So how would you do it? How would you set it up and what would be your rules? What would be your profit share? Your max. allowed DD? etc.etc
I have my own idea, but before I share it I am curious what others think. The reason why I am asking this is because anytime when I look at these TST type business models, I think they just over complicate it way too much. But maybe I am missing something....
Simplicity is best. Yes, there are too many complex rules with TST, even though they are spelled out in their FAQ's and easily obtainable.
No need to reinvent the wheel, as TST has already built a solid infrastructure.
Many posts on ET and Big Mike have questioned why a backer would fund you after only 10 days worth of stats, claiming that TST only has interest in combine fees, and not on actually funding profitable traders. I can't blame anyone for having such views, especially when it's common knowledge that piker accounts do not have high odds of making money, and when there are only 10 days to build equity in the live account before the backing of a draw is removed (the backer of course still provides the maintenance margin).
Here are some ways to change the model:
* Convert the combine into a series of "training combines", and see how a trader can manage risk while scaling up, since it's the scaling up over time that benefits BOTH the trader and the backer.
Example: start
everyone on the piker 10k combine, then move to the 30k, then 50k, as in stages, with each stage being at least one month in duration, with a minimum number of trading days for each (to prevent a "one off" event where you crush it on one trade).
* Eliminate funding for the smaller combines, since the odds of a trader generating profits and the odds of the backer making their 20% are too low, given the 10 day rule to build equity in the live account.
* After passing the "training phase", then take the 100k or 150k "funding combine." In addition, a trader may also opt for the $35 practice account for each incremental stage, because it still follows the combine parameters. The only difference is it's not reviewed.
Now, if someone creates a fuss and says, "
but I'm ready to take the 100k on day one" then they can look elsewhere, no need for TST. If you can make $9k in a combine with strict rules, then it's certainly possible to make $1k with strict rules! Trading ES with 1 lot on a 10k combine requires a 1 by 2 r/r with 50% win ratio until the P&L is met.
* Forget the LTP nonsense, as it's not necessary if a trader goes through the 90 day "training combines" and then shows how their edge is coupled with EQUITY of the larger "funding combine."
Regarding fees, I'm not sure what fee is appropriate, it depends on what a trader sees as perceived value and what the firm feels is necessary to cover overhead and make a profit. Instead of a myriad of different combines with different fees, charge just ONE fee for the training phase, plus the actual costs of live data. Again, simplicity is key.
Regarding the "no fee" model such as with the firm you posted, I find it less effective. The combine is as close as you're going to get to a live account, in terms of psychological pressure. It's
not the same as getting a practice account with AMP. I know others will disagree however my guess is they haven't traded a combine, so their perspective is limited.
The P&L splits are fine, and traders will always have differences of opinion regarding max daily DD and trail max DD, so a trader simply needs to accept whatever is presented and determine if it's viable.
Perhaps there are other changes/modifications that benefits both trader and backer, however those are what I could think of for now.
Ok Pekelo, what say you?