You are a bully E2T (if I am obnoxious / uncouth) Can't I expresses my agreement with another poster who is also raising questions? and I did not take your name either neither did I ask Minmike to make those comments! Just becasue you are a sponsor does not mean others can't raise questions! just the way by hook or crook you defend your business model others can also keep raising legit questions. And my comments are not just about your firm! what about TST! These "uncouth" questions about the business model are raised by many not just me mimimike just happens to be latest example. SO every time I press the like button to anybody raising same questions or posting slightly negative remark about such business you are going to start calling me names! I have never labelled your firm is illegal or a scam.. I just echoed a common sense concern so stop being a bully.
If a "firm" is set out to make more money by selling tests than the trading success of real funded traders then certainly it raises questions .. IMHO then it means such a "firm" will be more interested in churning test newbees than funding real traders.... a simple logical conclusion. Pebleo if it has worked for you and you got funded with min outlay from your side.. great it means you are a good trader but has it worked for hundreds that may have potentially forked out thousands in repeat fees? that is the million dollar question! and if the entire model is based on funding few traders from profits from those failed paid tests trials ..then that does not sound like a very ethical and sustainable model You will notice that these questions are rarely raised against genuine prop firms who hunt trading talent with it's own costs.. why because the real aim of those firms is to find real talent The problem is - none of these firms are forced by regulators to disclose that info - Those thousands who fail don;t worry too much and write down the $200-300 and move on to the benefit of these firms
@traderjo Uncouth is the style and format you raise your "questions", because in the end they are almost never questions at all, they are most often just nasty accusations. We are happy and open to discuss our business model. We respond to every question with respect and sincerity, even to nasty one-off comments, but you are constantly on the lookout to throw mud. In internet parlance it is called trolling someone. If the last post you made is not obnoxious then at the best it is just childish. You are not raising any question, and certainly not any question that hasn't been answered by us or your fellow forum members. You are not being bullied and you are not a victim. You are actively on a mission to discredit our business and our business model. Your "million dollar question" has been addressed several times already. I asked you previously if you had problems with college entrance exams or driver's license examinations or any other "pay to get" model. You can say what you like that getting a degree or a license pales in comparison to the value of getting funded, but some will disagree! For some people, it is very valuable to have on their resume that they were funded by a trading firm. For some it is very valuable to make the profit from trading that capital. And how many pay to take other exams? How many pay for the SAT, or GRE and fail, or do so poorly the exam results are worthless? I asked you this before. Maybe you think the Political Science degree has value, maybe you don't, but that is not the point. Many take these exams and fail. Exam companies make money from this. Is that a scandal? There is a filtering process in the examination. Perhaps if the eye doctor makes you pay for an eye exam he should have no right to sell you glasses? Is this moral? Should he give the glasses for free? You are concerned about ethics but the point you are making is whether you have a problem with the model of paying for an exam, and whether the proceeds of that exam should be able to fund those who pass. If you really had a concern for ethics then there is one question to ask. Is the system fair/neutral? In other words, is there any actionable bias towards the candidate? The answer is resoundingly no. Our candidates all participate in an exam with the same rules. They all use a third party data feed provider. They all use a third party platform. As the provider of the service we have no way nor interest in manipulating passes or failures. The majority fail. In reality the majority of businesses fail. The majority of Olympic athletes don't make it to the podium. You may scoff at the comparisons to businesses, or athletes, or college entrance examinations, but trading is not easy! It is not a game and it takes just as much effort as anything else. If you want to get funded you have to be good. We don't discriminate against those who want to test their mettle. That is our business model.
At the end of the day, no one can doubt that the business models of TST, OneUp, E2T, etc. are extremely savvy and profitable. Are the trading parameters difficult? Of course! Trading by nature is one of the hardest ways to make a living or extra income - the success rate of traders who DO NOT lose less than $1 in any trailing 365 day period is ridiculously low. But it should be. Successful trading is NOT A HUMAN RIGHT - it is a privilege earned thru years of experience, tuition cost in the form of lost money and many many gallons of tears and pain. These companies provide a good opportunity for "time tested" traders to make money and get some decent leverage. Let's be brutally honest, seasoned traders understand and respect their business model. It's the ones who are unable to profit who "blame" the system and scream fraud. If you don't like their rules, don't participate in the funding qualification phase - very simple. After all, you're more than welcome to lose $4,500 in real money rather than a trailing DD. I'm more concerned with their brokers staying solvent so that I can take advantage of my trading strategy and "get my due."
"If a "firm" is set out to make more money by selling tests than the trading success of real funded traders then certainly it raises questions .. IMHO then it means such a "firm" will be more interested in churning test newbees than funding real traders.... a simple logical conclusion." I don't think you understand the model. E2T is an educational entity while Helios is the prop firm that funds the traders. The model is no different than Kaplan or Princeton who sells training programs for the MCAT exam. Of course, they're in business. They want to sell training programs. Anyone can sign up. There's no guarantee that you'll get into medical school, but you can certainly try as many times as you want. It's a perfectly legitimate business model. It's up to the student to do the work and get accepted into medical school. Exactly the same as being funded by Helios. You pay a fee to E2T, use their educational material, trade a sim account following their criteria and see if you can get funded. I read through their website. Seems fairly straightforward to me. TST, on the other hand, has so many variables it's hard to know what they're really offering. But all that is aside from the fact that both companies are offering an opportunity to become a funded trader. If you don't like their model, don't participate. But it's a perfectly legitimate business model.