I don't know if he's a "hater" as much as he is a highly sensitized attention-seeking missile. Attention, good or bad, at any cost.
Topsteptrader
- Thread starter deaddog
- Start date
As I noted some time ago, I just have a problem with a business model that charges traders it supposedly seeks to fund. And as I said previously, it is reminiscent of a modeling agency that wants to give you a shot and make you a star, but you'll need to have a portfolio: would you like the $200 version or the $400 version?
All told, I'm inclined to believe that a trader has a far better chance to make it on his own than with the "help" of a company like TST. After all, how much money do you really need to trade a contract or two with very tight stops? If a hopeful can't make it on his own, TST will only take what little money he has, doing an exercise he could easily do for free if he has the right temperament to begin with.
Bottom line: The TST business model is a great business model for TST.
I think many of us hear you there.
(Though I'm not sure why you say "supposedly"?! They seem to be doing that very successfully).
I don't have that problem with it, as you do, but I respect your perspective.
But how do you want them to cover the costs of running their office and all the other overheads? (Not "through their profit-share on the funded traders", clearly: TST isn't the backer). Who do you think should be paying the rent, staff salaries, and so on?
And what do you say to the $95 per month charge for the $10k Combine, which includes the $85 per month CME data-feed fee? Do you begrudge them even the extra $10 for that one, or is that one an exception?
Yes, it is a little reminiscent of that, perhaps. I do take your point, but don't see, in TST's case, that they'd exist at all, without the Combine fees. So my feeling is that if one's going to criticise the business model, one should perhaps at least suggest an alternative one? (I can't think of a viable one, myself, other than charging for their services).
With that part, I have to disagree. I've seen all the Youtube videos with all the successfully funded traders now earning money and saying they'd tried, sometimes for years, on their own and failed. If there weren't so many of them, I'd be less willing to disagree with you on that point. And to be honest, I know a couple of those people, myself. Combine fees - even repeated Combine fees - are a really cheap way of learning/improving, compared with what many people go through on their own and the financial losses they incur in the process.
Perhaps so, but what's wrong with that, when it seems to be pretty great for hundreds of other people, too, and they're saying so very openly?
Just my perspective ...
Save your $400 folks. Send it to marketsurfer and make bank following the premium version of The URF Report.
And that is my point exactly. But for the fees, there would be no TST is my guess. Again, consider the modeling agency that couldn't exist if it didn't sell you a portfolio. That's probably not the kind of agency a serious model should do business with.
I'm guessing they're not actually paying $85. Just a guess, of course.
Almost as cheap as free simulated trading taken seriously? Because that's all the combine is. Except for the "free" part.
That's what we don't know. Hundreds of people entering Live doesn't mean hundreds of people making at least a supplemental income out of it, or being very happy with it.
Why is that so hard to see? You mention Youtube videos, how many of those mention hard numbers? I bet very few. Give us the links anyway...So until you have hard data on lots of people making a killing with TST, (I don't doubt a few can, but not dozens) it is all a dream....
And mentioned earlier, the business model is a catch 22 for them. Unless special circumstances exist (and for sure, there can be some) most excellent traders would leave them once they figure out taxation and they can trade on their own...
My guess also.
We just interpret that differently: you see it as a reason not to do business with them and I see it a reason not to to attack them for having fees.
As I explained a day or so ago, when you commented in this thread, what you see depends on what you look for. I see many people making supplemental income from having been successfully funded by TST and some making a full-time living from it, and saying so, very openly. I accept that you don't see that, of course, because you don't look at it.
Sure. Many have done exactly that. TST only expects the people they fund to trade using the funded account for a year (and imposes no requirements at all on how much/often anyone trades, naturally). Many do leave, after that, if they've saved up enough to fund their own accounts. Again, I just don't see what's wrong with that, or why it's a criticism.
I'm not going to start pasting in links to Youtube videos, here, because it's not worth it. Anyone who wants to see them can look for themselves, and many do.
I suppose if some people "made it" with TST whereas they couldn't manage to do so beforehand without TST, then more power to both parties. I just don't see the value added. It is just a sim for fee. As for actual funding, I hope you realize that a notional $10k account with very tight stops and limited allowable losses before closure requires very little actual money in the account -- far, far less than $10k. On balance, there seems to be more air than substance. But I'm not trying to dissuade anyone; I'm merely expressing my opinion.We just interpret that differently: you see it as a reason not to do business with them and I see it a reason not to to attack them for having fees.