Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
I want to try and be tactful as I really am not looking for an argument and I mean this post with the best of intentions. Looking at the thread, your posts are about 20% of the posts here and more than double anyone else's. This is also about 60% of all your contributions to the site. Your interest in Apex start to look like an unhealthy obsession. If you are currently using Apex, this is probably time for you to move on to another firm as they clearly are not working out for you. If you aren't, is all the time and effort posting about Apex really worth it and the best use of your time?
Of course I am not trying to tell you what to do and how to use your time. Just wanted to point out something you might not be aware of.
Sorry for the long post here, but I'm trying to summarize what I've read over the last 49 pages of this thread while also responding some of things you brought up.
For all of the true widespread issues I have seen them do resets and reversing / deleting losing trades, and like others have said that is honestly a rare trait with these prop firms and definitely with a real brokerage (try to get TOS or Etrade to reverse a trade for you because the app was being buggy).
I think difference in opinion comes from what is fair. For both Rithmic and Tradovate (I'm assuming for TDV) based platforms from Apex, there is a custom Apex server. How that server scales and responds to traffic is unknown, but like others have said it is not 1:1 when we compare to our personal accounts using these same services so I'm going to assuming they can handle less peak traffic. So when there is too much traffic for the servers to handle, then issues appear and only with Apex, because the order and chart data is coming through their dedicated sim server.
These blips seem to be biggest contention point, as traders seen only their apex accounts have issues (no fills on limits or stops, orders not responding to add/edit/delete, exit and close not responding, etc.) when compared to other firms or real personal accounts. Apex says this is normal volatility and does not reverse or make right the users. Now in these scenarios is it truely and solely an Apex fault? It could be a poor performing computer, poor internet, user error, misclick, or something else on the client side? Or is it something that you would truly see in a live trading environment?
The fact these often coincide with large volatility events (open, close, economic news, MOC) says to be it really could be either of these, and at worse Apex could be falsely blaming the user for a server side issue. Bottom line is though, that we can't see this server health or load information so it's impossible for us to know for sure and we are just speculating. To me It feels like they are being fair on clear server issues, and for all the other instances I have no way of knowing for sure who the fault lies with, but the fact it's often a single person tilts me towards something on the client or user side. I personally feel a lot of the issues users have been facing are time displacements issues, where they are responding to data they are just now seeing on their chart/DOM yet that event has already past and they are behind the market. By the time they place their order that "event" has passed, similar to if you are playing a video game with very high lag, or an extremely delayed reaction.
All of this to say, if you feel they faulted you or your friends, that is entirely your right to feel that way and even voice your opinion. It's not really fair to call something a scam just because you don't like the rules or because they took away accounts / money for violating rules (summarizing the general vibe of the thread, not saying this is your opinion). Saying things like this are a scam is just embellishment that really serves no purpose and just doesn't sit right with me regardless of what company we are talking about. I have yet to see evidence, data, or proof that real scam has occurred (something like Apex is intentionally delaying or adding slippage to fills)
Don't forget these are online simulation prop firms, not real brokerages - they are not providing a brokerage service to you, they are providing a leverage service to you through a loophole using simulation trades and profits are actually "rewards". Don't expect them to provide a brokerage like service where orders are handled timely and accurately or for them to provide efficient access to the market (although that would be nice). They make money from signup fees, reset fees, and your trading data (either reselling and/or using to influence their own trades) - and they ensure they get the most money by making the rules tilted in their favor and increasing their house edge.
I personally think Apex's rules are not ideal, are messy and confusing, need a copywriter and lack clear examples (not hour long videos of someone reading a slidedeck). Their adjustments to funded accounts ruleset is still worrying (even if it's technically not new additions), but everyone I know is still getting paid just after a longer review period - and no they didn't have to record themselves or their screen.
I'm not sure what else can be said on this thread regarding this topic and their recent changes. It started out with sharing experience and reviews and now were just trading jabs back and forth. At the end of the day you signed up for and agreed to their rules, if you don't like them you can use a different company, or you trade with your own money.
The issue I have is that these problems are so frequent with Apex. You can have issues on both Tradovate and Rithmic, and the thing with Tradovate in particular is that it's web based. You can set an order and then turn your computer completely off, and the order will still be triggered and your stop or TP will still be hit. So whilst NinjaTrader can suffer from issues at your end, Tradovate should not.
They should invest in more server capacity if that's the issue. I would imagine they have a huge spike in users when they run these 90% off promotions, so the right thing to do is to plan their server capacity in advance.
I have never had these issues on Tradovate in a live account. And we're not talking about normal volatility spikes here, I've seen it where my friend literally could not exit a trade for about 2 minutes. It ran right through their stop, put them in a huge loss, they clicked exit and cancel, they tried to flatten their account, they got their camera and took photos and videos(yet they had that much time!), and the result was Apex saying platform issues are their fault, despite blowing up at the time and numerous others speaking out.
As for their rules, that's exactly the point, they are messy and unclear and there has been a recent uptick in enforcement, with people being denied payments en masse. It's good to hear that you and your friends are still getting paid, believe it or not I want to hear that.
And I'll say this to you, and to anyone else that tries to discourage me from speaking out on the issues I and my friends have faced with Apex - I will say what I want, as often as I want, whenever I want. This is the discussion thread for Apex, I have not made any personal attacks(unlike some others), and I will continue to report on it. If you or anyone else doesn't want to read about them, then please stop commenting. Do not try to discourage me from discussing a company on a discussion forum, in a thread set up for that particular company.
Apex themselves have a policy of banning users who speak out in their forums, I don't like it as they are trying to control the narrative. And to be honest, it feels like some people here are indoctrinated into a cult.
I think that I'm also uninfluenced by any prejudice against its owner arising from widespread accounts of his history in the binary options industry - though admittedly I can hardly "make myself unaware" of those.
Let's not ignore the reality that there are very widespread allegations of retrospective rule-changes, here. I can't help feeling that this does detract, at least to some extent, from some of the points you're making above.
I agree, but I think it's not unreasonable to be calling something a "scam" if the rules have been changed retrospectively in ways that effectively prevent people from being paid out completely unpredictably and through no fault of their own?
That doesn't impress me: it feels to me to be a little like changing the clauses of a contract after the customer has signed it.
There do seem to be an awful lot of allegations of exactly that in an awful lot of (online) places.
Some of them do also seem to be "documented" in as close to a verifiable way as you're ever going to get, online, without having access to people's server logs and so on? (I'm referring to the sudden introduction of the requirement to be able to prove, with video evidence, what happened in the past).
I regard myself as a neutral-but-interested observer, and in that capacity I feel that I've seen a lot that makes me pretty deeply suspicious of Apex.
I agree with a lot of what you've said above, but there I respectfully disagree. I think it can serve a purpose, and actually one that's an entirely legitimate and helpful aspect of a forum: I think it can influence the decisions of potential future customers in ways that may save them problems and/or money.
A "similar fact example" would be some of the adverse publicity the MyForexFunds funding company had, in forums, not so long before a court froze their bank accounts, effectively closing them down, at a regulator's request (I'm not going into the rights and wrongs of that situation, simply using it as an example of some people, who took heed of those "scam accusation" warnings, having benefited by having done so. This point seems fairly incontrovertible, to me (I know someone who was in that exact position, so I would say that, wouldn't I? ).
In these circumstances, people are always going to argue about what constitutes "evidence" and/or "proof," aren't they? And to be fair, even courts sometimes can't readily determine this.
I guess I'm just making the point that negative publicity, when there's a real and increasing panoply of it in many different places, can actually serve some benefit. I hope that's not a contentious point to be mentioning.
For some reason the Apex thread has gotten out of hand, and I have just deleted a flurry of back and forth highly personal posts between members.
We are not taking any position on any of the questions about Apex, but personal fights are not acceptable.
Controversy is fine. State your facts, but not your opinions about someone who disagrees with you.
If anyone thinks another member has overstepped, they can use the Report Post function, available in a dropdown from the person's name to the left of their post. Use that to alert the mods.
Everyone cool down and remember the forum's normal standards of civility. We will do whatever is required to restore the peace.
Bob.
When one door closes, another opens.
-- Cervantes, Don Quixote
I agree, if a company is retroactively changing the contract then that 100% is a scam, and fraud i think too?
To be fair, apex has always had the no dollar cost averaging rule in their site, the problem now they have explicitly defined it (only 1 add to red positions) and actually enforced now. Before I never thought I fell under the no DCA rule, but now with their new explanation I definitely do . Using way back machine we can see this entry from February. Before that time they changed the name / url of that page but we could dig up older version of it too. It does not explicitly call out what they define as DCA in this old version https://web.archive.org/web/20240204151738/https://support.atf.com/hc/en-us/articles/4404875002139-What-are-the-Consistency-Rules-for-PA-and-Funded-Accounts
So you were right on this one, my apologies for overlooking it. Them “defining” vague rules which is to the detriment of current under contract traders definitely doesnt sit right with me. And anyone under the old contract is probably being told they have to comply with only 1 add to red trades, because they always had no DCA in their contract (the trick is it just wasn’t defined). And this just ain’t right (having vague rules and/or later defining them strictly and enforcing the new definition)
Good point again, I honestly love discourse in public forms. Everyone being able to freely share their thoughts and opinions is great. But when claims are made, I personally expect some type of evidence. I get that sometimes there is none or its impossible and you and to trust a persons recollection of events, but hard evidence will sway me to your side much faster. And if you feel one way about a topic, and its a new or divergent from the norm I think its fair to ask for it (and it really irks me when the response is instead “you do your own research”)
—
Also it was mentioned earlier of the post signature “contract”, I went back and reviewed it and it seems to be just a copy of what is stated in the previous official contract. Is it shady to have a post contract brief, especially shown right after you sign your official contract? Yes definitely, but there is no new content in it - it sort of feels like this is an extension of not running the business well and in need of a copy writer so everything is clear the first time
Yes, this is my main issue with them. There was no grace period, giving traders a chance to adapt. And they brought in the enforcement with immediate effect, and had it so that your past few weeks trading would be taken into account, rather than just enforcing it from today onwards. It's like putting up a speed limit sign after you've driven past, then giving you a speeding ticket.
What they could have done is said "ok going forward we are going to enforce these rules 100%, so adapt your strategy now if you are breaking them", giving everyone a chance to decide if they can adapt or if they want to leave.
Kibash was put on immediately for a reason. There were known groups running algo’s, flaunting on social media etc. Like it or not, enough was enough.
It’s been stated ad nausem that this was already in existing TOS, so no one can say it was “retroactively applied.”
People can moan and groan about it or accept it and move on. Many did.
There’s a saying, whoever holds the gold, makes the rules. The world is not promised for the price of admission. Play by the rules or not. If people don’t, then they aren’t entitled to anything.
).
