The main reason why doing business with these get-funded programs is a bad idea...

[Laissez Faire]

"It seems like OneUp/MES have their funded traders initially on a simulator even after funded, "
This is the bit i never understood and to me sounds fishy.. what I mean is if after passing a test you are still trading on SIM and then if you make huge profits .. where is the money coming from????

I couldn't find it in fine print the last time I took a look, but I'm very confident that new traders on OneUp is indeed trading simulator money. The contract also states that they can freely shift traders between a simulator and a live account.

If I use my own account as an example they actually owed me $7K worth of profits and would have to pay that out of their own pockets (subscription fees). So - maybe my rule break was a good opportunity to rid themselves of a potential pay-out?

And IF my account wasn't a simulated account - they did take most of the profits themselves. Yes, I was paid 20% of the profits I had accumulated prior to the 'rule break'. The rest was theirs. This was in the fine print of the contract, too.

To answer your question the money is coming from subscription fees. Obviously.

I think it's been speculated that they will put funded traders on a live account eventually if he stays in the game, but probably most fail so they won't bother doing so until a trader have proven himself?

 

[Laissez Faire]

Regardless, I would encourage OP to re-think what He wrote few days ago about C2. As It's basically another example of milking the cows where cows are the traders and investors. The only good thing about C2 is the tech, pretty good, especially compared to what other competitors are offering. It's not the right place for reasonable investors/traders rather gamblers or profitable traders that like waste their time.. Cheers.

Thanks for the heads up.

I've known about C2 for a long time and never knew it was something to seriously consider. But as someone actually recently recommended it to me I figured I could ask. Seeing the answers I received on the subject it does not seem like something to move forward with.

 

[Laissez Faire]

On the subject of MES Capital they actually got quite rude when I was talking to them after the account was eliminated.

They went on to accuse me of FIVE prior rule breaks and having held overnight one more time earlier (and on a date where I was not yet funded).

I told them this was not correct and asked if they mixed me up with someone else?

Incredibly, they replied that the was indeed mixing me up with someone else who had actually got their account eliminated the same day.

Not very assuring, IMO. It also raises the question why someone else could have had five prior rule breaks and held overnight without being liquidated.

The bottom line for me seems to be that while these companies ain't necessarily scams and that they probably DO pay out money to those who makes it - they certainly have no interest in doing so and prefer to keep traders grinding on their evaluation accounts generating risk-free income. And for those who do make it as funded traders they sure as hell don't have any interest in them being or staying profitable.

 

[SimpleMeLike]

16 hours after I broke this rule as my account and position was profitable and my account had hit $7K of profits my account was liquidated. They did this on their own discretion; not an auto-liquidate upon rule break.

Laissez Faire,

I completely disagree with your first post.

You clearly break the rule and loss your profits. The problem is not the funding services, the problem was you.

Rules are meant to be followed, not broken sir. Take that ass whipping and keep it moving. I made it to TopStepTrader funded program about a year ago and was up about $3500, well I broke their daily drawdown rule one day and they kick my black ass out. I had to my take my ass whipping and start over again. It was ALL my fault.

 

[SimpleMeLike]

...is that they're not really interested in funding and cultivating successful traders.

I'm convinced that having to deal with funding a trader is more of a nuisance to them than something they actually want. The proof is in the pudding.

When these programs were initially launched years back the parameters for completing an evaluation were rather unrealistic and it was very clear that they made money simply by selling subscription fees. Fast forward today I'd say the rules for many of these programs are realistic as long as you don't use too much leverage.

Still, by design, there are so many rules and restrictions which makes it very clear that they don't really want a trader to succeed long term or in their live accounts. Especially as some of these companies have one set of rules for the evaluation phase and another for the live account as you get funded.

One example is the new EOD drawdown rule which Earn2Trade is promoting these days which it turns out only applies for the evaluation phase and NOT the live account. How does this help someone who wants to trade a live account? You managed to pass the evaluation, but now there's a new set of more difficult rules as soon as you're 'funded'.

Then you have OneUp which also have much more restrictions as soon as you're trading a 'live' account.

Also, as soon as you withdraw profits - you're back to square one in terms of buying power and drawdown. You're always risking your own 'profits'. Never the firms. As far as I know you will never at any point be backed by the firm. It's always your own profits which are at risk.

Add to that all the smoke an mirrors in their advertisements. For one - you're certainly not trading a 150K account. You're trading a 5K account at best - as that's the drawdown limit and buying power you have.

At the end of the day - do these companies pay you profits?

Yes, I think so. And it would be unwise to not do so. However, I'm convinced that they don't really want to do that and far more prefer to collect risk-free subscription fees which ideally you give them on a monthly basis as you try again and again and again. I've read reports of guys that have spent thousands on these fees trying to get funded.

Can these firms serve a purpose?

Probably. For an intermediate trader it could be beneficial as it could be considered a more serious simulator training practicing risk management and with the possible upside of gaining a live account and pulling some money out of it to fund his own account. At worst - your risk or loss is capped at $200-300 per month. How many traders lost far more than that with their live accounts they opened prematurely?

It could also be something to consider if a trader is in a situation where he doesn't want to play with his own risk capital and still want to stay in the game somehow and practice his skill a bit more serious than in a mere simulator.

Make no mistake though. I have zero reason to believe the actually want to fund a successful trader long term.

If anyone thinks or knows otherwise. Please let me know.

Laissez Faire,

I completely disagree with you.

Doing business with Funded Trading Services is an awesome idea.

It is simple, if you make money trading and following their rules, you will eventually make money from follow their rules.

Sounds simple to me.

If it makes money, it makes sense!

 

[Laissez Faire]

...well I broke their daily drawdown rule one day and they kick my black ass out.

Which is the only rule that should matter. I NEVER exceeded my daily drawdown rule. I made $$$ 19/20 days.

My original post stands on its own. I merely added my own experience showing how they liquidated a winning account - something which doesn't make sense if they were truly interested in funding a trader. Not to mention their rude customer support and admitting to mixing up my account with some other trader who had broken the rules five times prior without getting booted.

Who the hell knows? Maybe they liquidated the wrong account even?

It is simple, if you make money trading and following their rules, you will eventually make money from follow their rules.

Explain to me why they have one set of rules for their evaluation accounts, but increasingly more difficulties and restrictions on their live accounts?

Does it sound to you like they really have any interesting in staking a trader?

I heard that TopStep now added a new rule which states a trade can't be less than 10 seconds. Just another excuse to get rid of you, IMO, as the only thing that should matter is if you're making money and staying within maximum position size limits and daily drawdowns/trailing drawdowns.

To my knowledge there is one company which have one very simple rule only and where you can hold overnight too: "Do not exceed the trailing drawdown."

The problem is that this trailing drawdown never stops trailing and it trails from unrealized profits. So, if you're up 5K one day, but for some reason take profits at 1K, you effectively have a 1K drawdown before you're toast. This may never be a problem if you're trading only 1 lot, but that kind of defeats the purpose of trading through a so called 'prop firm' to begin with.

 

[SimpleMeLike]

Explain to me why they have one set of rules for their evaluation accounts, but increasingly more difficulties and restrictions on their live accounts?

Does it sound to you like they really have any interesting in staking a trader?

Hello Laissez,

Well sir, I have come the realization in this trading business, noone or trading service or trading guru/teacher, or trading pattern gives a flying "F..K" about what I think or how I feel. I am comfortable with that, and I love that feeling, and it helps my trading knowing nones gives a "F..K" about me. If it is going to be, it is up to me.

TopStepTrader or any other funding account do not give a F**K about me sir., nor you. And I like that. Because it tells me one thing "Follow the damn rules and get paid, or do not follow the rules and do not get paid."

If the rules says "post a video of myself singing a song each day at 8am", then I must post a video to TopStepTrader singing a song at 8am each day to make money.

TopStepTrader gives the rules. You follow them or they kick your ass out. It is just that simple. They are boss, you are the worker. Do your job and get paid. You do not do your job, you do not get paid.

 

[traider]

Which is the only rule that should matter. I NEVER exceeded my daily drawdown rule. I made $$$ 19/20 days.

My original post stands on its own. I merely added my own experience showing how they liquidated a winning account - something which doesn't make sense if they were truly interested in funding a trader. Not to mention their rude customer support and admitting to mixing up my account with some other trader who had broken the rules five times prior without getting booted.

Who the hell knows? Maybe they liquidated the wrong account even?



Explain to me why they have one set of rules for their evaluation accounts, but increasingly more difficulties and restrictions on their live accounts?

Does it sound to you like they really have any interesting in staking a trader?

I heard that TopStep now added a new rule which states a trade can't be less than 10 seconds. Just another excuse to get rid of you, IMO, as the only thing that should matter is if you're making money and staying within maximum position size limits and daily drawdowns/trailing drawdowns.

To my knowledge there is one company which have one very simple rule only and where you can hold overnight too: "Do not exceed the trailing drawdown."

The problem is that this trailing drawdown never stops trailing and it trails from unrealized profits. So, if you're up 5K one day, but for some reason take profits at 1K, you effectively have a 1K drawdown before you're toast. This may never be a problem if you're trading only 1 lot, but that kind of defeats the purpose of trading through a so called 'prop firm' to begin with.

When you were trading their programs did your fills actually go through the exchange? Or were you just trading against these funding programs

 

[Laissez Faire]

TopStepTrader or any other funding account do not give a F**K about me sir., nor you.

You got that right. I'm not sure why you're defending these companies?

TopStepTrader gives the rules. You follow them or they kick your ass out. It is just that simple. They are boss, you are the worker. Do your job and get paid. You do not do your job, you do not get paid.

Respectfully, you seem to continue missing the point. It's not about not accepting that there are rules to follow.

It's about how these companies don't truly have any interest in having you as a funded trader to begin with. And if you're funded they're making it increasingly difficult for you to stay funded and will not in any way help you to scale up.

Get it?

If I truly felt that there was an opportunity with these companies and that they really wanted to fund and support me and other traders who made the cut I'd do it again, but my experience and common sense tells me otherwise.

For what it's worth - TopStep was never even an option as there are companies that are more attractive than TopStep. I see that TST also added a policy with regards to their withdrawals, i.e., you can't withdraw more than 50 % of generated profits at once and ONLY after 5 winning days. If you want to withdraw again - you need 5 new winning days. What the hell?

 

[Laissez Faire]

When you were trading their programs did your fills actually go through the exchange? Or were you just trading against these funding programs

There's never any trading 'against these funded programs'. If / when trading on the simulator the fills are subject to the simulator on Ninjatrader which I'd say is fairly (very?) realistic. There's no cheating in that regards.

Most who try this ain't good enough to pass those programs anyhow, so they don't really need to cheat with false fills in order to make people fail.

I don't know if my funded account was in simulator or not, but it's been said that the initial live account will be a simulated account and that you will be moved to a live account later on if you stay profitable. I couldn't find it in fine print for OneUp now, but this is what LeeLoo says:

Initially, I figured this was no big deal as I wouldn't mind my profits being paid out from the subscription fees of others and knowing the fills are good, but that was before I started considering the incentives from the firms point of view by doing that.

If my 'live profits' are generated in a simulator only - they don't have any profits to pay me from. This means the money have to come from something else other than profits from the market. And basic accounting tells us that this would be an expense for the company. And potentially a large one.

So, they really have zero incentive for you to succeed and all incentives to make you fail before you get that far.

In my case, they either collected 6K of profits themselves OR they didn't have to pay me what I was due. Either way it's a win for them.