I forgot about the 5K break, but that only applies once (obviously), otherwise everyone would take the money out in 5K chunks and TST would never earn the 20% fee... It was always understood that only the first 5K is free of the 20% fee. But this is kind of irrelevant to the point, we don't know how long it took the trader to reach 20K, but it wasn't a month... Anyhow, have to run to the store for more popcorn...
It's only the FIRST 5000$ that you get to keep without any fees. Any money after you've withdrawn 5k is going to have the 20% fee added to it.
The 79% number is similar to what the owner of Savius LLC posted on the Trade2Win site. The Savius owner had the sample of 100 traders, where 22% passed their "combine" and of those who passed, they were given a refund of the entrance fee (as per their rules at the time). So out of 100 traders, Savius had 78 traders' entrance fees to help offset the losses on the 22 funded traders. Remember, he also said the majority "blew up" the max draw immediately, leaving only a handful who were positive. The bottom line for Savius was that 2 out of 100 traders were actually profitable for the firm. Again, a 2% win ratio, or "98% failure rate" whichever way you slice it. Emmett correctly points out that the account size displayed by TST is "irrelevant" and it's the maximum allowable draw that matters. Putting aside the negative comments from the survey, there were some solid suggestions such as allowing the traders to build up capital beyond the 10 days of the live account, and also allowing a free retake of the combine. One trader suggested TST to change the 10 day rule to 30 days, allowing for more time to build the capital, while keeping the loss metrics the same. Since the combine is continuous, it would make sense for the live account to have a clause of a max draw without a time limit. If the firm is willing to lose $1,500 on a trader, then it should not matter whether it takes 2 days or 2 months. The loss is fixed, and also gives more time for a profitable trader to build up equity in the live account. It seemed this was one of the biggest complaints from the live traders who posted comments with the survey, and rightfully so. Indeed, Emmett stated the following: "What is my opinion? Looking at the hard data, the vast majority of people earn nothing the first ten days of trading with the live account, and then they promptly lose the funded trading account. They are then sent back to the combine, which of course costs more fee’s."
Another revealing comment by Emmett, regarding the "10 day rule." "Most people do not seem to realize that during the 10 days of having a funded trading account, if they have only $100 in trading profits….then on DAY 11, they have a funded trading account worth only $100. On day 11, all the rules change, the draw down rules no longer apply. If on day 11 your account is $100, then you only have $100 to trade. Having only $100 in your trading account is not a very promising future." However, I'm not sure why "most people don't seem to realize" that rule, since it's in the FAQ's on the TST site AND it's been pounded relentlessly on this thread! As stated repeatedly, the "10 day rule" IS the biggest flaw in the TST program. Traders will improve their odds of at least making a positive balance on day 11 IF they trade the combine with the same rules as the live account. This means you need to ignore the continuous feature of the combine, since the live account is continuous only for those who generate sizable profits WITHIN the first 10 days. If you trade the 100k combine and make the required $6k in ten trading days while following the LIVE account rules, then you simply have to mimic the process when you're live (after passing the FTP, of course). If you can't make $6,000 in the combine in 10 days while incorporating the live account rules, then the chances are you're NOT going to make $6,000 in the live account in 10 days either.
Let's face it, most people are morons. Also, to be honest that "150K account you could get" misrepresentation sure helps them to get confused... Case in point: "Ed N. OMG I’m totally shocked. There is no point to doing this then if you aren’t properly funded, if you only get to trade with the profits you make from the qualification stage. It just does not make sense for retail traders to do this! Thanks for posting an update Emmett. I did the combine a few times myself and did not pass. I’m not putting anymore money into it." You are welcome, Ed! ----------------------------------- Anyhow, Emmett mentioned Apiary Fund, so I got curious and took a look. It is an interesting concept, mixing the traders with investors, the more capital you get, the bigger your profit share. https://apiaryfund.com/about#go I am contemplating to start a separate thread about these backing firms, so TST doesn't get all the hate. Is there an interest in doing so? I know about 7 firms with similar set ups. Or have we just decided that they are all crooks?
They are crooks for skilled & lucky traders. They are divinations for un-skilled & un-lucky ones. But I am willing to listen if any of them add value for a smart trader.
"Morons" who don't read the FAQ's on a web site that are prominently displayed have no excuse to complain about being "totally shocked" regarding the rules. We discussed a similar topic on the "Karen The Supertrader" thread, where 007 (i.e. "Investor A") became the main investor to Karen's fund with TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS by signing a private placement memorandum, and then admitted in a legal document that he didn't understand how the fees were calculated. Regarding Apairy, the FAQ's don't cite exactly what the rules are for the drawdown, except for this paragraph: "And if you lose money... You aren’t accountable for losses and there is no “risk deposit.” If too much money is lost in your account during a day, the account will be temporarily paused until the next day, giving you time to analyze the situation while avoiding a bad streak." What is "too much money lost in your account during a day?" That phrase is vague. Is $20 bucks "too much" money? These are questions that any trader would want answered before committing 90 days to the program. It's an annual subscription fee model of $97/month, with a live trading room and education being optional purchases. They are at least making the entry process simple and straightforward, and provide guidance to helping traders succeed, for example: "Even if you aren’t yet to a profitable and consistent level after the goal of 90 days, we will continue to work with you until you are." (Although it doesn't specify what "work with you" actually means). Also, the rules aren't as stringent as TST where you get almost ZERO margin for error: "How do I get a funded account? One of the Apiary Investment Fund risk managers will analyze your virtual trading statistics to determine whether you’re ready. They’re looking for you to be winning more frequently than losing, with a greater average win than average loss. They will also want to see that you are not risking too much of your account at a time and that your performance has a reasonably predictable consistency. In a nutshell, you keep learning and practicing until you are able to get a consistent, profitable equity curve." I agree that Apiary is an interesting concept, and I think opening a thread to discuss the "7 firms" would help traders examine their options. However, Apairy is Forex trading, a whole different animal!
That view was totally baseless. If it was a risk deposit firm, such as Nevis, that was ousted by both DAStrader for placing traders in demo, and by the regulators in Nevis warning traders that the firm was never regulated, then yes, I can see it happening. But for Top Step? Not a chance, the risk of being shut down would cease their ability to earn revenues from combines , and that risk is FAR GREATER than the losses they are taking in the live accounts. Besides, they have members that were former traders on the CME, and the fact that you're signing agreements with the exchange that you're a professional trader with the $85/fee makes it VERY UNLIKELY that TST would engage in such a sceme.
Maybe so, but it makes sense. If I were a Live trader and the the fills are realistic, why would I care if it is real or sim, as long as I get paid when I make profits? On the other hand advertising a 3 contracts account as a 150K value is a much bigger breach of ethics if you ask me. The point of that notion is that the sum of the first 10 days Live is most likely negative for TST. I would bet close to half will lose the max. allowed DD and those who make it to the green don't reach the equivalent of DD in profits. Thus overall it is a loss for TST, makes sense to keep them on sim... Actually, the Savius guy mentioned something like that, although at that point it was just an idea, because they were losing too much on the new traders... But anyhow, since we can not know, there is no point in debating it further...