How large of a retail account is big enough that nearly all brokers would start wetting their pants to get that account?
It's not the size of the account that matters, but the traded volume. An account of 1m could trade more than an account of 100m.
A relative that's an institutional trader once stated he would be impressed by a retail trader that had a 5mil trading account. In contrast, a broker once stated he would be impressed by a retail trader with a 1mil trading account. Yet someone else that's different...in another country and a broker...she stated she would be impress with any retail trader with > 500k for trading purposes. Not sure what you meant by "all" as if someone would actually know what every broker on this planet, country, state, city or whatever would be impress by the size of the trading account by a retail trader. Why should it matter ??? Reminds me of this strange girl in college that said "drop your pants...I want to see how big it is". I replied...you do the same. She got up and left. wrbtrader
A $100M account inactive will allow a broker to provide margin for those who do trade their account actively thus would be desirable...
At the largest US broker, Fidelity, the avg acct balance has hit $104k, they have 304k accts 7 digits or more. An acct of $287k is avg for those with them 10 years, & $387k for 15 years. They probably do care about the churn on the larger accts into the 7 digits & will work harder to keep the client happy. The last report I saw form Tradestation on their avg acct size was a few years ago was $60k, I would think it risen since than, probably closer to $80k now. https://www.fidelity.com/about-fide...-retirement-saving-balances-reach-six-figures