Thank you, @JSOP. In fact, I've been giving the very same advice myself to others on these threads. I was pretty much convinced that these companies weren't worthwhile prior to this, but some trader told me in private how he allegedly had made $$$ with these companies to fund his private account. As I found myself in a life situation (and still do at the moment) where I didn't feel comfortable risking my own capital I figured I could give it a shot while keeping my expectations low. After all, the parameters seemed quite realistic and having become funded I start thinking maybe it could be worthwhile after all. I'm now convinced it's not. I will be back to trading my piker sized retail account exclusively some time in August.
This is the account I traded. Note how they say that you get 100% of the first 8K. Seems pretty straightforward to me. What they fail to mention, although it's hidden in fine print somewhere else, is that you first need to earn a $5K cushion in order to be allowed to withdraw. So, in truth you have to earn 13K in order to withdraw 8K. With the evaluation phase too, you actually have to earn 22K in order to withdraw 8K.
Are you dense? I'm stating very clearly that they do NOT have the traders interest in mind. That's the whole point I'm making in this thread. Could you conceive of a situation where both the company and the trader wins? A win-win situation? One where the company actually WANTS the trader to win and sets up an environment where a successful trader earns money for himself and the company takes a cut? Do you think a professional trading firm or any other firm in any other business deliberately wants to sabotage their own employees or make it harder for them to make money for the firm? Answer me this: Why do these companies have HARDER rules in their live accounts than they do in their evaluation accounts? The answer is very, very simple. If someone is trading in a simulator in a live account it's very clearly not a win-win situation. It's a win-lose situation where the company will LOSE if the trader makes money. It's all very easy. I just want to raise awareness about how these companies operate and show how they by design do not have any interest in actually funding a trader. If someone still wants to do business with these companies that's fine. And I'm not saying they don't pay out or that you can't make money with them. I'm just saying that they don't really want you to do so.
They added a rule that you can only take 50% of your profits and only after 5 days of positive trades? Holy crap, now they are making you fund other peoples margin by keeping a larger portion of your profits unavailable to you. Go get a free sim account, build a trading plan, write it down, learn self discipline and go live with your own money. Keep all the profits, as well as get the 60/40 tax advantage with futures that you don't get trading with TST.
Laissez Faire, Are the rules clearly stated on the funding program website for the customer to read and comprehend? Yes or No?
Breaking the rules is the least concern here. The biggest issue, as stated several times, is why have a business relationship with a firm that does not have a vested interest in your success? So then, what prop shops do have a win-win business model, and truly care about developing your potential talents? Quantopian didn't have the best deal IMO, but at least they seemed pretty legit. I was sad to see them fold. Given that true trading talent is pretty rare, maybe forming a business around a farm team model is a lost cause from the outset.
The more you think about it, the more it starts to sound like a pseudo-ponzi scheme, or pyramid, yeah?
It is very clear if you check all the criticism leveled against this business model on all forums That -They are not REAL props , - their business interest is simply to make people pay for test again and again or more and more people to take paid test and hope that they don;t have to fund most of them 100th time... True props firms find talent at heir own cost just like any other business and don't depend upon "test fee income" an ethical prop firm will put forward very high standard test for free and have a high threshold of section all the candidate looses is time . GE and Intel and Boeing don't ask prospective employees to pay for a entry test do they? Why is this so difficult to understand Sure those madly in love with this business model will put forward following arguments and divert the discussion - these are sour grapes from failed traders( no they are not, the discussion is about fairness, transparency and ethic ) - NO body forces you to take these test ( yes true but we are not saying that they do) - Rules are rules ( sure, dispute is not about trading rules dispute is about A) are they disclosed properly? B) are reasonable C) are they designed to make majority fail ! - They are a business ) sure but we are not expecting any charity we are talking about is this real prop or pretend to grab test fees) and other dispute is about misleading/ marketing ( notional value of actual account ) assume ES is trading @4000 points Company A ) says I will fund you for Day trading worth $200,000 ( failing to disclose that the 200,000 is actually notional in reality based on current day margin all they are doing is putting up #1300-1500 Company B) discloses that the 200,000 is notional Which is more ethical ?
traderjo, Are the rules clearly stated on the funding program website for the customer to read and comprehend? Yes or No?