If all this is a new approach from the SEC/NASD, why don't they send out a press release stating this? They can't tell just a few "targeted" firms to comply with Reg T? Must be something we are missing here.
I am thinking of calling the NASD/SEC directly and asking. It is not like I would be dislosing anything that they do not know already by my inquiries. Any thoughts?
BTW, Interesting again, Bloomberg reporting potential insider trading via CDS (clear to everyone that it is) off two recent monster deals in the billions - Harrah's Entertainment and HCA. ISDA is the self-regulating body, but SEC just sits there and does nothing to regulate or oversee one of the largest financial markets there is. But prop, whoa...
Here's what would happen: You'd speak to someone who has no clue what's going on, and no motivation to find out for you.
I can't seem to say this enough. My Compliance Officer assures me that nothing is affecting BT. I think Mav and I have been pretty straightforward on this. Not to worry. Don
This is what I don't understand about this "controversy" . I am a licensed s7/55 trader for a prop firm. If I change my structure from an individual to a company called "XYZ hedge fund" , deposit capital in a JBO, take 100% profits and losses, how in the world could the SEC say I am doing something wrong? IF they do, would they not have to go after the SAC advisors, Tudor mgt of the world as well? They deposit money to their executing brokers, get leverage over 4:1, keep 100% of PnL. Is the safe harbor changing the structure from an individual into a non-personal entity?
You make a valid point. This is one of the reasons I am laughing at this controversy. All a trader would have to do, or a firm for that matter, is create an LLC and bring traders into that LLC to trade. For example, I could start Mavco, a sub LLC of Bright. In Mavco, I make my class b partners deposit 10k towards the LLC. They then would trade out of the pool. I would mark up their commissions as the class a partner and a round and round we go. Now, it's not Bright Trading, but Mavco that profits. Bright would then charge Mavco, who is a legitimate customer of Bright. See how silly this is? Good. Carry on.
mav riskarb don and the rest of you guys--- thanks a bunch for making an effort here to give everyone a heads up,
Could this relate to firms that people are putting up less than 25k at ? Back in the day you had to put up at least 25k to prop trade but after the bubble this amount dropped greatly to lure in more dreamers.
What I don't understand is why it's Robert Green publishing this update and not the SEC/NASD. They need to come out and put an end to all the uncertainty. I don't see how they can stay silent when Robert Green publishes this info about what they are doing publicly. I think this hurts their credibility and just creates more misinformation.