Topsteptrader

Now if the Live trader wants to get a better deal, or wants to use TST as a springboard to jumpstart his carrier, then yes, publicizing his profits would be advantageous. And that is exactly the reason why TST contractually make them swore to secrecy...

I wasn't aware of any "secrecy" clause. If you want to trade elsewhere and reveal your stats privately to another firm, then I can't see how that wouldn't be allowed.

Let's say you trade for a year and receive a 1099, that is YOUR private information, and not the property of the firm. I'm sure any contract attorney can squash any secrecy claim.

I agree that one can use TST as a "springboard" to jumpstart a career, especially if one is to go into managed futures or trade on their own.

Like we've discussed endlessly regarding TST, a person who want to trade with some fixed parameters and learn proper money management skills is better off going through a combine, and trading a funded account, vs. opening up a futures account and blowing it up in a month.

TST provides the infrastructure, and traders can choose whether or not to participate.
 
Hi guys, I wanted to get some feedback to help me try to understand something a little bit better.

A funded account has a maximum draw down limit. If you hit that draw down, you lose the account.

It uses a trailing stop style feature where if you build up your account, you can create some cushion. In otherwords, if you generate $10,000 in the account, you can lose that $10,000 and still stay funded. You just cannot bring under the certain amount (example, 50k account has 2k draw-down limit. If you ever get under $48,000, you will lose the account)

Actually, you cannot lost that $10,000 AND an additional $2,000, since after the 10th trading day on a funded account, if you are positive, then the rules specify that the account cannot go back to a "$0 balance." In other words, you cannot go beyond what you have built up in the cushion.

http://help.topsteptrader.com/knowledgebase/articles/451701-funded-trader-rules
 
Is there something I am missing here?

Simply put, for all intents and purposes, the topsteptrader "funded" accounts should be advertised as a $500, $1000, $1500, $3000, and $4500 accounts, since that is all you can realistically trade (ie your drawdown limits).

If you try to exceed those amounts, you enter the realm of blowing up, regardless of edge. (and blowing up your funded account means getting below drawdown limit and having the account pulled).

Simply put, we think of places like topsteptrader as finally giving us a chance to be well funded so we can actually trade and make a living. But in reality it is the exact same as the guy who throws 2 or 3 grand into an account and hopes to "build it up" and live off it. Literally ZERO diffence.

In fact the guy who throws 2 or 3 grand into the account is in a better position (he can keep the full 100% of profits, rather than 80%, and he can trade any way he wants to be profitable. Example he can swingtrade and hold overnight etc)

Very valid points and good analysis.

However, I don't think anyone should look at at "$50,000 account" as having $50k of equity, so you cannot really use the 1% to 2% example of risk per trade of equity, since that is not the real equity you are getting in the live account.

The "equity" is the trailing max drawdowns which are as follows:

30k account, $1,500
50k account, $2,000
100k account, $3,000
150k account, $4,500

Once you build a profit cushion, then the "equity" becomes that cushion, since you cannot go below the starting balance, which is zero.

When people join prop firms to trade stocks and get $200k or $500k of buying power, that also isn't "equity" since the money you put up may only be 10k or 20k, which is the actual equity. So here again, you can't measure your risk based on a percentage of buying power, but actually the amount of equity you have to lose.

Since the live accounts have daily as well as weekly max loss limits (with the exception of the 30k, which does not have a weekly), your risk per trade is much higher as a percentage of actual 'equity' in the account.

If you're going to risk $200 on a trade, with a 50k account, then you're risking 10% of the available equity ($200/$2,000 = 10%).

Since futures are highly leveraged, even if you opened your own 2k or 3k futures retail account, and decided to trade 1 lot of crude, and risk $200 to $400 on a trade, then your true risk per equity is obviously a higher percentage, just as it is with the TST account.

The difference between a live retail account vs. the TST account is nobody is looking at your stats in the retail account, and you'd have to add your own equity to trade bigger size, whereas in the TST account you don't have to put up any capital regardless of size. Also, the whole process of the TST model is to develop trading discipline to increase the chance of profitability in trading live. Most guys who throw in 2k in an AMP account are going to "blow up" regardless, so if you're comparing opportunity cost, then TST is providing the lower cost benefit opportunity, at least up front.

Now, if they make you hold the cushion in the live account after reaching the profit parameters, then yes, it will become less attractive even if you scale up over time. And yes, at that point it would make sense to open your own account, and keep the 100%.
 
Last edited:
Let's say you trade for a year and receive a 1099, that is YOUR private information, and not the property of the firm.

Without seeing the trades behind just a profit number, that isn't too much information. Let's say you made 30K. But on what account size? Obviously making 30K on a 30K account is a much bigger deal than on a 150K account.
So just waving your 1099 alone doesn't automatically gets you hired...
 
So just waving your 1099 alone doesn't automatically gets you hired...

Yes, of course that is correct. Perhaps I wasn't clear, I was referring to the 1099 as just an example of proof. Obviously you would require the actual spreadsheet of the trading P&L to back that up.
 
Hi guy's, been interested in topstep ever since I heard about it, but thinking about it a bit more has made me realize the problem with the whole thing.

(I was advised to post it here, since I had best chance of getting honest opinions from elitetrader rather that other forums.)

Hi guys, I wanted to get some feedback to help me try to understand something a little bit better.

A funded account has a maximum draw down limit. If you hit that draw down, you lose the account.

10,000 account, maximum drawdown is $1,000
30,000 account, maximum drawdown is $1,500
50,000 account, maximum drawdown is $2,000
100,000 account, maximum drawdown is $3,000
150,000 account, maximum drawdown is $4,500

It uses a trailing stop style feature where if you build up your account, you can create some cushion. In otherwords, if you generate $10,000 in the account, you can lose that $10,000 and still stay funded. You just cannot bring under the certain amount (example, 50k account has 2k draw-down limit. If you ever get under $48,000, you will lose the account)


----------------------------
The Rub
----------------------------

Ok, so now lets discuss something. We all know the rule that we should risk a maximum of 1-2% of our equity on any trade idea.

Lets take the $50,000 account provided by topsteptrader for example.

1% of $50,000 = $500.
But TopStep only allows you a maximum draw down of $2,000. So if you risk 1% of 50,000 you will lose the account if you make 4 wrong trades. So its like you are risking 25% of your account. To avoid this, one would want to reduce this risk back down to the 1%-2% level.

So logically what this actually means, is that the 1% rule should be applied not to the total account size, but to the maximum draw-down that they allow you.

So 1% of $2000 = $20

One contract on the ES is ($12.50). Add another $4-5 for the transaction fees and your looking at $16.50-17.50 lost every trade you put on. Add a little bit more because of slippage and you can basically round it off to $20 per round turn. So you cannot even trade 1% of your max drawdown, because you lose 1% every trade you take with 1 contract. So you have to trade at least 2%.

So my question boils down to this. What is the point of working so hard to get "funded" with places like topsteptrader or any propshops that let you trade their money, when in reality you don't have access to the full capital. You only have access to your maximum drawdown.

Granted one can argue that the maximum drawdown is a trailing one. But that doesn't really change much in the grand scheme of things.

If you make $25,000 on your $50,000 account, you have made 50% (which might seem achievable)

However to make that $25,000 using good money management (ie risking 1-2% of your max-drawdown because that is the size of your account in reality), you would need to make 1150% ($2000 + 1050% = 25,000)
When you look at it like that, it no longer seems realistic.

So my question is what is the point of even trying to get a "funded account" with topsteptrader? When you factor in the restrictive rules (eg you cant swing trade because you cannot hold through closes), and the fact that the equity-partner is taking 20% of the profits you make, wouldn't it be more logical to simply open your own tiny account and trade with leverage?

So instead of going through all the hastle of trying to get "funded", just open your own tiny account. You would be able to trade a $2,000 futures account with the same money management rules as you would for a 50,000 "funded" account, because the funded account's true value is simply its maximum drawdown.

But the more I think about it, the less sense it makes. What am I missing here? I don't think people quite realize that if you plan on trading with realistic money management, these funded accounts are nothing more than tiny undercapitalized trading accounts where someone else takes 20% of the profits.


Is there something I am missing here?

Simply put, for all intents and purposes, the topsteptrader "funded" accounts should be advertised as a $500, $1000, $1500, $3000, and $4500 accounts, since that is all you can realistically trade (ie your drawdown limits).

If you try to exceed those amounts, you enter the realm of blowing up, regardless of edge. (and blowing up your funded account means getting below drawdown limit and having the account pulled).

Simply put, we think of places like topsteptrader as finally giving us a chance to be well funded so we can actually trade and make a living. But in reality it is the exact same as the guy who throws 2 or 3 grand into an account and hopes to "build it up" and live off it. Literally ZERO diffence.

In fact the guy who throws 2 or 3 grand into the account is in a better position (he can keep the full 100% of profits, rather than 80%, and he can trade any way he wants to be profitable. Example he can swingtrade and hold overnight etc)
I don't follow the logic at all. That person doesn't understand money management. I do not find TST's terms very onerous.

However, I don't understand why anyone would do the combine unless they have no money at all to fund a trading account. You can get really big leverage day trading at specific futures brokers. For example, I can trade a 10 lot in ES even if I had less than $10,000 in my account with my current broker and he is not taking 20% of my profits.
 
Now if the Live trader wants to get a better deal, or wants to use TST as a springboard to jumpstart his carrier, then yes, publicizing his profits would be advantageous. And that is exactly the reason why TST contractually make them swore to secrecy...

Are you saying that TST requires traders to execute a non-disclosure that does not allow them to disclose their historical performance to potential employers or investors?
 
I wasn't aware of any "secrecy" clause. If you want to trade elsewhere and reveal your stats privately to another firm, then I can't see how that wouldn't be allowed.

Let's say you trade for a year and receive a 1099, that is YOUR private information, and not the property of the firm. I'm sure any contract attorney can squash any secrecy claim.

I agree that one can use TST as a "springboard" to jumpstart a career, especially if one is to go into managed futures or trade on their own.

Like we've discussed endlessly regarding TST, a person who want to trade with some fixed parameters and learn proper money management skills is better off going through a combine, and trading a funded account, vs. opening up a futures account and blowing it up in a month.

TST provides the infrastructure, and traders can choose whether or not to participate.

Agree on the non-disclosure part but I am not an attorney.

I agree with the learning part. If one becomes successful trader from learning during the combine, it looks like it is a relatively cheap education. But, as a mentioned in my previous post, if a trader is profitable and meets all of the combine criteria, why would anyone want to go live with them unless they have no money or can't borrow some money from somewhere? 20%+commissions is some expensive money when you can trade similar max position size with a much smaller account with another broker.

For example, on the continuous combine, there is a max position size of 5 lot with a $50,000 starting balance. You can intraday trade a 5 lot with probably $5,000 in a futures account.
 
Are you saying that TST requires traders to execute a non-disclosure that does not allow them to disclose their historical performance to potential employers or investors?

Yes, although I am not familiar with the contract, so we have to ask someone who was a Live trader...
 
Back
Top