where there are no investors and you're trading with the FIRM's capital? If the firm gives a trader 100k, and the trader loses 5k in a day, and generates another 6k in commissions, he still has only 95k in his portfolio and therefore the firm has lost money. 2.) Why would investors want to invest in a business model as you stated above? The firm is hiring inexperienced traders to trade their money, the firm doesn' t care if the tradres lose, and they're charging exhorbitant commissions, management fees and percent of profits?
ok...i'm a little confused by this as well... So the trader loses the firm's money, he pays commissions, puts no money out of his pocket, and the firm has MADE money???? where did this money come from??? The trader didn't make any money in the markets, he didn't pay any money out of his pocket, yet the firm is up? I don't get it, who paid the money if the trader didn't pay it out of his pocket and didn't pay it out of profits that he made?
wait so you're saying that the debt doesn't exist? Do you mean that the investors are losing out and not the firm? I guess i'm just a little confused as to the structure of the prop firm
For example, the trader can lose $200 in a day before commissions. But lets say his commissions for that day are an additional $400. That means that day the traders loss will be $600. His account will show -$600. But only $200 came out of the firms capital. The other $400 (in commission) went back into the firms pocket or will have to at some point before the trader can get positive in his account.
in that scenario you can say that..but the firm is looking to train guys enough to be positive before commission. For example lets say the trader makes $200 in a day before commissions. But the trader has traded enough volume that day to where his commissions were $600. Then then the firm still made $200.. But the trader is taking a loss of $400 for the day.. And that $400 will have to be made back before that trader will be owed anything from the firm..
but these guys are talking about it doesn't matter how the trader does he's still making commissions for the firm...but as you can see here, it does matter. If the trader is down the firm is down, if the trader is up the firm is up, regardless.
In this case, the you never grow poor taking profits is wrong since in reality our trader never make any money. The trader needs to make a killing in order to bring home some money.
A trader can be down $3000 in his account for a month. But the firm can be up on him $3000. If the trader took $3000 out of the market that month but his commissions are $6000. The trader will have to take another $3000 out of the market plus more commissions before he will be cut a check by the firm. If traders up money in his account, the firms always up money. But trader can be down money in his account and firm still be up money.