Discussion in 'Prop Firms' started by listedguru, Mar 13, 2008.
Here's a new article to ponder:
seems that no one should be able to trade professionally according to this article... because there are **gasp** RISKS!!!
Give me a fkn break, the SEC is going to protect our deposits? yeah.. $3,000 to $5,000 is going to break us.
after the SEC is finished destroying our industry, i guess the big banks and their algorithms won't come under any scutiny.
remember how they protected us by forcing pennies on us.. that was sold as "helping ma and pa kettle." seems like the big banks and their algo's are the ones that made a killing off of that move.
what these guys should be worried about is the mountian of "fails" they seem to just ignore. oh wait.. thats because the hedge funds are making a killing on that. (literally)
will be interesting to see if tuco traders get their deposits. i bet they all do. meanwhile, the lost revenue from trading profits probably exceed their deposits. thank you big brother.
This is a blatant lie and I wouldn't be surprised if he gets sued over it:
"This SEC emergency (shut-down) order against Tuco appears to be a âgoing out of businessâ sign for most sub-LLC prop trading firms not organized as broker dealers. "
The SEC in no way shut down Tuco. Penson took it upon themselves to stop trading in the account. The rest of the article is all scare tactics based on that statement.
I wonder what his motives are?
Actually the SEC tried to get the court to shut down Tuco, but they said no. So the SEC strong-armed Penson instead. That's my understanding.
that is what was said on the deleted thread when it was all going down.
The SEC has had many opportunities to clear up the issue of the prop firm business model (whether it is registered B/D or sub LLC) and it has chosen instead to be intentionally vague. They could have cleared up the issue after Worldco bankruptcy, after Refco bankrupcty, and many other cases that have gone to court. Why don't they simply issue clear guidelines has to what is or is not legal? And if the SEC has been very clear on the issue then it means all the B/D and sub LLC lawyers that created the legal documents were all wrong in their legal advice - do they have to pay a price for misleading all the firms and traders?
The SEC is a government entity, so that alone should help answer your question.
I would love to see a judge rule against the SEC to some extent and say that a trader has the right to trade in one of these firms at their own risk. Additionally, I would like a ruling to say that the leverage can be set by the firm and the trader. :eek:
Do you think this stuff going on with the SEC is gong to affect big firms like
or are they still solid?
I know that Assent is taking precautions and a lot of the LLC's have returned deposits.
I believe the only thing Assent and Bright have to worry about is, if the SEC will do away from deposits, regardless if one is registered or not.
Separate names with a comma.