There is a third possibility...You finally met someone that just followed the rules, got funded and made it work for more then just the initial drawdown recovery needed.
The main reason why doing business with these get-funded programs is a bad idea...
- Thread starter Laissez Faire
- Start date
...And still giving up 20% of her or his profits.
exactly…. Since you can’t hold positions overnight or over the weekend then there is no benefit of margin (after earning the amount where they cut off funding—VS just using same amount of funds in your own acct and only trading in trades soon as well)
Now if the funding they provided initially didn’t stop and if they allowed you as an example to
have the same starting drawdown as a revolving fixed drawdown below the zero line regardless of whether you withdrew all profits then that would be a benefit of keeping the account and paying 20% but that is not what they do as I understand it
You always have an initial margin to open a trade for the future market and that can be pretty high for a non index future like oil for example. If a regular broker ask 10 grand to open one contract, the 20% profit sharing becomes very attractive to open much bigger positions then using just your own money in a regular account. There are benefits and there are drawbacks to go with a funding firm. Everyone should just do what they think is good for them.
SO if you passed a test , did you not get funded? and if you did what happened?
In a nutshell: he passed the test, got funded, broke a rule and find that they are not supportive to traders because he got kicked out. O yeah, and he thinks that people that do pass the test get funded and make money are 'slow to get it what he is talking about.
Although we understand your point about these companies real motives, you breaking a rule muddled the waters. then you say if you find another company that you think is fair you will try again ! so you like this business model!
Confusing!
Why do you keep harping about that rule break? Surely I'm not doing so? It was just a follow-up observation.
And where did I say I like this business model? Isn't it very clear that I don't?
What I specifically said is that if I found another company which actually wants to fund a trader I would be interested. As these get-funded companies clearly do not want to do so they're obviously not in consideration.
Hell, there's a guy here who says he's working with these companies who say that they do not trade real money at all.
Is Funding Talent a SCAM ?!
There's none so deaf as those who will not hear 
Like the entire industry, (most of?) these companies are selling.. A dream: The dream that a trader will not be alone, a trader will be better with them, a trader will be successful, a trader will make money thanks to his talent, a trader doesn't need money to make money, etc.
They are in the subscription business, not in the funding business.
They also have rules. Rules to make you lose and then subscribe again and again.
Most of the time, you also know the rules right from the start.
If really you are the exception and find a legit one, you will still fail at some point, because of those rules, and subscribe again. And of course, you would still give up 20% of your profits for what twisted reason exactly?
If you find a company interested in your talent after reviewing your track record, they will not fund you. They will test and retest you.
If they make an offer after those tests, it could be to be part of a partnership that manage its own money at a pro level, or to be part of a Pool that manage other people money. You will still have rules, just rules to make everybody successful.
My 2 cents: Paper trade as long as you can and save every month the "subscription". Then when you are capable of following your own rules, manage your own risks, and when you are profitable during different market behavior after month and month of journaling and studying your actions and their results, then go live and slow.
Like the entire industry, (most of?) these companies are selling.. A dream: The dream that a trader will not be alone, a trader will be better with them, a trader will be successful, a trader will make money thanks to his talent, a trader doesn't need money to make money, etc.
They are in the subscription business, not in the funding business.
They also have rules. Rules to make you lose and then subscribe again and again.
Most of the time, you also know the rules right from the start.
If really you are the exception and find a legit one, you will still fail at some point, because of those rules, and subscribe again. And of course, you would still give up 20% of your profits for what twisted reason exactly?
If you find a company interested in your talent after reviewing your track record, they will not fund you. They will test and retest you.
If they make an offer after those tests, it could be to be part of a partnership that manage its own money at a pro level, or to be part of a Pool that manage other people money. You will still have rules, just rules to make everybody successful.
My 2 cents: Paper trade as long as you can and save every month the "subscription". Then when you are capable of following your own rules, manage your own risks, and when you are profitable during different market behavior after month and month of journaling and studying your actions and their results, then go live and slow.
LF we are on the same page about nature of these companies ..no dispute there.. only thing I was trying to point out was in questioning that model you mixed the issue of breaking rules and thus h=gave those who love the model a chance to attack your original expose as such of this model... I hope you understand this instead of keeping arguing any way Now if for you these are clearly not in consider then only choice is true prop based on your trading talent or education..