Money Flow Trading Method along with Risk Management

hi Benjaminis, did you see my account? system closed ALL positions because of the margin call.

Yes because the stop loss was not set at $1000 US

We were not really trading or teaching so I just left it go as it did. I will start with you tomorrow at 7 PM

Please call me at 1 819 320 0279


Thanks

GOD willing I will. thanks

https://www.oftwominds.com/blog.html


We're Overdue for a Sell-Everything/No-Fed-Rescue Recession


February 12, 2019
We're way overdue for a sell-everything recession, one that the Fed will only make worse by pursuing its usual policies of lowering interest rates and goosing easy money.

As I noted last week, central banks, like generals, always fight the last war--until the war is lost. The global economy is careening into recession (call it a "slowdown" if you are employed by the Corporate-State Media), and while we don't yet know just how deep and wide this recession will be, we can make an educated guess that it won't be a repeat of any of the previous five recessions: 1973-74, 1981-82, 1990-91, 2001-02 or 2008-09.


Recessions triggered by energy or financial crises tend to be short and shallow as the crisis soon eases; recessions caused by structural imbalances tend to be enduringly brutal. Many recessions are structural, but the triggering event is a short-term crisis.


Some recessions savage specific sectors but leave most of the economy relatively unscathed. Others disrupt virtually everything, even the generally impervious-to-recession government sector.


Let's run down the general outlines of the previous five recessions. If you've lived long enough, you've experienced the suffering firsthand. Younger readers will have difficulty relating firsthand, but understanding the dynamics is the goal here, and so direct experience is a bonus, not an essential.


1973-74: the Oil Shock to the U.S. economy as OPEC raised prices and punished the U.S. for supporting Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war created havoc--long lines at gas stations and a sharp downturn (a.k.a. recession). Though the economy supposedly recovered statistically in 1975, the structural issues that were laid bare by the recession continued eroding the economy for the next six years.

The U.S. industrial base had become accustomed to getting away with rising prices and stagnant quality. The rise of competing industrial nations such as Germany and Japan (and the resulting imbalance in trade flows that undermined the U.S. dollar's gold-backed status) required a massive reset of America's financial and industrial sectors.

The higher cost of energy revealed the inefficiencies of the U.S. economy, and coupled with the public demand to clean up industrial pollution, the industrial sectors were forced into a disruptive and costly reset.

The Fed's only "solution" to any slowdown-- easy money--fueled runaway inflation. The key takeaway here was: the structural problems were not financial, and as a result the usual Fed tricks of easy money failed to fix what was broken.

Instead, loose fiscal and monetary policy made the situation much worse.On top of a major reworking of fundamental issues such as energy, pollution and global competition, the policies of the Fed and Congress added runaway inflation to an already dicey situation.

The next recession in 1981-82 was devastating, as the can could no longer be kicked down the road. Inflation destroys wealth, savings, industries that rely on credit, and trust in the institutions of the central bank and state. Fed chair Paul Volcker jacked up interest rates, laying waste to auto sales and housing, and slowly but surely, inflation was tamed--at great cost.


Although political credit is generally given to President Reagan, who took office in 1981, the painful decade-long structural reworking of the U.S. economy finally began to bear fruit in the 1980s. The counterculture techies and immigrants (Andy Grove of Intel, et al.) in Silicon Valley launched the digital revolution, energy prices dropped and stabilized as the petro-dollar system was institutionalized and the economy normalized high interest rates: home buyers cheered when mortgage rates slowly declined to a low, low 10%--a big improvement over 12% mortgages.


Booms tend to generate financial crises of excessive debt and speculation, aided and abetted by regulatory lapses, and the 1980s birthed the Saving and Loan Crisis, a completely foreseeable and needless implosion of fraudulent S&Ls which sprang up like evil weeds in the loosening of basic banking statutes. (It didn't take much to open an S&L in some states, sell a passel of $100,000 CDs, and burn the proceeds on housing speculation and high living).


The oil spike that preceded the First Gulf War was the boulder that started the landslide. The recession was brief, but it was enough to cost George Bush I the election of 1990. (People famously vote their pocketbooks.)

But the damage was relatively minimal in terms of fundamentals, and the Roaring 90s took off once President Bill Clinton declared the era of Big Government was over and fiscal restraint came back into vogue.

The explosive rise of the Internet fueled a spectacular stock market bubble in tech stocks, and as with all bubbles, the eventual popping of the dot-com bubble crushed the fortunes of anyone who bought near the top and held on to sell near the bottom. Hundreds of once high-flying companies vanished or were bought by survivors for fractions of their dot-com bubble valuations.

As usual, the Fed's "solution" to the 2001-02 downturn was to open the credit spigots and lower interest rates, even though liquidity and interest rates weren't what was wrong with the economy.

This monomaniacal policy inflated a monumental housing bubble in 2004-2008, and once again loosened regulations (liar loans, no-doc loans, 100% mortgages, fraudulent mortgage backed securities, etc.) plus low interest rates and abundant Fed liquidity created a bubble that was guaranteed to implode with devastating consequences.


No longer content with blowing one credit-speculative bubble at a time, central bankers coordinated their efforts in 2009-2018 and inflated the Everything Bubble. But the Everything Bubble didn't resolve or even address the multiple structural imbalances in the U.S. and global economies; it merely papered them over with a triple-whammy credit-speculative orgy of unprecedented enormity.

Unlike the 1970s, 80s, 90s and 2000s, wages (earned income) did not rise for the bottom 90% during the Central Bank Everything Bubble 2009-2018:it isn't just the stock buybacks and other financier speculations that are funded by debt--a great deal of consumption that was once paid out of earnings / revenues is now paid by debt: higher education, paving of roads, auto repairs, etc.

Rather than restructure the economy, the political and financial elites have papered over the imbalances with debt. Debt, we're assured, is harmless; we're going to "grow our way out of debt" by borrowing more. But borrowing more to consume more isn't increasing productivity, and this is one reason why wages have stagnated and prices have soared in the past decade.

The instabilities and imbalances of economies can be papered over with debt for a time, but debt and financialization tricks don't actually fix what's broken--they make the problems worse. Welcome to the recession of 2019-2021, when central bank policies are finally revealed as the' source of half our problems rather than the solution.


We're way overdue for a sell-everything recession, one that the Fed will only make worse by pursuing its usual policies of lowering interest rates and goosing easy money. The structural problems are now acute, and giving more free money to financiers and politically powerful corporations isn't going to fix what's broken in the U.S. economy.


https://www.oftwominds.com/photos201...loans5-17a.png

https://www.economicprinciples.org/w...phenomenon.pdf

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...ops+to+zero%29

Is this you Benjaminis????

That is me posting. The picture is David Stockman :-)

very resemble!!! looks like you.

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2787.htm

February 13, 2019
Russia Hysteria Backfires—Now Sees Putin And Trump Presiding Over Top Two Economies In Entire World

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

A fascinating new Security Council (SC) report circulating in the Kremlin today noting with mocking approval the 24-hour non-stop anti-Trump cable news network MSNBC having to have its so-called journalists yesterday sit in stunned dismay and confusion while reporting that after two years, the US Senate could not find one piece of evidence showing President Trump colluded with Russia—whichTrump gleefully responded to by Tweeting out “Thank you to @MSNBC!”—states that this exposure of the Hillary Clinton deliberately caused Russia hysteria to challenge her election loss to Trump as being all built on lies, now has to deal with its spectacularly backfiring unintended consequences—best exampled by International Monetary Fund leader Christine Lagarde warning that the global economic outlook is darkening by the day—but that doesn’t include the United States where Trump is presiding over the greatest economic miracle in modern times and job openings have just jumped to an historic record high 7.3 million—or Russia where the stock market has just hit an historic high as foreign investors flood the nation with money. [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/part1.jpg

According to this report, with Italy having already fallen into recession and the Spanish government having collapsed earlier today because they couldn’t agree on a budget, the entire European Union is warned is on the brink of recession—the consequence of which now has Nobel Prize winning American economist Paul Krugman warning that the entire global economy will, likewise, fall into recession this year, too.


As far back as 2016, this report explains, the headwinds of this global economic slowdown were stirring on the horizon—but that Hillary Clinton generated Russian hysteria due to her election loss to Trump then saw the Americans taking Russia out of the global economic equation by the use of economic sanctions—but whose hysteria induced sanctions were met with the stark reality of Russia being sanctions proof due to its staggering $75 trillion in natural resource wealth—as well as its having a paltry $208 billion national debt, that’s more than covered by its $475 billion in foreign reserves—and with Central Banks around the world buying more gold in 2018 than at any time since 1967, saw Russia leading the way in buying gold, while at the same time ridding itself of billions-of-dollars of US debt in preparation for whatever 2019 might bring.

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/part2.jpg

Unlike in Russia, however, this report details, the United States today sees itself facing a 2019 global recession with a historic just reached $22 trillion in national debt—but that President Trump is fast mitigating by his skillful use of his nation’s $45 trillion in natural resource wealth—best evidenced by Trump having made the US an oil exporter for the first time in history, which in turn is lowering his nation’s trade deficit.


Amazingly opposing President Trump, though, this report notes, are his obviously deranged socialist Democrat Party enemies—who this past week unveiled their insane “Green New Deal” that, in part, calls for all air travel in the United States to end and be replaced by trains—but who forgot to tell their socialist Democrat Party governor of California about, as evidenced by his yesterday cancelling his States plan to build a train from Los Angles to San Francisco because it was too expensive—an epic debacle quickly pounced upon by Republican Party US Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellwho has set up a vote on this “Green New Deal” to see which of his Democrat Party colleagues are in need of immediate psychiatric medication.

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/part3.jpg

While these deranged socialist Democrats and their leftist mainstream propaganda media establishment sycophants continue to all proclaim themselves as being “green energy” champions, this report continues, history will prove that President Trump, not them, was one of the greatest leaders of “green energy” in the 21st Century—and is because of a soft, silvery-white alkali metal called lithium—that is able to store vast quantities of electricity, from wherever it’s generated, and which without a global revolution in clean sustainable energy can’t even begin.


When President Trump took power in 2016, in fact, this report further details, Chile and China controlled over 75% of the world's 14-16 million metric tons of proven lithium reserves—but that Trump immediately countered by his opening up for mining exploitation the vast Smackover Formation the US Geological Survey estimates is the potential bearer of at least 1 million metric tons of lithium—and right after Trump took power in 2016, too, saw him signing an agreement with California to develop Salton Sea’s resources—one of the most enigmatic places on Earth that contains large amounts of lithium, manganese, and zinc—and when combined with the New Wyoming Lithium Deposit, now sees the United States able to meet all of its lithium demands, and whose further discoveries of are said to be boundless.

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/part4.jpg

Most unfortunately for the American people, though, this report concludes, none of them are being allowed to know the truth of how President Trump is saving their nation and leading it into a 21st Century “green energy” future—but as noted by the Security Council yesterday, most certainly doesn’t apply to the European peoples who know the truth and revere Trump more than their own leaders—most especially in Italy, where hundreds-of-thousands of its peoples gathered this past week to cheer and celebrate a nearly 50-foot movable statue of Trump as they hope he’s able to come save them from tyrannical socialist rule, too.

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/catt1.jpg

Hundreds-of-thousands of Italians cheer and celebrate giant statue of President Trump in hope of his saving them from socialist tyranny

February 13, 2019 EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked back to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.

[Note: Many governments and their intelligence services actively campaign against the information found in these reports so as not to alarm their citizens about the manybucatastrophic Earth changes and events to come, a stance that the Sisters of Sorcha Faal strongly disagree with in believing that it is every human beings right to know the truth. Due to our missions conflicts with that of those governments, the responses of their ‘agents’ has been a longstanding misinformation/misdirection campaign designed to discredit us, and others like us, that is exampled in numerous places, including HERE.]

[Note: The WhatDoesItMean.com website was created for and donated to the Sisters of Sorcha Faal in 2003 by a small group of American computer experts led by the late global technology guru Wayne Green (1922-2013) to counter the propaganda being used by the West to promote their illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq.]
[Note: The word Kremlin (fortress inside a city) as used in this report refers to Russian citadels, including in Moscow, having cathedrals wherein female Schema monks (Orthodox nuns) reside, many of whom are devoted to the mission of the Sisters of Sorcha Faal.]

World News

https://finviz.com/news.ashx?v=2

World Futures

https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

Forex Prices

https://finviz.com/forex.ashx

Cryptocurrency Prices

https://finviz.com/crypto.ashx

Bond & Notes Charts

https://finviz.com/futures_charts.ashx?t=BONDS&p=d1

Charts 10 Year Notes

https://finviz.com/futures_charts.ashx?t=ZN&p=d1

Charts 5 Year Notes

https://finviz.com/futures_charts.ashx?t=ZF&p=d1

Charts GOLD

https://finviz.com/futures_charts.ashx?t=GC&p=m5

Charts DJIA DOW 30

https://finviz.com/futures_charts.ashx?t=YM&p=m5

Charts 2 Year Notes

https://finviz.com/futures_charts.ashx?t=ZT&p=d1

Charts USD

https://finviz.com/futures_charts.ashx?t=DX&p=m5

Charts Euro EUR/USD

https://finviz.com/forex_charts.ashx?t=EURUSD&tf=m5

Charts British Pound GBP/USD

https://finviz.com/forex_charts.ashx?t=GBPUSD&tf=m5

Charts YEN USD/JPY

https://finviz.com/forex_charts.ashx?t=USDJPY&tf=m5

so are you the same individual as David Stockman in the video or someone else using his photo in your profile? I am lost with your response :-(

Hello

All that happened was that I wanted to put a picture on my thread. Since I quote David Stockman from time to time and have great respect for him and his knowledge I used his photo.

Why would he waste his time like I do posting here ? What I mean by saying that is that very few people post here other than myself and that is fine.

I hope the dialogue might focus on trading Forex and making money. I have very much enjoyed posting on my thread since December 3, 2016.

I have accomplished my goals by teaching many Forex traders here. I will be stopping my posting on a daily basis as of March 31, 2019.

After that my knowledge and experience of 16 years will be on a pay only corporate website as I have already explained a number of times since I started my thread.

My results speak for themselves and I have enjoyed doing my best and continuing to improve my substantial Forex trading and teaching skills.


BWM

1. Post 5,621
2. Cleanup
3. Quote
4. Feb 7, 2019 2:24pm

1. https://cdn-assets.faireconomy.media...ar392875_1.gif BenjaminIs
2. | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 4,783 Posts | Online Now

Quoting loveandpeace
Did you get my PM??

I will look now !!! Thanks !!!

Hello

I have a standing offer for everyone that I have met on Forex Factory over the years. That includes yourself of course.

Everyone here that comes to my new website has a FREE LIFETIME PASS.

All that they need to do is subscribe to my thread.

I consider that to be right , fair and proper.


Benjamin


BWM

Jan17 2019


Articleshttps://mavericktrading.com/wp-conte...-1-900x450.jpg


If you’re reading this, you’ve probably just done a search for “proprietary trading,” “prop trading,” “proprietary trading firms,” or some variation thereof, most likely trying to find out exactly what a proprietary trading firm does. It’s a reasonable question. You’re probably already trading and are looking to take your skill set and performance to the next level. You want to find the best proprietary trading firm out there that fits your needs and trading style.

Done right, researching proprietary trading firms and prop trading groups can be a formidable undertaking. You need to understand the types of firms out there, what they specialize in, and what you’re seeking to accomplish by trading at a proprietary trading firm. The issue is that it’s difficult to understand where the proprietary industry is without knowing where it began, where it has been, and where it’s going.

In the Beginning
In addition to providing trading access to their clients, Wall Street firms have always traded for their own accounts. That, in itself, is proprietary trading — trading for your own account. The difference is that these firms are trading through proprietary trading desks; they are not proprietary trading firms. Their primary focus is in acting as broker-dealers to the public, holding custody of their clients’ accounts, and investment banking.

While a proprietary trading firm may also be a broker-dealer, providing its own order routing for its traders, its purported raison d`etre is for the firm and its traders to turn a profit by trading the firm’s capital in the markets.

Proprietary trading, more colloquially referred to as prop trading, got its start in the 1980s, concurrent with the rise of hedge funds. Traders with professional experience who saw no further upward mobility or financial benefit in remaining with investment banks had two prime options in front of them. If they had the contacts to raise capital and wanted the responsibility of running accredited investors’ money, they opened hedge funds. If they didn’t want the responsibility of running other people’s money and just wanted to trade, they opened proprietary trading firms, attracting other experienced and up-and-coming traders they knew, and staked those traders with capital to trade.

It is important to bear in mind that even though this was only 30-odd years ago, this was prior to the telecommunications advances of the 1990s through the present. Not only did the internet not exist outside of DARPA, the first cell phones were just coming to the market. Prop firms still had to be wired into the exchanges or the major investment banks (or wire houses) to get their trades made. This meant that prop firms were concentrated in the major financial cities (New York, Chicago, San Francisco) and they required the brick and mortar of an office as well as specialized equipment, such as a Quotron or Bloomberg Terminal.

This was also prior to decimalization of the exchanges. Stocks traded in 1/8th dollar increments instead of one cent increments. Liquidity was also less prevalent during that time than is common today. If a trader got into a position, that position needed to move ¼ point in the direction of the trade for the trader break even, buying at the ask and selling at the bid. This impacted profit potential in a trade and forced traders to be laser focused in their pre-trade analysis.

Additionally, commissions were much higher during this period as well. While some of the larger prop firms could get better commissions because of the volume they traded, the average commission during the mid-1980s hovered around 0.6% of the market value of the trade. To enter AND exit a trade, a trader was sacrificing around 1.25% (round trip) right off the top. For a trade to be profitable, movement often had to be measured in dollars, not eighths. This meant that a trade often developed over a period of days or months (swing and position trading) rather than minutes or hours (day trading).

The difficulty in profitable trading coupled with the sunk and recurring costs required by a brick and mortar location naturally led to the founders and owners of prop firms being very discerning about who they hired to trade their capital. Prop trading was far from democratized, as it is today. Getting a job at a prop firm was either a matter of personal pedigree and connections or a storied track record of up-from-the-bottom hard work, diligence, competence and connections. Connections mattered; it was just as much of a club as the rest of Wall Street.
https://mavericktrading.com/wp-conte...880992.2-1.jpg

Enter the ’90s
Commerce and trade is driven by the exchange of information followed by the acquisition or distribution of goods and services. This is as true for trading financial instruments as it is for discovering you’re out of milk and need to go to the store to buy some.

From the establishment of the Amsterdam Stock Exchange in 1602 through the first US stock exchange, the Philadelphia Board of Brokers in 1790, information moved at the speed of foot, horse, or sail, and later (1812) railroad.

The first transcendental leap in communications came in 1837 with the invention of the telegraph. Fast forward 155 years and we finally have the introduction of commercial dial-up internet access in 1992, just in time to take advantage of the invention of the World Wide Web in 1990.

This hockey-stick point in the computing and telecommunications industries began to democratize trading. The dotcom boom was soon to follow. The masses saw this exponential leap in communications as an opportunity and excuse to fully immerse themselves in the financial markets.

In a moment of clarity that ran in the face of tradition and an institutional desire to protect their positions and profits, brokers got on board the online commerce train rather than be run over by it and began offering online brokerage accounts in late 1994.

Beginning in 1995, an expanding economy, the digital revolution, the advent of online trading and the concomitant drop in trading commissions from the introduction of online trading all combined to create the perfect storm for stock trading. The S&P 500 index opened January 3, 1995 at 458.65 and closed December 31, 1999 at 1,469.25, an increase of 220% in five years. The worst month during that period was August 1998 where the S&P 500 had a loss of 14% but then the market rebounded and broke through to new highs over the next three months. If you were on the long side of the markets, it was nearly impossible not to make money.
Human psychology being human psychology, everyone who was in the markets thought they were geniuses. The natural extension of that thought process being, “If I can make more money trading the markets than working at my job, why don’t I?”

Stories abounded of friends of friends who quit their jobs to trade the markets. There was a retail demand for the ability to trade professionally that the financial industry was happy to fill.

During this period, many “boutique” (read as small) broker-dealers arose to cater to the new demand and branded themselves as proprietary trading firms. In addition to trading commissions that were competitive with online brokerage firms, these boutique broker-dealers enticed traders wanting to trade full-time with the prospect of being able to work among other professionals on a trading floor, which was essentially a bank of computers with a squawk box feed to the Chicago S&P trading pit. The advertised benefit of trading in a group environment was a supposed synergy among the traders and a master-apprentice environment where people who wanted to learn to trade could do so at the knee of the more experienced traders.

Broker-dealers live and die by commissions generated from their clients, so the focus of these boutique broker-dealers was to encourage their traders to trade low-priced stocks often and in volume. This practice was a driving force in the rise of the day trader. Traders would take positions in the morning and liquidate those positions immediately prior to market close, ending up in cash at the end of the day.

While traders were now trading in volume due to the seemingly never-ending rise of the market and due to the encouragement of the firms they were with, the question in the minds of every manager at every broker-dealer was how to get them to trade even more.

The problem was Regulation T.
Brokerage firms were (and still are) allowed to loan their customers money to trade stocks in a margin account, but they were limited in how much they could loan their customers by Federal Reserve Board Regulation T, referred to in the finance industry as Reg T. Since 1974, the Federal Reserve Board has set the maximum margin rate for Reg T margin to 50%. That meant that traders could only trade twice the cash value of their accounts.

The workaround was that Reg T only applies to customer accounts: it does not apply to the firm’s proprietary accounts. Up to that point, traders were simply a broker-dealer’s customers and could only be offered Reg T margin. If the broker-dealer hired a trader, even on a profit-only or commission-only basis, Reg T would not apply and brokers could offer their traders more even more leverage, leading to more trading, leading to more commissions for the broker-dealer. The only thing required of the trader was the ability to study for and pass a (then) National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) Series 7 Exam and pass a background check.
Problem solved. The traders were still required to post their capital, but the firms could leverage them up 10, 20, even 40 times the value of their accounts. If the traders were profitable, then great. Even if they weren’t profitable, the firm had oversight on the positions and could liquidate the positions and commissions kept rolling in.

Not surprisingly, creating the group synergy and master-apprentice opportunity marketed by these new prop firms was difficult. The broker-dealers’ goal was to get their customers to trade more. The traders’ goal was to be profitable, which in practice, more often than not, meant trading less, being more focused, and concentrating on risk management. The two goals were often competing and diametrically opposed.

There is no established course of study, no college degree, that leads to a designation as a trader. Most of the jobs on Wall Street are either sales (asset collection) or back-office (administrative and compliance). This is true to this day.

Any “experienced” trader that was employed by the firm had a motivation, clearly communicated or otherwise, to get traders to trade more to generate more in commission income. Any experienced and successful trader that was not employed by the firm who was on the trading floor had the goal of generating profits for his (the demographic was overwhelmingly male) own account and any time he devoted to showing a new trader the ins and outs of the markets would take time away from his own efforts and, therefore, his profitability.

While there are a few notable exceptions of firms that took the view that it was better to have their traders be profitable and long-term customers, in the main, most of these firms treated their traders as temporary commission-generating machines, allowing them to churn their accounts and repeatedly take losses with no advice, supervision, or mentorship.


The bursting of the tech bubble in March 2000 spelled the death knell for the vast majority of these boutique broker-dealers masquerading as prop firms. The market had gone up so far for so long that people believed that it would continue to do so. When the market turned, many of those successful traders that had learned their craft in the preceding five years had no experience in a bear market and destroyed their accounts. Day trading fell out of favor among retail traders, the public at large soured on the stock market, and commission revenue dried up. Smallpox couldn’t have wiped out a population better than the tech wreck destroyed small broker-dealers in the early 2000s.

https://mavericktrading.com/wp-conte...567689.2-1.jpg

Beyond 2000 — Survival of the fittest
The early 2000s saw some changes to the prop trading industry. In response to what was viewed as the irresponsible encouragement of day trading, in early 2001, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved amendments to NASD Rule 2520, creating the “pattern day trader” rule which took effect in September 2001, six months after the bursting of the tech bubble. As a result, day traders had to have a minimum account equity (value of cash and marked-to-market positions) of at least $25,000. For those traders meeting this requirement, brokerage firms could offer buying power four times the value of the account but solely for intra-day trades.

The next change was that the SEC looked at the profit split structure among prop firms. The rationale was that if a firm is presenting itself as a proprietary trading firm, then a measurable amount of the profits generated from that activity should go to the firm. In the late 1990s, some firms were offering 99:1 profit splits, where the trader kept 99% of the profits generated. They were able to do this because, in actuality, the profitability of the traders wasn’t a consideration — commission generation was the sole focus of this practice.

This practice was unethical at best and morally repugnant on the other end of the spectrum. During the 1990s and into the early 2000s, it was not uncommon for traders at some prop firms to have a 97% failure rate. Their management teams knew that of 100 traders they brought in, only three would make it long-term. The aim was to get as many people in as possible and get them to generate as much in commissions as possible before they drew their accounts down to zero.


Those prop firms that were still around at the time sat up and took notice to the new legislation — quickly. The industry recognized that it was best to change their model quickly and quietly and firms reduced profit splits with their traders to show that the purpose of their prop trading activities was, in fact, to make a profit rather than to solely generate commissions. Currently, the industry has established that allowing its traders to keep 70% to 90% of profits with the firm keeping 10% to 30% provides incentive and compensation for its traders and shows that the firm is vested in its traders being profitable.

With the shift away from a commission-generation model and a need to show that the firm was generating a profit from its proprietary trading activities, prop firms had to justify the lower commission split to their traders and demonstrate that their activities focused on profitability.

Many firms could not make the shift and the industry was (rightfully) whittled down even further. The answer to both the above issues was comprehensive training for traders. The synergies and master-apprentice opportunities that prop firms had used to market their services to traders now actually had to be produced, codified, and delivered. The firms that had paid lip service to training their traders suddenly found themselves scrambling to develop training programs, only to find that quality training programs take thousands of hours to build, test, and refine.

The same issue occurred with respect to coaching and mentoring programs. The same firms that did not invest in training their traders previously found that most of those “coaches” whose previous job was to get traders to trade more and in larger sizes were not, in point of fact, very good traders themselves. Caught flat-footed, firms either opened their coffers and actually hired traders with excellent records and teaching skills or, more commonly, faked it until they could develop rising traders into a cadre of coaches.

By the mid- to late-2000s, the prop trading industry was becoming noticeably stratified. Barebones, undercapitalized firms with a patina of training and support were at the left side of the spectrum, mediocre firms in the midst of transforming their business models to become more supportive of traders muddled through as best they could, and on the right side of the spectrum, best-of-breed firms that were well-capitalized and had invested the time, energy, and capital into comprehensive training programs and coaching/mentoring programs at their inception began to clearly distinguish themselves.

Pulling Ahead of the Pack
Concurrent with the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, barebones firms on the left side of the prop trading spectrum began to fail with regularity.

Since these firms had never invested in training or supporting their traders, they had to rely heavily on their risk management systems to protect their trading operations. Unsurprisingly, given their focus on commission generation instead of trader profitability and longevity, their risk management systems were often not up to the task of multiple, heavy trader drawdowns in a fast market. The traders these firms failed to train and support were actually the seeds of the destruction of these firms.

The mid-tier firms realized they were caught between the proverbial rock and hard spot. They knew that to survive they had to make massive intellectual property investments to get their traders profitable, but they were also facing necessary investment in their risk management systems. This was all occurring as the economy as a whole was imploding due to the housing crisis. For those firms who could get their traders on the right side of the market (short) and get sturdier risk controls in place, they weathered this period battered and bruised but alive. Those that couldn’t, failed.

Among the survivors in this tier, many were so damaged that they didn’t have the capital to continue to improve their operations and were very receptive to buyout offers when the dust settled. The choice was to be acquired or face what they viewed as a lingering death as their traders moved on to better capitalized firms.

The best-of-breed portion of the spectrum began to pull noticeably ahead of the pack during this period. They had recognized far in advance that not only was the ethical choice to properly train and support their traders, but it was a far better model for longevity.

For most of these best-of-breed firms, the 2008 financial crisis represented one of the most lucrative trading environments since the late 1990s. Their traders had the knowledge to trade multi-directionally, identify and short poor performers in weak sectors, hedge portfolios against the occasional bear rally by being long on those few issues that were holding up, and size their positions correctly so that the risk taken at both the position and portfolio level were not undue. These strategies decreased reactionary risk management activity at the firm level and freed up resources to concentrate on coaching and mentoring traders.

Because of their success during this period, these best-of-breed firms were in a position to either poach top-performing traders from the less successful firms or outright dispatch and acquire the wounded mid-tier firms.

If ever there was an object lesson in businesses being rewarded for doing right by their customers, it was this time in the prop industry. Those firms that entered the industry with an eye toward fostering the profitability and longevity of their traders were rewarded, not only with increased trading profits but also with growth.

Those firms that clung to the commission generation model at all costs weren’t even afforded a respectful burial.

To this day, one of the best indicators of the quality of a prop trading firm is its longevity.
https://mavericktrading.com/wp-conte...871320.2-1.jpg

Finding and Evaluating a Prop Firm
The institutional prop firms of the 1980s still exist, but the barriers to entry there are in full effect, with a pedigreed education, industry connections, and a long apprenticeship period requirements for entrance.

Prop Firm Business Models
Among the (relatively) few remaining retail prop firms, there exists two business models: broker-dealer or non-broker-dealer. The driving force in this business decision is whether the firm chooses to view commissions as a source of revenue.

If the firm chooses to accept trading commissions as a source of revenue, it is required to be a broker-dealer, subject to associated regulatory oversight, and its traders will need FINRA licensure. Depending on the firm, the licensing requirements are a Securities Industries Essentials (SIE) exam and Series 57 top off, or the Series 7 and Series 55 exams. The Series 56 was replaced by the Series 57 in 2016 and would also be acceptable.

Some traders are best suited to find a firm with the broker-dealer model. As broker-dealers, these firms can offer their traders lower commissions than non-broker-dealer prop firms. If a trader trades in volume and is day-trading centric, the cost of obtaining FINRA licensure and the additional regulatory burden on the trader may be more cost effective in the long run.

The best-in-breed example of this type of firm is T3 Trading. T3 Trading offers excellent training and support for its traders, has recognized expert traders who are compensated by the firm to increase trader profitability, offers respectable-but-responsible leverage for its traders, and provides multiple choices between commission level and profit split.

The non-broker-dealer model does not incur the regulatory and licensure burden of a broker-dealer model. In this model, the firm foregoes the revenue stream from commissions. Contrary to some uninformed musings on chat boards and social media, this model is completely legal and acceptable to the SEC, provided the firm is not attempting to act as a broker-dealer.

Regulatory compliance is streamlined for this model and its traders are not required to obtain FINRA licensure.

While commissions are slightly higher for the non-broker-dealer model, since these prop firms are trading through institutional-grade platforms, the difference is minimal and is still far less expensive than trading at a retail brokerage firm.

The non-broker-dealer model is an excellent choice for the trader who wants to trade part-time at a professional level and for traders whose personalities are better suited to position and swing trading.

The best example of this type of model is Maverick Trading.

Know Your Goals and Trading Style
To determine if trading at a prop firm is the best path for you, you need to know what you want to get out of trading with a firm. Before you start looking at different prop firms, list out what you want to achieve, what training and support you want to see, whether you want to trade part-time, full-time, or start out part-time and transition to full-time once your trading capital can support it.

You also need to have an idea of within what time horizon you want to trade.

Done right, day trading is time intensive and often involves not only technical analysis but learning the ebb and flow of how a particular stock or group of stocks trades. This can limit your opportunities if those issues are dead money (moving nowhere) when you’re looking to trade them. If you like fast action but also want the comfort of being in cash at the end of the day, you’re probably suited for day trading.

Swing and position trading are generally grouped together because swing trading can roll right into position trading. Swing trading is anything from an overnight hold to holding for several weeks and position trading picks up at the several weeks mark and can go out to several months.

Swing and position trading are the most popular time horizons for active trading, especially for people seeking to trade part-time with a full-time day job. Gains are meaningful and movement in this timeframe relies more on technical trading than long-term fundamental analysis.

While the IRS sets long-term capital gains rates for investments held at least a year, from a trading standpoint, positions held for six months or more are investments, governed more by fundamental analysis and macro events than by technical price movements.

If your personality is most suited to in-depth fundamental analysis and you prefer to know more about the company than the people that work there, you’re probably best suited to be an investor, in which case I would recommend not trying to trade at a prop firm.

What Instruments to Trade
In addition to the time horizon that your personality is best suited to trade, you must have an idea of what instruments you want to trade or learn to trade and find a firm that specializes in those instruments.

While day trading is best known for trading the stocks themselves, prop firms long ago expanded what they were willing to let their traders trade.

Options are a popular instrument for swing and position trading. Done correctly, the potential downside risk is defined and planned for while the upside can be a considerable multiple of the risk. Options trading is a two-step process. First you need to learn how to trade stocks on a technical basis, then you need to marry that to the characteristics of the options themselves. There is far more to options trading than what is covered in The Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options.


Currency trading, foreign exchange, forex, or FX, are all the same thing known under similar names. Forex trading is pairs trading, where you are long one currency and short another currency at the same time through a single currency pair or cross. FX trading is best suited for people with a day trading or swing trading time horizon, who like technical analysis, but are also interested in the effects geo-economic events play on interwoven economies. In the US, as a result of one of the Dodd-Frank reforms, leverage in FX trading is limited to 50:1, whereas in other countries, traders may be permitted 100:1 or greater leverage. Trading FX is an odd animal where to be successful, a trader must have a high risk tolerance but be simultaneously brutal and immediate in risk management skills.


With respect to futures and commodities trading, due to the risk, there are very few prop firms that specialize solely in futures and commodities. Those that do specialize in these instruments have higher up-front risk deposits. What is becoming more common is that existing prop firms specializing in some other instrument are offering futures and commodities trading to existing traders with successful track records and well-honed risk management skills.
https://mavericktrading.com/wp-conte...833401.2-1.jpg


Trading Floor vs. Remote Prop Trading Firms
When you’ve answered the above questions, you must consider whether you would benefit from physically being on a trading floor provided by the firm or if you can accomplish your goals with remote support.

Once broadband internet access became widely available, Maverick Trading abandoned the trading floor model and went completely remote. This has allowed the firm to source talent without geographic constraint.

While many firms are switching to a remote model, some firms choose to continue with brick and mortar trading floors. The costs associated with these trading floors are substantial, so any monthly desk fees the firm charges its traders will likely be higher than with a remote firm, but some people find true value in the ability to trade physically next to other traders.


Training and Support
Training and support for traders was once largely viewed as an unnecessary cost center for a retail prop firm, which, as we discussed previously, led to a Hunger Games-type reaping within the industry. Today, at least among the best-of-breed firms, training and support is now viewed as a prerequisite to trader profitability and a vital tool to augment the firm’s risk management program.

For newer traders looking for prop firms for beginners, the training program should be the primary consideration.

Each firm has its own culture, time-horizon focus, trading instruments permitted, and associated risk profile.

Even at Wall Street prop firms with institutional level assets (over $100m), once someone has gotten in the door, it’s still a matter of a years-long apprenticeship program, with a new trader starting out with an internship, moving on to an Assistant Trader, then an Execution Trader, and finally a portfolio manager with his own profit and loss responsibility. This is a years-long endeavor to achieve. Even traders making lateral moves between institutional prop firms need to show audited track records to their prospective new employers.

While retail prop firms have democratized professional trading, they are taking a risk on a completely unknown quantity — the incoming trader with little to no professional experience.

The best way for a retail prop firm to mitigate this risk is for them to proactively train and support traders new to the firm — to teach them how, and why, the firm wants them to trade in a certain way with certain risk-management parameters.

Bear in mind that a comprehensive training program is a massive, but necessary, cost center to a firm. For example, at Maverick Trading, the firm’s options training program is over 250 hours of dedicated instruction and its FX training program is over 100 hours. Those programs exclude the ongoing, near-daily seminars that Maverick offers its traders for each division.


Content does not create itself, either. For each hour of video presentation Maverick Trading produces, an additional four hours in preparation, editing, and logistics is required.

Likewise, for each hour of coaching that we provide a single trader, an additional hour of preparation and documentation is required.

All this is designed to prepare a trader for successful live trading with the firm’s capital and to increase profitability once the trader is live.

Supervision and Risk Management
“If you’re the smartest person in the room, you’re in the wrong room.” – Henry Ford

Supervision and risk management are two of the most important benefits of trading with a prop firm. A lone-wolf retail trader is, by definition, the smartest person in the room.

Traders who are on their own tend to become inwardly focused. They develop affinities for positions. They become emotionally attached to positions. They invest so much time in research that they convince themselves they must be right, even when the market tells them otherwise.

It’s a common trait in people. As human beings, we have a need to be right about things. It feeds our egos. We concentrate on being right about a position rather than concentrating on being profitable in a complete portfolio.

This need to be right is the kiss of death for a trader’s portfolio.

At some point in time, every trader needs a dispassionate look at his portfolio. Someone needs to tell him, “This position is killing you. It’s affecting your decision making. Close the trade, book the loss, clear your mind, and move on. Ask yourself if this is the hill you want to die on.”

A good prop firm will supervise its traders and provide an additional level of risk management. This can take many forms, from recommending a reduced position size, recommending a shift in portfolio allocation, or forcibly liquidating positions when a trader is frozen with indecision.

The aim of a comprehensive supervision and risk management program should not solely be to protect the firm. It’s primary focus should be to protect the firm’s traders.

Risk Capital
Within retail prop firms, there are no longer any firms that do no require a Risk Capital deposit. They have all gone out of business and the last one with this model shut its doors in 2009.

Ask any manager at any prop firm and they will tell you that their traders trade more responsibly, and more profitably, when they have capital at risk as well, when they have skin in the game.

As you research prop firms, you will find that Risk Capital is first-loss capital. On the opposite side, any losses in excess of a Risk Capital deposit is non-recourse to a trader.

For example, a trader comes to a prop firm, deposits $10,000 in Risk Capital, and gets a $50,000 account. The trader puts on $40,000 in positions, which is not hard to do. One of those positions is ill-advised, such as shorting naked call options. Overnight, the company he effectively shorted announces it is being acquired at a 100% premium. The next morning the price of the underlying stock has doubled, leaving the trader with a $20,000 loss.

The trader can walk away from the trade. He won’t get any of his risk deposit back, but he can walk away. The firm will balance the $20,000 loss against the trader’s risk deposit, but the firm will eat a $10,000 loss.

All trading contains risk. Each prop firm knows this, accepts this, and profits from it, but even with focused training, ongoing support, comprehensive risk management program, and requirements for Risk Capital, in the end, it is the firm’s capital that is at risk and losses do occur.

Profit Splits and Payouts
As we discussed previously, in exchange for the use of their capital, prop firms will take a split of the profits their traders generate, typically between 10% and 30%, depending on the firm, the size of the trader’s account, and the trader’s profitability.

The ability to trade additional capital is one of the driving reasons that people come to prop firms. With proper position-sizing and risk management, a trader has the ability to make more in gross dollars with less risk than the typical lone wolf retail trader.

While each trader is different in what they expect to receive in profit splits, one thing to look for is whether the firm keeps a high-water mark on its traders accounts. If the firm does keep a high-water mark on its traders accounts, it shows that the firm has an alignment of interests with its traders, only taking a profit split if the trader is truly profitable.

Trading losses will happen to every trader: it’s the nature of the game. You want to make sure that when you do take a loss that you get to keep all the profits until you are back above your high-water mark. This allows you to get back to even much more quickly and concentrate on follow-up profitability with a clear head.

Without a high-water mark, when you do take a loss, there is a tendency for traders to trade more aggressively to get back to their break even point, which can exacerbate the situation and actually cause more losses.
https://mavericktrading.com/wp-conte...900406.2-1.jpg


Taking the Next Step
For a beginner or even an experienced trader, the ability to receive focused training, ongoing support, and access to meaningful amounts of trading capital are all attractive benefits of trading with a prop firm.

You need to pick one whose focus fits with your individual trading time horizon and trading style, and offers instruments you want to trade or learn to trade. Training needs to be comprehensive and more in-depth than what you can get in a 15-minute online video. The aim of that training should be to make you an expert in what you want to trade.

Support should start early and be ongoing, not only during training but also during live trading. Support should be included in the services the firm provides as a matter of course and not a bolt-on accessory.

Even if the firm is a broker-dealer and receives a revenue stream from trader commissions, the focus of the firm’s operations should be, first and foremost, fostering an environment that focuses on trader profitability rather than trade volume.

Capital provided by the firm should be meaningful but responsible. It should be enough so that your profitable trades provide a genuine return on your time investment and the risk but not so massive that it promotes irresponsible position sizing.

Supervision and risk management should be constant and ongoing. While it should reward responsible risk-taking, traders should feel like they are being monitored if they take a position size that is outside the norm of their personal trading plan. Risk management programs should be designed not just to keep the trader at the firm to generate commissions, but to assist the trader to attain and maintain profitability. The focus should further be not on short-term events, but with an eye toward ensuring the longevity of a trader profitability.

In the end, finding a reputable prop firm can not only mean the difference between a trader’s success or failure, it can also help a trader achieve profitability in all market conditions and avoid the black swan events that can destroy a trader’s portfolio.

Darren Fischer is the Chief Executive Officer of Maverick Trading and co-author of Maverick Trading: Professional Techniques to Create Generational Wealth. Maverick Trading is a private proprietary trading firm with trading divisions in stocks/options and FX.