Overnight thanks for a thoughtful response ... only reason I started it again was what irked me is the deceptive marketing and when a newcomer starts posting something like shall I go for this then I felt ( like others) to show the pitfalls of this model. any way... I am going to let it go to hell with it let others realize it one day or the regulators! By the way I did do some research on a "better model" One that is NOT based on selling education or tests so no stigma Model 1) First loss funding ( which will require a very good Risk management tool and it will be like providing Leverage upon leverage which may not be liked by regulators , so for example One can FUND a trader with just $500 per ES for day trading and he/she gets an exposure of $150,000! Model 2) No first loss pure 100% risk by funder...that requires not just 24/7 risk management but also knowledge of trading for the funder Model3) was what if instead of First loss the trader pays for a Protective PUT but many straight futures traders don;t like the options and the cost This idea is not new I have seen structured product in Equity space where a investor can - borrow 100% with no background check required - Non recourse loan no margin call even if shares held go down to zero as long as 1) investor pays for a protective ATM PUT/Call ( depending upon Long or short stock) 2) investor pays for interest on loan for the period of loan = expiry of protective option The investor keeps beneficial ownership of the stock position + can do things like sell covered calls etc on the underlying holding The funder / Bank has nothing to loose
I think it’s what you said destriero “it's a pool and meeting intraday risk, meaning that nobody is truly funded to the level you state” if they are instead putting people on a sim and the trades aren’t even hitting the tape then that sounds like a big problem
Did you create this graphic yourself? i would change the name from "prop firm" to "try out firm". they aren't exactly prop firms
i found it on a copy trade website so one can say they are sort of competition to pay for test business.. but any way why is this so important? I am over this debate... not interested any more. it is a free world.. let people do whatever they want to risk...my aim was to simply explore a better model.. but people started personal attacks so enough for me to hell with it good by
Knowing that 95% of particular are losers. 95% will fail. + 20% of the 95% fail will retry by paying for the test. 80% of the 5% who succeed will fail in the next 2 months. The 0.5% risk managers who are successful over time earn very little. At Wallstreet there is no free meal. The business is very profitable. Recruit professional and seasoned traders. Entrusted them with funds. Normally it's more profitable than says Johny the baker of funds, right?
In general, there is no doubt that only a small percentage of traders make money. This is no different in our business model then it is on the market. We are filtering through to find the great traders, and making money on the examination fees. The company funds the successful candidates, and there are a lot of them and some of them are indeed very profitable. 500+ candidates were funded in the last six months alone. This is a number we are very proud of and hope will grow more with time. The vast majority of businesses fail. Only one applicant of the many will get a job they apply for. The vast majority of students will not get into Harvard, and In sport only one team is the champion. Businesses pay money even if and when they fail. People work for their jobs even if they don't get them. Students study for their universities even if they don't get in. People practice and train for sports and they still lose. The question is not whether these industries (business, education and sport) exist. It's whether or not they represent a fair opportunity. We strongly believe that we provide a fair opportunity for any candidate to become a professional trader.
Why don't you show us a number of the candidates that still remain funded after 6 months? Now that would be interesting to know.