"are you with...." I have been trading with Echotrade since Aug. I traded with Schonfeld in Chicago in 95/96 before moving to NY for what at the time seemed "a job I couldn't refuse".... ( i was wrong....
Despite Don's answer, my sources continue to insist Steve is pressing this issue. Don's response was we told them to stop talking such nonsense. Don has an interest in this matter not being pursued. If Steve is backing off, it is only backing off being blamed for it not backing off pursuing the matter. I can assure everyone on this board that Steve Schonenfeld does not care what Don Bright thinks nor will he back off if asked to. Those who know Steve or worked for him will agree. My sources include a FORMER summer employee of the SEC (how much she knows is debatable) and an employee of Schoenfeld who I believe has access to this matter.
Greentrader tax website gives a good discussion of this. It would seem, if as they say, the 2000 ruling allowed the LLC format, that they wouldn't be terribly likely to change their minds based on SS. I agree tho that SS will not back off. I worked for him too and he is a very intelligent person with lots and lots of confidence. I would be highly surprized if pressure by anyone would change his approach. Denise
Just found out that Schoenfeld is asking for a no action letter from the SEC that requests that they can have prop traders take losses. If they get it, they change their model. If they don't everyone else changes theirs.
Looks like Steve is going back to original business model of 1990-1991. Traders put up 25k......all losses yours and you split profits. He gave you leverage and training.
No, Steve is trying to force everyone to his model. No losses to the trader. He figures he can put the competition out of business. He knows that Bright wants no part of his trader's losses. They just churn for commissions. Same with Echo and Generic. The only ones who could compete would be First New York and maybe ETG. If he doesn't get the no action letter, then he can be like everyone else and take no losses.
What exactly is a 'no action letter?' and did SS start out back in the early 90's with the same model as Bright etc? DKS
From my understanding, a "no action letter" is issued by a regulatory body when there is some confusion about whether something is permitted by that organization. The letter generally means that although some specific act is not expressly forbidden (or allowed) by rule, that the agency will take "no action" against someone who performs the act. It seems common where rules have been highly subject to interpretation or technology has advanced to the point of undermining a previously valid rule. I think it works like complicit permission. "We won't say you are allowed to do this, but we won't take action against you if you do."