PROPRIETARY TRADERS
PROPRIETARY TRADERS OVERVIEW

PROPRIETARY TRADING FIRMS - SPECIAL NOTES ON THREATENING REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS

SEC Obtains Emergency Orders Against California Firm Defrauding Day-Traders. Click here.
Litigation Release No. 20480 / March 6, 2008. Click here.
SEC OBTAINS EMERGENCY ORDERS AGAINST UNREGISTERED DAY-TRADING FIRM AND ITS PRINCIPAL. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. TUCO TRADING, LLC, AND DOUGLAS G. FREDERICK, Case No. 08 CV 0400 DMS BLM (S.D. Cal.)

Excerpt: "Washington, D.C., March 6, 2008 - The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that it has obtained an emergency court order against an unregistered securities day-trading firm in La Jolla, Calif., that was not disclosing to traders that more than one-third of their money was being used to cover other traders' losses or pay firm expenses. The SEC's complaint alleged that approximately 35 percent of their equity was diverted, leaving an approximately $3.62 million shortfall in the traders' equity as of Dec. 31, 2007. In issuing the emergency orders, the court found that the SEC had shown that the day-trading firm was violating the broker-dealer registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, and ordered the appointment of a temporary receiver to safeguard customer assets."

Initial comments from Robert A. Green on March 12, 2008:

We have been warning traders to be aware of inappropriate (and perhaps illegal) business practices in proprietary trading firms (catering to retail-type traders) for many years. See our significant content on prop trading firms below.

Although the SEC has acted to shut down some prop trading firms overnight, it hasn’t caused an industry-wide thunderstorm until this new SEC order against Tuco in March, 2008.

This SEC emergency (shut-down) order against Tuco appears to be a “going out of business” sign for most sub-LLC prop trading firms not organized as broker dealers. So those owner/mangers and traders need to act fast to avoid or limit damage and trouble.

In our view, it’s also very troubling for prop trading firms organized as broker dealers (BD). Although these prop trading firm BDs are subject to better compliance and oversight (than non-BD firms); these firms may still be implicated in these types of infractions and enforcement by the SEC.

We can think of a few BD prop trading firms in particular (not naming names here) that have (in my opinion) farmed out the inappropriate behavior to sub-LLC prop trading firms, owned and managed by their BD LLC firm members and brokers. We heard from one CEO that the SEC is ready to pounce on one such prop trading BD firm soon.

A while back, day trading prop trading firms were busted for counting traders' deposits as part of their "net capital" accounts. FAS 150 accounting rules for separating true debt from true equity does not allow this practice. Prop trading firms organized as broker dealers have net capital requirements and many were alleged to be in violation; after reclassifying trader deposits to debt from equity.

Now, even if a prop trading firm broker-dealers (BD) is in compliance with FAS 150, they may have serious problems with the SEC; along the same fault lines as in the Tuco case. They too may be accused of shifting deposit money around in inappropriate ways and not disclosing this to day traders in their firms.

Prop trader LLC members of BDs and non-BDs are lower class members and they rarely receive much financial reporting from management (Class A owners). They usually just receive reporting for gains and losses in their sub-trading account. Most prop traders don't care much about overall firm finances anyway; they are happy to get all the leverage they can get.

This gets to the heart of the problem with Tuco, a sub-LLC prop trading firm, not organized as a BD.

Securities traders need $25,000 on deposit in a retail broker dealer to be classified as a "pattern day trader" (PDT) account; which affords them leverage of 4/1 versus the default 2/1. Prop traders in BDs also need $25,000 to join these firms.

Traders who lack $25,000 capital are enticed with offerings from sub-LLC prop trading firms (non-BDs); many of whom ask for deposits of $2,000 or $5,000. Notice the wording about this concept in the SEC enforcement action against Tuco below.

SEC excerpt: "The defendants enticed traders with services unavailable at a registered broker-dealer. As alleged in the complaint, they allowed traders to day-trade without meeting the $25,000 minimum equity requirement under NASD regulations for such trading. The SEC's complaint also alleges that for each $1 in the trader's sub-account, Tuco and Frederick allowed the traders at Tuco to use up to $20 of Tuco's equity, which has been invested by other traders, to purchase securities (20:1 buying power). NASD and NYSE regulations, however, only allow a day-trader to have 4:1 buying power. "

We have been pointing out for years that we felt that prop trading firms were trying to violate the 4/1 and 2/1 leverage rules of Reg T. See below.

SEC excerpt: "Tuco's unregistered operations posed a substantial risk to both investors and the securities markets, and we will act to stop these operations."

Doesn’t this imply that every sub-LLC prop trading firm not organized as a broker-dealer is highly-vulnerable to this same level of enforcement by the SEC? The SEC seems to want traders to either be treated as “retail or customer accounts” with 4/1 (PDT) or 2/1 leverage, or LLC members of compliant-BD prop trading firms (which require $25,000 to join).

SEC excerpt: “The SEC's complaint also alleges that Tuco received transaction-based compensation for its members' trading, and Tuco's traders conducted substantial day-trading through Tuco's brokerage accounts both in dollar amounts and number of trades. As a result, Frederick earned substantial commissions on the trading as the registered representative for the Tuco principal accounts at the registered broker-dealer. The SEC alleges that Frederick then used substantial amounts of his commissions to pay Tuco's operating expenses.”

We know that many owner/managers of non-BD sub-LLC prop trading firms are themselves licensed brokers at the broker dealers their sub-LLC prop trading firms trade through. Many of the sub-LLC entrepreneurs (licensed brokers) build their business models around collecting high levels of commissions on trading recruits (cannon fodder). Sometimes these entrepreneurs disclose receiving these commissions from their traders and sometimes they don’t. As in Tuco, they may use these commissions to fund their sub-LLCs and/or pay the firm’s expenses. It seems that the SEC is rightfully upset about these often non-disclosed conflicts of interest.

This is where otherwise-compliant BD prop trading firms face some questions in this connection. Those BDs cooperate closely with their brokers to build out the sub-LLCs; to recruit more cannon fodder for the commission model.

SEC excerpt: “The SEC's complaint also details the defendants' inaccurate reporting of the traders' equity balances. As of Dec. 31, 2007, Tuco and Frederick used about $3.62 million of the traders' approximately $10.2 million total equity to pay Tuco's expenses and to cover trader losses. Approximately a $1.35 million shortfall remained as of Jan. 31, 2008. Tuco and Frederick failed to disclose those details or that Tuco and Frederick's recovery of the shortfall in the traders' equity is dependent on Frederick's recovering the funds from third parties.”

Don’t you think that many sub-LLC firms, which lack BD compliance and regulatory oversight, have engaged in this same type of “robbing Peter to pay Paul” accounting? Especially, when you factor in the severe market losses of recent months?

Even independent contractor prop traders (receiving a 1099-Misc rather than joining as an LLC member) who make deposits to sub-LLC prop trading firms should be concerned here. Their deposits and market access are also at risk if the SEC shuts down their firm over night.

Most prop trader recruits are led to believe by management that the firm has loads of firm capital available for traders. It’s never construed those traders' deposits and commissions are recycled for firm capital. Wouldn’t that be a version of a Ponzi-type scheme; where new recruits are financing older recruits and not really the firm or true profits?

How many prop trading firms (BD or not) are ready to prove out their true firm capital to traders? I mean capital that is not pledged or encumbered in anyway; free of swap or other derivative risk too?

The SEC emergency order against Tuco is a bombshell to the prop trading firm industry and its awakened many prop trading firm owner/managers to contact our firm for our opinion on the subject and/or help.

It's probably a good idea to speak with your firm's management ASAP and (as we have always advised) withdraw as much capital as possible.

It’s also wise to consult with an attorney ASAP. We can refer you to some attorneys who are knowledgeable in the prop trading firm industry and our ongoing warnings in this regard.

We have other new concerns about the financial health of prop trading firms and together with this SEC enforcement action we believe risks are growing geometrically. We are concerned about the spreading credit crunch and recent unprecedented fights between banks and hedge funds over margin calls, lending, and derivative and swap contracts.

Banks are sending margin calls to hedge funds and withdrawing lines of credit. This can put a hedge fund out of business in quick order. Banks often also take the other side of trades on derivatives and swap contracts with their hedge fund clients. The media has reported that banks are not allowing funds to sell these contracts and we understand from attorneys in the know that many derivative contracts are unsigned. Talk about shifting money and risk around; it doesn’t get any bigger than the 45-trillion dollar swap market.

We are concerned because some prop trading firms have commingled prop trading firm models with the hedge fund business model. This is how WorldCo was busted and put out of business by the regulators a few years back; at great loss to their prop traders. Refco had similar problems too.

Some well-known prop trading firm BDs have mentioned adding hedge fund models to their prop trading firms. This troubles me. We have always told them, when they told us in advance, to skip it as it was trouble.

All prop traders in BD and non-BD firms need to ask “what's behind the (prop trading firm) curtain” when it comes to true net capital, leverage and accounting.

All sub-LLC non-BD prop trading firms appear to be very vulnerable to the Tuco precedent and they should significantly change over night; or just close and return their trader’s monies. Tuco seems very broad in its reasoning against these firms.

All BD prop trading firms should stop allowing sub-LLC firms to carry-on these inappropriate (and illegal) business practices. They should disclosure the ultimate receiver of commissions to all traders who pay those commissions; so there are no undisclosed conflicts of interest. Better yet, don’t allow conflicts of interest in the first place.

Are BD prop trading firms also vulnerable to the spreading credit crunch and potential disagreements with their own lenders (if any)?

The SEC and other regulators are obviously very concerned with current shock waves in financial markets; and particularly with the impact of leverage; especially undue leverage which violates Reg T (leverage) rules.

The SEC and other regulators may now feel compelled to take enforcement action to protect investors and traders (from themselves). Reigning in these sub-LLCs seems entirely appropriate. The problem is how to find them, as they often fly below the radar. The best way to find them may be on the books of the BD prop trading firms that utilize sub-LLCs in their model.

Unfortunately, like all other good intentioned efforts to correct excesses and problems, this current effort and warnings can contribute to a “run on the (prop trading firm) bank."

It certainly is appropriate, fair and wise to address all these concerns with your prop trading firm and an attorney (and us too if you like). If you feel uncomfortable, then there is nothing wrong with asking for your money back and stopping prop trading. You can open a retail trading account (with less leverage) instead or just cool it for a while.

Why is it that so many day trading prop trading firms have been shopped around (to corporate buyers) over the years; and often shunned or closed down by those buyers after they acquire these firms and realize all the trouble behind the curtain?

Not many prop trading firm names have survived in tact? There are a few independent firms with powerful (in the media) CEOs; who constantly harp on how safe their model is versus others. Will they too be safe from the current regulatory, credit crunch and severe loss environment? If they don’t have sub-LLC prop trading firm clients, they may be okay. I can think of a few that should be fine in this context.

It's still hard to know at this point whether the SEC went after Tuco because they were committing a variety of violations, or whether it signals an attack on the non-BD prop trader model in general.

When the regulators attacked several prop trading firms a year ago (see below alert), they picked on some firms that appeared to be cleaner than Tuco; perhaps to make an example of them. If the SEC or FINRA or other regulators go after other non-BD prop trading firms that have kept their noses clean that would be a sign of a general attack on this structure.

Please email us anything you know about this story at info@greencompany.com. Thanks.

October 1, 2006 News Update, by Robert A. Green, CPA & CEO

This article is being published in Active Trader's December issue (Inside the Market).

Join our free conference calls most Thursdays, 4:15 - 5:15 pm ET to discuss these important matters. Click here to learn more.

The NASD and Securities and Exchange Commission recently declared some smaller proprietary day-trading firms to be in violation of Regulation T margin rules, which determine the borrowing power a trader has at a given moment.

The regulators appear to be selectively forcing targeted firms – on a case-by-case basis rather than through published guidance – to immediately comply. Targeted firms face a stark choice of either quickly restructuring their operations to cure the violation or eliminating their prop trading activity.

The NASD and SEC have substantial legal authority and it is unlikely any court will overturn their jurisdiction. It’s been our opinion for the past several years – while these and other related issues were evident – that the prop trading industry is living on borrowed time from the regulators.

In 1998, there were more than 100 prop trading firm broker/dealers, and now there are only a few left. Most have exited the business for a variety of reasons, including regulator actions, connections with hedge fund investments and more.

Regulators have indicated they are now applying more stringent rules but, again, that’s on a case-by-case basis, during audit or enforcement proceeding.

We are not ringing an alarm bell yet. We have no indication if wider industry application of these more-stringent rules will happen anytime soon.

Are deposits going to be barred for prop traders?
Previously, traders’ deposits – cash deposited to guarantee performance with the prop trading firm’s guidelines and, in some cases, used to start an account from which the trader’s losses are deducted – were allowed in prop day-trading firms in all three current business models (employment, independent contractor, and LLC K-1).

We understand that regulators want to bar deposits across the board. Deposits will be allowed for retail customer accounts only.

Regulators seem bent on considering deposits in prop trading firms to be disguised customer deposits. If the relationship is customer/broker rather than prop trader, the firm must apply the Reg T margin rules, with much lower margin allowed than in a prop trading firm. The implications for this change are fundamental and striking.

Transaction fees and commissions are a problem, too
Regulators don’t like prop-trading firms charging their prop traders for transaction fees (commissions).
That resembles the broker/customer relationship.

Will prop traders have to share in firm-wide profits?
The predominant prop day-trading firm model is the LLC K-1 model (learn more below).

Fundamental to this model is that prop traders are separate ownership class members in the LLC, and each trader shares only in their own trading profits.

Firms allocate between 60 and 100 percent of each trader’s respective gains and losses to their own sub-trading account within the firm. Law articles on this subject have concluded that payouts over 80 percent are too high and again resemble a broker/customer relationship.

The problem regulators have now is much more fundamental, it seems. Traders do not currently share with other traders in the firm and they also don’t get a share of trading commissions earned by prop trading firms organized as broker/dealers.

Regulators say they want to bar special allocations in this manner and only allow firm-wide sharing of profits and losses.

If this is true, it would probably be a deal killer for the prop trading firm industry. Very few traders would want to share in the losses of a neighbor trader within the same firm and very few firms would want to share commissions with their prop traders.

How might day trading prop trading firms reorganize?
These firms could adopt the proven models used by large Wall Street broker/dealers with significant proprietary trading divisions.

Hire a prop trader as an employee and do not require a deposit. Pay that trader a hefty wage bonus based on their contributions to profits in the firm.

If that employee trader becomes highly successful for the firm, offer them ownership in the firm. It’s that simple!

Or, firms might revert to handling retail customer accounts and charge for a long list of services offered to their traders. They could charge for office space, community, training, risk management systems and, of course, commissions.

But can retail traders make a good living?
Some firms argue that retail traders cannot make a significant income with the current margin rules (4-to-1 for pattern day traders).

We have hundreds of retail traders who do make a good living. We do agree that leverage can be helpful in making more money on a smaller capital size. But leverage comes with risks, too. There are other changes brewing in the margin rules that can help retail traders (hedging margin and more).

The history
The proprietary day-trading firm industry involves very active trading in equities and, sometimes, equity derivatives and futures using the firm’s capital.

Requiring deposits from traders is what sets prop firms apart from major brokerage firms on Wall Street, who have large profit-centers from prop trading activities, too.

Major brokerage firms pay their prop traders as employees with annual W-2s (wage reporting statements), and the firms rarely require employees to make good faith deposits. Come bonus time, the firms look to each trader’s individual trading results, or more commonly as part of an employee trading pool, and wage bonuses are a significant part of a prop trader employee’s annual compensation.

This is in stark contrast to most prop day-trading prop firms that require deposits from traders before they allow them to join a firm to trade – usually as an LLC member, and in some smaller firms as independent contractors or employees.

Another key difference is Wall Street firms pay traders from a bonus pool, whereas prop day-trading firms pay traders a high percentage of what a prop trader makes in a separate sub-trading account. Plus, prop day-trading trading firms charge their traders for their losses, by applying losses against their deposit accounts and requiring prop traders to replenish their deposits with the firm.

Another problem that occurred in prior years – and it’s mostly been corrected by regulators – is that some prop day-trading firms counted these deposits in their net capital computations, and that was not proper.

Connect the dots between trading gains and losses and deposits and you can understand why regulators have concluded that in some cases, firms are disguising retail/customer accounts and violating the Reg T margin rules in the process.

Regulators may act selectively but forcefully
Regulators may force selected firms on a case-by-case basis (either during an audit or enforcement process) to change how they do business or cease doing business in their current manner.

Unfortunately, once regulators act, it’s often immediate and dramatic. Prop traders and firms will need more time to restructure. This may be why regulators are rolling out these changes (apparently) on a selected basis. That begs the question – is this arbitrary and selective enforcement, and is that proper?

Ask your firm what’s going on
It’s wise to consider asking your firm’s management about these matters. You may find it advisable to reduce your deposit size or even do away with it. Also, it may be wise to draw as many of your trading gains as possible out of the firm.

Can you consider retail trading if need be? Forming a hedge fund is another way to trade other people’s money. Learn the differences below between prop trading, retail and hedge funds.

You don’t want to have your capital and trading access frozen by regulators before you can do anything about it. Once the regulators act, you may not hear about it until it’s too late. Most firm managements do not disclose these matters to their prop traders, even though they may be LLC owners. Lower classes of ownership do not have a seat at the table.

Most firms don’t allow overnight positions and, presumably, their deposits are kept separate from net capital. They should be able to comply with any strict regulatory action without putting your deposit at risk. But your trading access could be denied nonetheless.

Remember Refco and Worldco
Read the stories about the demise of Worldco (a large prop day-trading firm) and Refco (who also had some prop traders) and learn those lessons.

Some of Refco’s prop traders sought government insurance from SIPC for lost deposits, claiming they were disguised retail customer accounts. Prop traders don’t get SIPC insurance, but retail customers do. The Refco demise may have been a rallying cry for the regulators to take more concerted action per above.

Here are the current business models and how they may be changed by regulators
Note that regulators have been forcing other changes on this industry for many years, but these new changes appear to be much more fundamental with potentially drastic consequences.

Employment model: All or some of the prop traders can be employees of the firm and receive IRS Form W-2 (wages).

The employee model appears to continue to pass muster with the regulators, but deposits from prop traders may no longer be allowed (again, on a case-by-case basis during regulatory audit or enforcement proceedings).

Now we will see how many firms are truly offering “jobs” (with W-2s) to traders. In the past, we pointed out that some job ads were really “come-ons” to attract deposits and earn commissions and other fees for the firms.

LLC K-1 model: All or some of the prop day traders are LLC members of the LLC prop day-trading firm and receive a Schedule K-1 (share of partnership income) based on “special allocations” of their specific trading profits in the firm.

Management of the firm (the true owners) own Class A shares, and prop traders own a lower class, like B, C or D. Only Class-A members share in firm-wide profits.

Regulators may only allow this LLC K-1 model going forward if the firm allocates profits to members on a firm-wide basis and doesn’t bar the prop trader classes from sharing in these profits.

This apparent new requirement could render this LLC K-1 model unattractive to both firms and trader alike. Firms may not want to share commissions and other profits with prop trader LLC members, and the prop traders may not want to risk sharing in losses caused by other traders in the firm.

This LLC K-1 model has been the most prevalent for larger prop day-trading firms, so we are concerned about how regulatory enforcement actions might upset the industry in this regard.

Independent contractor model: All or some of the traders are independent contractors and receive IRS Form 1099-Misc. (with Non-Employee compensation or Other Income boxes checked).

Regulators apparently don’t want these relationships at all going forward. Most broker/dealers went away from this model, but smaller boutique non-broker/dealer LLCs use it. Again, no deposits will be allowed.

Non-broker/dealer prop trading firms
The industry has also grown a branch of smaller boutique prop trading firms that are not broker/dealers. These smaller LLCs recruit prop traders who are not licensed brokers and allow lower deposit requirements; usually $3,000 to $10,000.

These smaller firms fly below the regulators’ radar screens since they do not file reports required from broker/dealers (FOCUS reports and more). One particular problem for these smaller non-BD firms is that their managers may “quote rates” – commissions and transaction costs. Only brokers can quote rates, so this is an illegal activity and the regulators are concerned with it.

Some larger prop day-trading firm broker/dealers utilize many smaller boutique non-broker/dealer LLCs to recruit more trading and business. An entrepreneur prop trading broker in the broker/dealer firm spins off his own “sub-LLC” to recruit smaller non-broker traders with lower deposit amounts. That broker may quote rates and it can be troublesome.

What one large firm says about this story now?
We spoke with one large prop day-trading firm and they say the regulators are not pressing these issues with them at this time.

Perhaps this is the reason the regulators are dealing with this issue on a case-by-case basis – so they don’t cause havoc overnight in the industry.

That’s the name of the regulatory game over the past decade – be careful not to upset markets and keep the lid on changes (George Soros’s concept of "Reflexivity").

Paperwork is not always reality
In all the above models, the prop traders sign lengthy detailed agreements provided by the prop day-trading firms in which the trader agrees that he or she is not a “customer” of the trading firm (but, rather, an employee, independent contractor, or member, depending upon the structure used).

Just because a trader and a firm call a deposit what they like doesn’t mean the regulators cannot call it what it appears to be in their view – a disguised customer deposit. However, for the regulators to succeed on this view in court, they might have to show that the traders are “disavowing” (i.e., reneging) on agreements they entered into as consenting adults.

Older writing from before the news above
In certain cases, the trader must place funds in a type of surety account, in effect, to ensure that when they trade the firm’s capital they do not act recklessly, because their account can be depleted. In some cases, the trader agrees to be liable for trading losses incurred by the firm arising from the trader’s activities, above the amount placed in the surety-type account.

For some time now, we have been advised that the NASD is investigating proprietary trading firms, on a case-by-case basis, regarding the proper characterization of traders as traders or “customers.”

We recently learned that the NASD, acting in conjunction with the SEC, acted to force one or more prop day-trading firms to revise their model as laid out in general above – to either treat their traders as retail customers or conform to the limited ways of carrying on a prop day-trading firm activity.

The NASD reviews were sparked by the actions of some former proprietary traders of Refco Inc. These traders argued that they were customers of Refco, not traders, because when Refco entered bankruptcy, they would have a better position in the bankruptcy court. In addition, as customers they could claim SIPC insurance for brokerage accounts. While we wait for the wheels of justice to grind on further, proprietary trading firms and traders would be well-advised to review very carefully the structure of the firm, the rights and liabilities of members, and regulatory developments. Our recent news stated above is a call for immediate action.

It is a fact of life in this industry that proprietary trading is viewed with disfavor, even downright suspicion, in some quarters. Monitoring developments, therefore, is a must for all concerned.

Even before the Refco Inc. bankruptcy, we alerted the prop trading industry to this same concern. Click here to follow our prop trading industry news.

Proprietary Trading compared with Retail Trading and Hedge Funds
You can trade actively in a number of different ways: retail, proprietary trading, or in a hedge fund.

• Retail trading: The majority of business traders open their own "customer accounts" with a direct-access and/or online brokerage firm. They are known as "retail traders." Active retail trading often triggers the "pattern day-trader (margin) rules," which sets minimum account sizes of $25,000.

We cover all the tax and accounting issues for retail business traders on our site and in our guides. Retail business traders also need to do their own accounting using our recommended GTT TradeLog and general ledger programs, such as Quicken, for their expenses. Retail traders are entrepreneurs who are entirely on their own.

• Proprietary trading: This phrase was originally created when larger full service Wall Street brokerage firms and other financial institutions employed traders to trade their capital. However, don't confuse this “true” type of employee prop trading with the general proprietary trading industry, which evolved from the day-trading firms of the 1990s. Most prop traders that are members of, or work in, a "proprietary trading firm" are asked to risk their own capital in front of the firm's capital. They are not employees with a job on Wall Street!

These proprietary traders are very much like retail traders because, in reality, they are risking their own money. The big difference is that these prop traders have access to far greater leverage than retail traders, who have 4-to-1 leverage or margin under the pattern day-trader rules and 2-to-1 otherwise. Proprietary traders often get 10-to-1 or 20-to-1 leverage because a proprietary trading firm may allocate money to traders within a firm however it likes. Broker/dealer prop trading firms are limited to 6-to-1 leverage overall.

• Hedge fund trading: There is a third way to trade: in your own hedge fund. This is truly trading "other people’s money." GreenTrader helps start up hedge funds. Hedge-fund manager/traders usually earn a 20-percent profit allocation or incentive fee on new high net profits, plus a 2-percent management fee, based on funds under management.

New traders need to build an excellent performance record in the business before they can be successful in a hedge-fund business. The GreenTrader Incubator Fund strategy is a great way to start building your historical performance record at very low cost.

Although a proprietary trading firm's sales pitch may imply otherwise, these types of proprietary traders are not really trading "other people's money" but rather risking their own money to cover their own trading losses (generated in sub-accounts of the firm) and paying for their own expenses incurred within the firm (such as margin interest, training, office usage, and more). In the majority of cases, the firm does not ultimately pay for any of the traders’ losses and expenses.

This is the opposite of proprietary trading on Wall Street where the firm pays for all losses, expenses, and salaries to the trader. Proprietary trading firms do not pay salaries, and the traders lose their own money. So, using the term "proprietary trading" is deceiving.

"Entrepreneur proprietary traders" risk their own money in the same manner a "retail business trader" does. The big difference is that entrepreneur proprietary traders have access to more leverage than retail traders do. A better phrase would be to say a proprietary trader is "trading other people's leverage."

Proprietary trading firms’ sales pitches can sound very attractive to business traders who believe they do not independently have sufficient risk capital and leverage to make a living. Joining a firm to get access to "other people’s leverage" is the main attraction here.

Caution: Leverage can be expensive and dangerous. Leverage is not free; you must pay market interest rates for using the firm's capital. Trading with too much leverage can burn you out of positions faster and with bigger losses.

A key point to understand upfront is that proprietary trading firms will strictly police how you use their leverage. These firms know they are attracting many unsophisticated (and new) traders and they strictly restrict your trading privileges. Almost all firms disallow overnight positions. They limit the securities you can trade, and they will force you out of positions when they like.

Some prop traders flourish under these restricted conditions, and they appreciate the firm's oversight and discipline. They do well with leverage, but many others burn out faster with leverage and lose their initial deposits and much more. Before you join a proprietary trading firm, carefully read the fine print and understand what you are getting into.

It also is important to learn about how tax issues differ between proprietary and retail traders. Like retail business traders, entrepreneur proprietary traders can deduct their business expenses (outside of the firm) with "unreimbursed partnership expenses" (UPE) deducted on Schedule E (if they are LLC members of the firm), or as business deductions on Schedule C (if they are independent contractors of the firm).

Proprietary traders must maintain deposits of $25,000 or more if the firm is a registered broker/dealer. These firms require their proprietary traders to have a current brokerage license. Most firms require that a proprietary trader join as an LLC member. Some still allow independent contractors and/or employees. Smaller boutique prop trading firms are not organized as broker/dealers and are not members of an exchange. These firms allow lower minimum deposits, and they do not require brokerage licenses.

Retail and prop traders' share many tax benefits in common, but there also are many important differences. Learn the special rules for prop traders in the proprietary traders section.

Remember, your interests are not fully in line with the firm's interests. The firm earns significant commission income on your forced hyperactive day trading and you only make money when you generate consistent trading gains. You are not taking a job with a salary.

Compare having your own hedge fund with proprietary trading. In a proprietary trading firm you can receive between 60 percent and 99 percent of your trading profits, which is considerably higher than the 20-percent profit allocation in a hedge fund. But with a proprietary trading firm you have much greater risk. You are responsible for 100 percent of your losses in a proprietary trading firm whereas in a hedge fund you are not responsible for any losses. Again, the proprietary trading firm has many restrictions on your trading, whereas you write your own trading program in your own hedge fund. Moreover, with a hedge fund, you can hold positions overnight, which is the norm for hedge funds; plus, an entrepreneur can gain more value over the long term by building a hedge-fund brand.

The bottom line is that there are many ways to trade, and you should choose which informed way is best for you. Note that proprietary trading tax and business issues are complex and highly nuanced. Few professionals understand all the issues, but our professionals have many of the answers you need. Whether you are joining a prop trading firm, or operating a firm, we can help you.

Use this section on proprietary trading to learn the ins and outs. When you are ready for our help, go back to our business traders section to learn more and sign up for consultations, preparation, entity formations, retirement plans, IRS exam representation, and more.

There also is an entire chapter on proprietary trading in Robert Green's book, The Tax Guide for Traders, published by McGraw-Hill. Click here to learn more and buy the book online.

Some of our leading tax attorneys provide legal services to prop traders and prop trading firms through their independent law firm.

We cover the proprietary trading industry looking for stories that can impact our clients. Click here to read some of the stories we are working on.

Please also email us any comments you have about the industry and the new developments above.

If you have any questions or comments about propriety trading, feel free to contact us. We look forward to working with you soon.

Robert A. Green, CPA & CEO