________________________________________ Quote from hiptogo: prop B members with 365 days lock!?!?!? wow. who does that still? ________________________________________ ________________________________________ Quote from cstfx cbsx firms ________________________________________ Then stay away from these "CBSX firms"
this guy said he can't get his deposit & profits? Profits are not locked up.. no response from him. i guess all is ok. What was the point of the thread when he would not even say the name of the firm he was having a payment issue with ? too many sketchy firms out their. the cbsx lockup rule of trader's deposits is bullshit
The 365 day lock up is actually an SEC requirement, so it would apply to all JBO arrangements, not just CBSX. I think it comes from this study: http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/daytrading.htm 4. Net Capital Restrictions on the Withdrawal of Partnership Capital A proprietary firm may include the capital contributed by its members as an allowable asset for net capital purposes. This practice may restrict the ability of the firm's members to withdraw their funds, if the withdrawal would place the firm in violation of the net capital rule.34 All of the proprietary firms examined by the Staff had operating agreements restricting partners' withdrawal of equity capital or capital contributions made by members of the firm. In general terms, the operating agreements stated that the general partner may restrict distributions of capital if such withdrawals would cause the firm to violate the requirements of the net capital rule. The SEC's staff has issued an interpretive letter relating to the net capital treatment of temporary capital contributions.35 Under the interpretive letter, if an individual contributes capital to a broker-dealer with an understanding that the contribution can be withdrawn at the option of the individual, the contribution may not be included in the firm's net capital computation and must be re-characterized as a liability. In addition, the letter states that any withdrawal of capital by that individual within a year (other than a withdrawal to make required tax payments and reasonable compensation to partners as described in Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1), shall be presumed to have been contemplated by the individual at the time of the contribution. The Staff believes that this interpretation is consistent with the position it has emphasized for some time and should clarify a day-trading firm's obligation to maintain permanent capital under the net capital rule.
Read OP's first post - the firm is not registered. They are not a b/d or a member of a JBO. As such, it does not have to follow ANY rules when it comes to money management. If it followed the rules, it would not have been an unregistered firm. The most you can expect is for the SEC, et al, it to try and pull a TUCO on them, and maybe, OP will get SOME of his money back, if the (probably) sub-llc is up to no good. Since OP has not followed up on his claim, either he got his money back or it was bullsh.t from the start.
when it comes to money problems at the unregistered firm, there is really not much that you can do besides banging its reputation such that it goes out of business. therefore, i personally dont join the unregistered firms or at least ones that have demonstrated excellent reputation for a long period
yes the sec requires it.. all deposits being locked up for 1 year is bs. the trader is at a disadvantage. does not help or protect the trader in any way. its all smoke & mirrors. as most regulatory rules are. they should clean up wall st and not look to screw over the small daytraders trying to earn a living & want free access to the markets without all the bs rules. always the the small players getting bent over.