Okay. But by minimum initial deposit, I mean you need N (account) * M ($2K as you mentioned) any way. Anti-fraud attempts? Are we small traders their priority? Wonder if they'd catch Enron and WorldCom first? Election tampering, you bet. The whole market in October and November was a fraud.
why don't you just work double shifts down at the loading dock? in a couple of years you could almost have 25 K saved.
The minimum initial deposit is what you need to open an account. You need $2,000 to open the account. But you do not need $2,000 maintenance. After 2 days (make it three to be safe), you could transfer money out. As long as you don't try to open more than one account at the same time, you could conceivably do it with not much more than $2,000. The small traders are the target because they are an easy victim. The anti-fraud posturing is all a smokescreen.
I don't understand this quote. If you are referring to IB, the small traders are not the target. Following the rules and regulations are. You are correct that it isn't worth upsetting the SEC or regulators. If you open multiple account There is one way around the rules - Single Stock Futures. It was only a year ago that stocks traded in 1/8ths. With SSF's having an spreads of 4 cents, there is plenty of opportunity. They aren't any riskier than stocks. I know you read the comment from our GC on the rules but I'll post here. Whatever we all think of the day trading rules, and IB does not like them any more than you do, please be aware that it is not acceptable to use multiple accounts to avoid the day trading restrictions. Customers who do this will be forced to close accounts that are being used for this purpose. Do not waste your time and ours by opening multiple accounts that we will be forced to close.
It is kind of funny that people complain about decimalization, and at the same time complain about an 8 cent spread on SSF. Before decimalization a 1/16 spread would be 6.25 cents anyhow. But now people are used to 1 or 2 cent spreads on stocks, and don't like the 6 to 10 cent spreads currently available on SSF. People don't like the wobbly feeling of trading SSF where there is usually very slim liquidity. The bid and ask is almost always from the market makers, and it looks like they can be pulled at pretty much any moment. I watched this happen this week, where there was an 80 cent spread on a SSF (Citicorp) for about 15 minutes, then the quotes went blank on that SSF altogether. When that happened, I posted my own bid and ask at about a 50 cent spread. A minute or two after I did that the market maker quotes came back on at an 8 cent spread. It just doesn't quite feel like you're standing on solid ground yet with the SSF. We know that IB tends to be overstrict in its interpretations of rules, to avoid any potential trouble. It's clear from IB's documents that it will not allow use of multiple accounts to avoid the CBOE "unbundling" rule for Options. If there is any similar proscription on the IB site (other than the general counsel's recent posted message) against using multiple accounts to get around the PDT rules, I haven't been able to find it. My quote about small traders being targeted was not in reference to IB. It was in reference to the whole regulatory witchhunt.
bid/ask spread and multiple accounts etc. restrictions on options are not from NASD/SEC regulators. They imposed by exchanges. So to add someone's comment, it says not to upset regulators, exchanges and brokers, all big powerful boss. Instead kiss their ass like you do in a regular job. That's why a union needs to come into a place. Strict advice and offense: no SSF.