I'm not looking to argue the model, they seem pretty clear on their site what is offered and expected, and whether someone wants to use it and take the time to understand what they get and what you get from is up to the individual. However a couple of things are off in your claims I believe. First I don't think they profit on data fees, it looks like they simply put it on the trader to pay the exchange data fees as a pro trader. I don't think the fees are inflated so they make a couple bucks, they are the pro fees and nothing more. Second, you may misunderstand the tax side. Yes, you can leave money in and not be taxed if you didn't withdraw, but what you do withdraw is taxed as ordinary income. For me trading on my own I get the 60/40 capital gains tax treatment which works out much better come tax time than running it through my income line on taxes. If they set it up so that you partnered in the firm I think you end up with a K-1 for taxes which I am not sure how those are treated income wise, but have had the impression that it would again be better than having it go on as income. At the point where you are funded and brought the trailing drawdown up to the minimum for the account then you are essentially funding your own account as you have to keep yourself over that level to keep the funded account. In other words you can't withdraw your own money down to 0 as this would close out the funded account.
"Our traders have withdrawn over $3 million in 2021 because when you focus on the process, the results take care of themselves." Does this mean that all traders on their platform have only made a combined $3 million this year? This makes no sense.
LOL so 3 million for traders meaning the "prop" firm made less than that... ok fine that is partial disclosure .. what will never be disclosed is does this "Firm" make more money by selling test or from trader profits? It is like all the "trading gurus" " they make more money by selling seminars/ trading bots etc than actually trading! any way we will never know becasue in both cases the regulations does not force them to reveal anything ON the other hand professional money managers CTA etc are forced to disclose actual past performance !
If they paid out around $3M, that means TST made around $750,000. I doubt that sustains the firm. The monthly fees and resets have to account for more than that. So it was a good question you asked.
It's all made in the initial fee and reset fees. They keep their rules very vague so that the traders hit the stop outs without even knowing they were close to breaking a rule. It's all a part of their scam. Keep the $99 coming in reoccuring over and over and then have them pay another startup fee a month or two down the road to try again.
The idea of the rules being vague is simply not true. They are all listed in our Help Center which, by the way, is the most detailed of any Help Center in our industry. Additionally, we offer phone and email support so the ability to get questions answered could not be easier. The $99 reset fee is not a mandatory payment. It is entirely optional, if a trader does not want to pay it they can practice trade on their account until their rebill date and then their account will be reset for free. There are some traders who reset far too frequently and we are looking to curb that behavior this year because we do not want traders getting into a gambling behavior in our program.
TST isn’t trying to get traders to fail. The vast majority of traders will do that effortlessly themselves. The casinos don’t want their customers to win and the games are setup with the house having an statistical edge. TST doesn’t have an edge against the trader but sit’s at the apex of their failure all too willing to offer a helping hand for a fee/reset fee. And identifying outliers is willing to risk $4,500 initially on a funding them. Once their risk is covered they no longer have any risk and get’s to keep 20% of the outlier traders profits in perpetuity. Not a bad business after all. Tips Hat to MP
I said once their risk is covered (by the trailing stop loss) being at the notional funding level. I’m sure they will autoliquidate to prevent going below the notional funding amount. Or are you saying they will allow a funded trader who had made 5,000 to create a deficit bringing the account below the notional funding amount?