Is this the norm for a trading firm? For up to 2 years after employment terminates with the company, they have the option of paying you the (low) base-salary and in return requiring that you abstain from participating in any trading activities with any competitors.

Depends on the firm, there are a few firms that do this, but depends on the size, asset class, strategy etc.A check on older threads may be in order: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q="non- ... ilmott.com

My partner's non-compete was for 5 years. If they really want to enforce it they would be paying you more than a low base.

How do they define "competitors"? Is it possible to negotiate on the non-compete duration and the pay, at the time of signing the job contract?

If they are paying you to not compete then you have to ask them if you can do whatever it is you want to do. It could be as general as any type of trading related to the use of algos. They are paying you so pretty much they determine everything. Of course you can do whatever you want if you don't care about not compete paychecks. Then the lawyers will have to get involved if they think you stole something.

I am afraid this is one of those situations where the jurisdiction is very important, the opinion of random people on the internet should be discounted, and reassuringly expensive employment lawyers are de rigeur.

QuoteOriginally posted by: WFNYCIf they are paying you to not compete then you have to ask them if you can do whatever it is you want to do. It could be as general as any type of trading related to the use of algos. They are paying you so pretty much they determine everything. Of course you can do whatever you want if you don't care about not compete paychecks. Then the lawyers will have to get involved if they think you stole something.No, that's not the stated condition. If they enforce the non-compete they agree to pay, but I do not have the option of deciding not to accept payment so that I can compete.

QuoteOriginally posted by: bearishI am afraid this is one of those situations where the jurisdiction is very important, the opinion of random people on the internet should be discounted, and reassuringly expensive employment lawyers are de rigeur.Definitely, and a good lawyer, not merely expensive.I've been trying to research on my own but the jurisdiction issue is confusing. I guess it depends on what country the contract is signed in, rather than the country you are competing in after the termination of employment? I haven't been able to find information on enforcing a non-complete globally.

QuoteOriginally posted by: MiloRambaldiQuoteOriginally posted by: WFNYCIf they are paying you to not compete then you have to ask them if you can do whatever it is you want to do. It could be as general as any type of trading related to the use of algos. They are paying you so pretty much they determine everything. Of course you can do whatever you want if you don't care about not compete paychecks. Then the lawyers will have to get involved if they think you stole something.No, that's not the stated condition. If they enforce the non-compete they agree to pay, but I do not have the option of deciding not to accept payment so that I can compete.How would they stop you from competing if they don't pay you?

QuoteOriginally posted by: MiloRambaldiQuoteOriginally posted by: bearishI am afraid this is one of those situations where the jurisdiction is very important, the opinion of random people on the internet should be discounted, and reassuringly expensive employment lawyers are de rigeur.Definitely, and a good lawyer, not merely expensive.I've been trying to research on my own but the jurisdiction issue is confusing. I guess it depends on what country the contract is signed in, rather than the country you are competing in after the termination of employment? I haven't been able to find information on enforcing a non-complete globally.There is definitely information out there, but it is murky at best. 2 years does sound like an unusually long time though. A little poking around produced one brief summary that may be relevant Non Compete.

QuoteOriginally posted by: katastrofa Similar clauses in employment contracts are meant to intimidate the employee, while they have no legal power. Enforcing a few months of a fairly compensated non-compete period would stand in the court, but anything longer than that is obviously harmful to your career (it reduces your employment prospects) and hence abuses your fundamental right to earn bread. Not in the US.Citadel sues former employees who set up Teza Tech

QuoteOriginally posted by: lexingtonQuoteOriginally posted by: katastrofa Similar clauses in employment contracts are meant to intimidate the employee, while they have no legal power. Enforcing a few months of a fairly compensated non-compete period would stand in the court, but anything longer than that is obviously harmful to your career (it reduces your employment prospects) and hence abuses your fundamental right to earn bread. Not in the US.Citadel sues former employees who set up Teza TechThis is actual theft.

QuoteOriginally posted by: WFNYCQuoteOriginally posted by: lexingtonQuoteOriginally posted by: katastrofa Similar clauses in employment contracts are meant to intimidate the employee, while they have no legal power. Enforcing a few months of a fairly compensated non-compete period would stand in the court, but anything longer than that is obviously harmful to your career (it reduces your employment prospects) and hence abuses your fundamental right to earn bread. Not in the US.Citadel sues former employees who set up Teza TechThis is actual theft.sued a former top executive in its highly successful quantitative trading unit and two others for setting up their own firmformer employees had violated their non-compete clauses by starting their own firm

QuoteOriginally posted by: lexingtonQuoteOriginally posted by: WFNYCQuoteOriginally posted by: lexingtonQuoteOriginally posted by: katastrofa Similar clauses in employment contracts are meant to intimidate the employee, while they have no legal power. Enforcing a few months of a fairly compensated non-compete period would stand in the court, but anything longer than that is obviously harmful to your career (it reduces your employment prospects) and hence abuses your fundamental right to earn bread. Not in the US.Citadel sues former employees who set up Teza TechThis is actual theft.sued a former top executive in its highly successful quantitative trading unit and two others for setting up their own firmformer employees had violated their non-compete clauses by starting their own firmTheft part is the key to this case.