Those are easy for a trader to do on MetaTrader MT4 platform in Forex using a simple automated program that closes all positions and stops trading for the day (or session) when “X” profit target reached -
"others do it too!" is not a valid excuse. the reason why i pointed this out in this context was specifically to emphasize the sheer ridiculousness of kinds of returns the two-step combine process requires. your 150k combine over two steps requires a 200% return not just once, but twice. Of course no one HAS to pass in a month. But taking additional months to pass decreases the value proposition of these evaluations significantly. You provide traders with $4500 trailing drawdown for $375/month. If you pass in 1 month, you're getting 12x the drawdown you would have had. If you pass in 3 months, now you're only getting 4x the drawdown. Sure that's still 4x but in exchange for 4x, now you no longer have the static drawdown you would have in your personal account. In my previous post, I briefly touched upon what you brought up here about other companies having a 1-step combine while tacking on hurdles at the payout stage (like having a withdrawal threshold) which is somewhat akin to your two-step combine stage. The problem with your retort is that having such things like a withdrawal threshold is still much more favorable compared to having a two-step combine b/c in the latter case, there is a time limit. For example, Oneuptrader has a $5000 withdrawal threshold for their funded live 150k account. So sure, it is somewhat similar to topstep's two-step combine where you have to make $4500 twice. But the difference with Oneuptrader is that once you've passed just one-step, you can trade conservatively and take as much time to hit that withdrawal threshold whereas with Topstep, the monthly subscription fees pressure traders into overleveraging during the second step. Not to mention, that "withdrawal threshold" some other firms have isn't completely fake either. Their contracts usually have stipulations where the trader can withdraw some % of the profits under this withdrawal threshold should they close their funded account. Contrast this with the profits you make in the second step of TST's combine where their only purpose is for evaluation purposes. You can't withdraw any % of it b/c it's a strictly evaluation account. There are also futures eval companies like Earn2Trade or Tradeday that have 1-step and no restriction on the payout policy whatsoever. Also, it's rich of you to be pointing fingers earlier at the payout policies of other companies when your own payout policy is already much more restrictive than Earn2Trade's or Tradeday's IN ADDITION to already having a two-step combine. This makes no sense. As I already point out in the previous point, the weekly loss limit in no way functions as the daily loss limit during the evaluation stage b/c during the evaluation stage, customers are billed every month due to the subscription model. So by having a weekly loss limit, any trader that incurs losses during the earlier part of the Mon-Fri week may be forced to sit out during Thursday and/or Friday so as to not go past the weekly loss limit; this is GREAT for topsteptrader and terrible for customers b/c it delays the customers' ability to pass the evaluation before their next billing date. clear example of a predatory practice.[/QUOTE] Nope, your payout policy is not very reasonable and given that earlier, you were pointing fingers at other funding companies for having stringent payout policies, this claim is even more laughable. You didn't address why the trailing dd is suddenly moved up to the starting account balance when someone requests a payout of any amount. If someone took 2 months to pass the 150k account, it means they paid $750 in subscription costs. It is reasonable for that person to then want to withdraw $750 once he/she has made $750 in the funded account in order to hedge. That way, they get to quickly recoup their subscription expenses and from then on, they're only playing with house money. At Earn2Trade or Tradeday, he/she could withdraw $750 to recoup subscription costs and then trade with the remaining $3750 trailing drawdown. But it seems like topstep wants to punish users who seek to recoup costs like this by forcing the trailing dd to move up to the starting account balance when someone requests a payout of any amount, no matter how small. So Topstep kind of forces funded traders to keep all profits in their funded account until the trailing drawdown moves past the starting account balance, at which point Topstep is no longer risking any money. Any losses from here on is out of the traders' profits so Topstep is completely safe from here on out. Traders aren't stupid. It's easy to see why you guys implement 1) trailing dd is suddenly moved up to the starting account balance when someone requests a payout of any amount + 2) can only request payout of 50% of account balance these two restrictions b/c you're trying to risk the least amount of your own capital as possible. The five non-consecutive $100< profit day restriction is also stupid b/c it's just so unnecessary. You say it's to prevent yolo-ing but the nature of trading is that some days will have a plethora of opportunities while some days have none. Days like yesterday, one could easily make tens of thousands of dollars whereas on other days, ES might have a 10-point range. Sure the rule itself is not a high bar but it's just so unnecessary that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth in the context of all these other restrictive policies you have with payouts. If anything, this rule just forces the trader to make more before being able to request a payout which is good for TST b/c it moves up the trailing DD. I understand that this is a business and I am not against funding companies making money. What I don't appreciate is funding companies implementing shady and/or predatory rules that needlessly and deliberately punish the trader, rules that have nothing to do with prudent risk management and everything to do with squeezing as much money from traders' wallets; and then using BS arguments trying to convince us how they exists for our sake. LOL This post is about Topstep which is why I'm dunking on them but to be clear, there are others like Leeloo and Apex that are just as bad if not worse. anyone reading this interested in these funding evaluation firms should do your own research! please understand that you aren't just paying for subscriptions, you're also investing a considerable amount of your precious time. more than just money, there's an opportunity cost involved here. if you want my recommendation on funding companies, the reputable CFD funding companies like FTMO come out on top for having the most trader-friendly rules. just know that with CFD funding companies, because you're dealing with CFDs, there's a inherent counterparty risk. for specifically futures funding companies, Earn2Trade is the best imo. their trailing dd on real-time PnL for their live funded accounts is still a pain in the ass but you can opt for EOD trailing dd via their livesim option.
I had a long response written but then realized it wouldn't matter because you are cherry picking attributes from four different firms, Earn2Trade, TradeDay, OneUpTrader and even FTMO who isn't even in the futures space. When traders are looking at prop firms they do not get to pick the best aspects of each and buy that product. They are signing up for the entire experience from beginning to end. So how about we do this, you pick a firm and then we can go line item by line item and compare them? But I will leave you with this just in case you decide to disappear and not take me up on the offer: Topstep has a 2-Step funding process. However, we are the fastest in the business in terms of total required traded days to first payout. Example below: Step 1 - 5 minimum traded days Step 2 - 3 minimum traded days because of the 40% consistency target. Funded Account - 5 traded days of at least $100 (non-consecutive) before your first payout. 13 Traded days is all that is required to receive a payout. Will everyone be able to do that? No, but it is possible. Topstep rewards its funded traders who pass both steps with two bonuses: First, we refund your last months Trading Combine subscription when you submit a request for payout, no other futures prop firm does that as far as I am aware. Secondly, all of our funded traders go back to Step 2 if they lose their Funded Account. That means if you purchase a new Trading Combine within 30 days after losing your Funded Account you are eligible to go back to Step 2. That means you are 3 days away from getting back into your Funded Account, not 10-15 traded days like the other "1 Step" programs you are so high on. Additionally, we also have by far the best customer service in the industry with email, chat via WhatsApp/Intercom, and phone support. Our phone support is open 5 days a week from 7am CT - 6pm CT. If no one believes me, here is our phone 888-407-1611, call us. So Canoe, which prop firm would you like to begin with?
I think it may come down to an actual prop firm wouldn't even look at 99% of the people that go to these quasi prop firms. You would need pretty hefty credentials and/or a track record and they wouldn't put up with big losses out of the gate or gambler trading. These firms are giving someone a chance to see if they can make it and it shouldn't be easy, as most people can have a few lucky totally undisciplined days of great trades and then they blow up. The other option is using a brokerage that has sim available and work at it until you have a methodology that actually is tradeable and profitable in the long term. At that point you could start with micros and build an account. If you have enough money to take these trials and do a bunch of resets you have enough to trade micros.
There are several reasons in my opinion that Topstep is an inferior funding solution for traders when compared to other funding firms when, (and if), traders actually take the time to read and analyze the fine print and details of each firm. Let's take a look at some of the details of the "live" funded account as that, in my opinion, is the most critical component --as that is how a trader is going to make his/her living if they have a goal of trading full time to support themselves and their family and using the "funding capital" of the provider firm to trade with. Now--I don't know about you--but what I would be looking for is a long term partnership whereby the funding firm provides perpetual funding that (as long as I trade within the rules) they will provide risk capital for me to trade with and that I am not "penalized" for withdrawing 100% of my profits every allowable pay period--meaning that I can with withdraw all profits generated each pay period and the next day still have the firm put up the same starting risk capital for me to have to trade with. Take a look at Topstep Payout FAQ at https://help.futures.topstep.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500008731241-Payout-FAQ WHAT IS THE PROFIT SPLIT? Traders will receive 100% of the profits from payouts, up to a total of $5,000. After the first $5,000 of funds have been received by the trader, the profit split will become 90/10, with the trader receiving 90% of payouts and Topstep retaining 10% of the requested payout. To be clear, this is per trader. If you receive a payout of $5,000 and then lose your Funded Account, your next Funded Account payout will be 90/10 when you start back up again. Once the payout request is processed, the Trailing Max Drawdown will be automatically set to the starting account balance (the trader cannot allow the account balance to reach or go below $0 after a payout). WHEN SHOULD I START TAKING PAYOUTS FROM MY FUNDED ACCOUNT? If you take any payouts before your Trailing Max Drawdown (TMDD) reaches $0, your TMDD will automatically be set to $0 with a payout. To maintain your Topstep account for an extended period of time and take regular payouts, we recommend making your TMDD $0 before considering a payout. To make your TMDD $0, you will need to reach the corresponding levels of profits (dictated by your account size): Below is a list of all account sizes and their corresponding TMDD for reference: Account Size: Trailing Max Drawdown: $10,000 (Swing) $1,000 $30,000 $1,500 $50,000 $2,000 $100,000 $3,000 $150,000 $4,500 Now here is my opinion and interpretation of what the above means (if I am wrong then please correct and clarify) For this example we will use the $150,000 account size that has a TMDD (Trailing Max Drawdown) of $4,500 You start you funding live account and in the 1st week you do not violate any rules and you generate $6,000 in profits. Your account balance now is $156,000. You then request to withdraw all $6,000. You receive $5,900 (100% of the 1st $5,000 + 90% of the $1,000 above the 1st $5,000) and Topstep keeps $100 (10% of the $1,000 above the 1st $5,000). "Once the payout request is processed, the Trailing Max Drawdown will be automatically set to the starting account balance (the trader cannot allow the account balance to reach or go below $0 after a payout)." Ok- the starting account balance is $150,000-- after withdrawing your $6,000 in profits your account balance is now $150,000 (which $150,000 is effectively the $0 line) Since you have withdrawn all profits and your account does not have any balance left above $150,000 (the $0 line) you have effectively "closed" your funded account as Topstep has taken away the funding below the zero line (below $150,000) so no more drawdown available and thus no more trading for you. The only way for you to have any "funding" is to keep your profits in the account (which still means the funding has been taken away) and if you decided to do that instead of withdrawing all profits then now you are trading on your profits only as the "funding" and now you are paying Topstep 10% of all profits you generate from that point on Compare that to say---FTMO Let's use the same figures as topstep for arguments sake and say that your FTMO account is $150,000 starting balance and you have a $4,500 max drawdown --in the case of FTMO it is considered a fixed max drawdown below the zero line (which $4,500 below $150,000 starting balance would be $145,500) --fixed-- meaning it stays the same even if you withdraw 100% of your profits every pay period You start you funding live account and in the 1st week you do not violate any rules and you generate $6,000 in profits. Your account balance now is $156,000. You then request to withdraw all $6,000. With FTMO your beginning profit split is 80-20 (you do have the opportunity over time to have that increase to 90-10 - SEE: https://ftmo.com/en/scaling-plan/ You receive $4,800 (plus they also in addition refund your challenge fee whatever that was. After the payout - Your account balance is now $150,000 (the starting balance) however you still have the full $4,500 drawdown (their risk funding) to trade with. Whereas—-with Topstep as shown in the above example--if you withdraw all profits you would have no more drawdown available (i.e. no more funding from them on your funded acct to trade with) Also keep in mind that FTMO has a $200,000 challenge with a $20,000 max “fixed” drawdown And even their $100k has a $10,000 max “fixed” drawdown so why would you want to get a $150,000 Topstep Account with a “trailing” max drawdown especially if it is only $4,500 and as shown above—it goes away ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nope, your payout policy is not very reasonable and given that earlier, you were pointing fingers at other funding companies for having stringent payout policies, this claim is even more laughable. You didn't address why the trailing dd is suddenly moved up to the starting account balance when someone requests a payout of any amount. If someone took 2 months to pass the 150k account, it means they paid $750 in subscription costs. It is reasonable for that person to then want to withdraw $750 once he/she has made $750 in the funded account in order to hedge. That way, they get to quickly recoup their subscription expenses and from then on, they're only playing with house money. At Earn2Trade or Tradeday, he/she could withdraw $750 to recoup subscription costs and then trade with the remaining $3750 trailing drawdown. But it seems like topstep wants to punish users who seek to recoup costs like this by forcing the trailing dd to move up to the starting account balance when someone requests a payout of any amount, no matter how small. So Topstep kind of forces funded traders to keep all profits in their funded account until the trailing drawdown moves past the starting account balance, at which point Topstep is no longer risking any money. Any losses from here on is out of the traders' profits so Topstep is completely safe from here on out. Traders aren't stupid. It's easy to see why you guys implement 1) trailing dd is suddenly moved up to the starting account balance when someone requests a payout of any amount + 2) can only request payout of 50% of account balance these two restrictions b/c you're trying to risk the least amount of your own capital as possible. The five non-consecutive $100< profit day restriction is also stupid b/c it's just so unnecessary. You say it's to prevent yolo-ing but the nature of trading is that some days will have a plethora of opportunities while some days have none. Days like yesterday, one could easily make tens of thousands of dollars whereas on other days, ES might have a 10-point range. Sure the rule itself is not a high bar but it's just so unnecessary that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth in the context of all these other restrictive policies you have with payouts. If anything, this rule just forces the trader to make more before being able to request a payout which is good for TST b/c it moves up the trailing DD. I understand that this is a business and I am not against funding companies making money. What I don't appreciate is funding companies implementing shady and/or predatory rules that needlessly and deliberately punish the trader, rules that have nothing to do with prudent risk management and everything to do with squeezing as much money from traders' wallets; and then using BS arguments trying to convince us how they exists for our sake. LOL This post is about Topstep which is why I'm dunking on them but to be clear, there are others like Leeloo and Apex that are just as bad if not worse. anyone reading this interested in these funding evaluation firms should do your own research! please understand that you aren't just paying for subscriptions, you're also investing a considerable amount of your precious time. more than just money, there's an opportunity cost involved here. if you want my recommendation on funding companies, the reputable CFD funding companies like FTMO come out on top for having the most trader-friendly rules. just know that with CFD funding companies, because you're dealing with CFDs, there's a inherent counterparty risk. for specifically futures funding companies, Earn2Trade is the best imo. their trailing dd on real-time PnL for their live funded accounts is still a pain in the ass but you can opt for EOD trailing dd via their livesim option.[/QUOTE] Nope, your payout policy is not very reasonable and given that earlier, you were pointing fingers at other funding companies for having stringent payout policies, this claim is even more laughable. You didn't address why the trailing dd is suddenly moved up to the starting account balance when someone requests a payout of any amount. If someone took 2 months to pass the 150k account, it means they paid $750 in subscription costs. It is reasonable for that person to then want to withdraw $750 once he/she has made $750 in the funded account in order to hedge. That way, they get to quickly recoup their subscription expenses and from then on, they're only playing with house money. At Earn2Trade or Tradeday, he/she could withdraw $750 to recoup subscription costs and then trade with the remaining $3750 trailing drawdown. But it seems like topstep wants to punish users who seek to recoup costs like this by forcing the trailing dd to move up to the starting account balance when someone requests a payout of any amount, no matter how small. So Topstep kind of forces funded traders to keep all profits in their funded account until the trailing drawdown moves past the starting account balance, at which point Topstep is no longer risking any money. Any losses from here on is out of the traders' profits so Topstep is completely safe from here on out. Traders aren't stupid. It's easy to see why you guys implement 1) trailing dd is suddenly moved up to the starting account balance when someone requests a payout of any amount + 2) can only request payout of 50% of account balance these two restrictions b/c you're trying to risk the least amount of your own capital as possible. The five non-consecutive $100< profit day restriction is also stupid b/c it's just so unnecessary. You say it's to prevent yolo-ing but the nature of trading is that some days will have a plethora of opportunities while some days have none. Days like yesterday, one could easily make tens of thousands of dollars whereas on other days, ES might have a 10-point range. Sure the rule itself is not a high bar but it's just so unnecessary that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth in the context of all these other restrictive policies you have with payouts. If anything, this rule just forces the trader to make more before being able to request a payout which is good for TST b/c it moves up the trailing DD. I understand that this is a business and I am not against funding companies making money. What I don't appreciate is funding companies implementing shady and/or predatory rules that needlessly and deliberately punish the trader, rules that have nothing to do with prudent risk management and everything to do with squeezing as much money from traders' wallets; and then using BS arguments trying to convince us how they exists for our sake. LOL This post is about Topstep which is why I'm dunking on them but to be clear, there are others like Leeloo and Apex that are just as bad if not worse. anyone reading this interested in these funding evaluation firms should do your own research! please understand that you aren't just paying for subscriptions, you're also investing a considerable amount of your precious time. more than just money, there's an opportunity cost involved here. if you want my recommendation on funding companies, the reputable CFD funding companies like FTMO come out on top for having the most trader-friendly rules. just know that with CFD funding companies, because you're dealing with CFDs, there's a inherent counterparty risk. for specifically futures funding companies, Earn2Trade is the best imo. their trailing dd on real-time PnL for their live funded accounts is still a pain in the ass but you can opt for EOD trailing dd via their livesim option.[/QUOTE]
A few questions: 1. Does TopStep at any point actually fund traders? The way I understand it with most of these firms and possibly TST as well you basically get a $4.5K account with your so called 150K account as that's the maximum drawdown offered. Is that all the funding that's ever offered? Let's say a trader makes $20K and seems to be a phenomenal trader, but wants to withdraw his $20K. Does he have any funding at that point? If no, there really is zero reason to keep his money in his account at TST. Take it out and trade his own account with a 100 % profit split. 2. Why do you call it a 150K account when in truth it's a $4.5K account? In Norway there are laws against misleading/false marketing. Not sure about US regulations. I'm sure there are gullible individuals who actually think they will get access to a 150K account. Thank you.
-------------------------------------------- Take a look at Topstep Payout FAQ at https://help.futures.topstep.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500008731241-Payout-FAQ WHAT IS THE PROFIT SPLIT? Traders will receive 100% of the profits from payouts, up to a total of $5,000. After the first $5,000 of funds have been received by the trader, the profit split will become 90/10, with the trader receiving 90% of payouts and Topstep retaining 10% of the requested payout. To be clear, this is per trader. If you receive a payout of $5,000 and then lose your Funded Account, your next Funded Account payout will be 90/10 when you start back up again. Once the payout request is processed, the Trailing Max Drawdown will be automatically set to the starting account balance (the trader cannot allow the account balance to reach or go below $0 after a payout). WHEN SHOULD I START TAKING PAYOUTS FROM MY FUNDED ACCOUNT? If you take any payouts before your Trailing Max Drawdown (TMDD) reaches $0, your TMDD will automatically be set to $0 with a payout. To maintain your Topstep account for an extended period of time and take regular payouts, we recommend making your TMDD $0 before considering a payout. To make your TMDD $0, you will need to reach the corresponding levels of profits (dictated by your account size): Below is a list of all account sizes and their corresponding TMDD for reference: Account Size: Trailing Max Drawdown: $10,000 (Swing) $1,000 $30,000 $1,500 $50,000 $2,000 $100,000 $3,000 $150,000 $4,500 Now here is my opinion and interpretation of what the above means (if I am wrong then please correct and clarify) For this example we will use the $150,000 account size that has a TMDD (Trailing Max Drawdown) of $4,500 You start you funding live account and in the 1st week you do not violate any rules and you generate $20,000 in profits. Your account balance now is $170,000. You then request to withdraw all $20,000. You receive $18,500 (100% of the 1st $5,000 + 90% of the $15,000 above the 1st $5,000---$15,000 x 90%=$13,500) and Topstep keeps $1,500 (10% of the $15,000 above the 1st $5,000). "Once the payout request is processed, the Trailing Max Drawdown will be automatically set to the starting account balance (the trader cannot allow the account balance to reach or go below $0 after a payout)." Ok- the starting account balance is $150,000-- after withdrawing your $20,000 in profits your account balance is now $150,000 (which $150,000 is effectively the $0 line) Since you have withdrawn all profits and your account does not have any balance left above $150,000 (the $0 line) you have effectively "closed" your funded account as Topstep has taken away the funding below the zero line (below $150,000) so no more drawdown available and thus no more trading for you. The only way for you to have any "funding" is to keep your profits in the account (which still means the funding has been taken away) and if you decided to do that instead of withdrawing all profits then now you are trading on your profits only as the "funding" and now you are paying Topstep 10% of all profits you generate from that point on That is my opinion and interpretation of what the above means (if I am wrong then please correct and clarify)
That's my understanding, too. At least from the other firms (never looked into TopStep). Would be nice if @Topstep could clarify. So, basically, the best you can hope for with TST and similar is that initial $4.5K in drawdown. Effectively, you're given a $4.5K account. There's no funding beyond that. Instead of saying they're funding traders and giving you a funded account, they should rather say "We give you $4.5K of margin and will take a profit split from that". But I guess that doesn't sound as sexy or appealing.
1. Of course we fund traders, we have been doing it for 10 years. The most we would give a trader to trade would be an account worth $5,000 which is the Premium Funded Account. If a trader made $20,000 and took a payout of $20,000 their account would be closed. Topstep will seed the account with capital and then it is the traders responsibility to trade it. We don't take any issue with our traders closing accounts and opening their own account. However, some do like having the rules in place to help them trade. 2. $150k is buying power. Margin on a ES contract is approx $10,000. 15 contracts x $10,000 = $150,000. It also isn't misleading because it says buying power.
Okay. So, basically, the maximum amount of funding TopStep ever will provide a trader is $5000. That pretty much confirms what I said one page one which is that your firm and similar firms are not really looking to fund/stake traders. That's not your main agenda / business model. Earn2Trade are at least implicitly honest about this as they have a disclaimer which states the high failure rate (it's above 80 %) for just passing their programs. Seeing how they're still in business it goes without saying that the money in this business comes from collecting risk-free Combine fees and resets.