It was not a recruiting statement, just an example to emphasize the absurdity of his "volume/piker" comment. FWIW, the guy I was referring to bought CI on the open and was buying all the way up (I think it went almost 3 points in the first fifteen minutes). Volume
Maybe I was strong in saying illegal but wasn't that what you were implying? Why even bring up the SEC investigations of funny accounting if its not illegal? Why would the SEC be wasting their time?
A piker is someone who does low volume in case you didn't know. I am not a piker. And I make money so you have no idea what you're talking about. Under 40k shares a day is low volume. That's a statement. If you are a good trader and make money, good for you but under 40k shares a day is STILL low volume. Get with it.
There is a few pages on this in the regulations. But, I will summarize. Take all the stock positions, long and short, and you must have the capital to cover them. So when you "give leverage" or allow the "use of capital" (as we do), then you must have enough $$ to cover everyone. If you put up $25K, and yet "use" (as opposed to "abuse") capital of $1 million, then your firm must have enough $$ to cover all your positions. Many firms need to use all the other traders money to make this happen, some have adequate capital without it. Don
To me, it doesn't matter if you're a churner or trader according to your terminology as long as you make money. But, I still see churners as traders. You have to make decisions when to buy and sell - just on a shorter time frame. I made one comment about an office that I didn't specify about it having low volume traders and you get all over my case. What's your problem? If you don't want my opinions, then ignore them.