1

I am reading this piece off some rules to open an account. "Brokers are mandated by law to require day traders have $3,000 in their accounts at all times"

Why not "Brokers are mandated by law to require day traders to have $3,000 in their accounts at all times"

3
  • 2
    The sentence would read better with ...to require that day traders have.. or as you suggest. But financial institutions do not always concern themselves with the niceties of English. Sep 13, 2019 at 18:39
  • 1
    require someone have something is perfectly good English: We require parents bring their children early.
    – Lambie
    Sep 13, 2019 at 19:06
  • Thanks folks. A bit of what I was thinking. Added some awareness to my English skills too. Appreciated.
    – Erik
    Sep 13, 2019 at 19:17

1 Answer 1

0

The best way to correct this as written would be:

Brokers are mandated by law to require that day traders have $3,000 in their accounts at all times.

The example you provided is another acceptable alternative:

Brokers are mandated by law to require day traders to have $3,000 in their accounts at all times.

While it might be technically permissible as written, I disagree that it's "perfectly good English."

IMHO, the best way to write this would be to eliminate the passive voice:

The law requires that day traders have $3,000 in their accounts at all times.

or

The law requires day traders to have $3,000 in their accounts at all times.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .