Howard Roark 

I'm quoting mcjackson from the other thread as Bob felt that thread should be reserved specifically for Anna's issues. ... The main thing which should be obvious by now is that these companies have zero interest in actually funding you as a trader. That's what they advertise, though. Get funded. Trade a $150K account (which we all know is at best a $4.5K account as that's the drawdown limit). ... To be honest, I'm not sure if these companies could be called a scam, but it's certainly very, very close to it. ... I have in the past said that maybe these companies could serve a purpose still and be a middle ground between demo trading on your own and a live account for serious practice purposes with the possible benefit of a payout, but seeing how these companies actually have zero interest in your well-being as a trader I may have to retract that statement.

mcjackson 

I disagree with you. There's a difference between saying - hey, what a stupid problem they created by rolling out a stupid policy in a stupid way... .....and saying - hey this is a scam, anyone who can't see that is stupid. I know traders who are making it work and have been paid out. Simple as that, for me. For whatever reason, the people who dislike Topstep seem to really hate it. I don't get it, especially with how truly terrible so many trading-related companies are out there. It's not perfect, but this idea that they're actively scamming people....come on.

Howard Roark 

I'm not saying it's an outright scam. What I'm saying is they're promoting something they're NOT offering. In that sense, it's close to a scam, IMO. I never said someone can't be paid from these firms. Hell, I even received some $$$ myself from OneUp/MES (they took most themselves though). What I'm saying is that they have no interest in actually funding you and want your continued subscription fees instead of your success. The proof of this is in the pudding.

My own opinion, and it's only that, is that it would be better to not use the pronouns "they" and "these" so much. I don't know anything about any of "them" except TopStep -- and I am as dismayed as anyone else by the situation in the "other" thread -- but unless someone actually has real-world experience with a firm, lumping "them" all together strikes me as hasty.

Not that there are not any reasons to not want to go with any of them, but it seems to me that distinguishing between them, where there are differences, is the better course. I don't care personally one way or another (I have done TopStep Combines, and I was never unhappy with the Combine or the company, but that doesn't mean everyone would be.}

Also, @Howard Roark had a genuinely unsatisfactory experience with one of "them." So you have to respect the fact of his experience, and I do. I only question the wide generalization.

For my own reasons, I don't think I would recommend any of "them" for a new trader, as I have discussed often enough -- the micros offer a good path, and you only have your own rules to follow, which I think is a good thing.

So I come down more with @mcjackson on the situation with @TraderAnna as discussed in that tread, and I will abstain from larger generalizations about all of "them."

Not that there are not bad vendors in the trading world. It is a generally good idea to be skeptical of any and all, and to ask "what's in it for them?" as well as "what's in it for me?" It may be possible for both to benefit, but this too is an individual question.

For example, one of the main things I do as a moderator is to ban vendors and delete their posts when they break our self-promotion policies. If all I had to do was moderate between normal members, I would spend way less time here. So I am very aware of vendor issues, and that they exist in every class of vendors. But there are also vendors who either offer something traders may be able to use, or that at least aren't outright scammers. Maybe some are funding companies (I am pretty agnostic for the most part, actually.)

I'm just suggesting less generalization, more attention to specifics, that's all. Any actual problem should be discussed, obviously.

Bob.

matthew28 

I looked at the link supplied but then saw that it relates to the FTMO company ...

Just to clarify, Matthew: the situation complained about there relates to "Funding Talent", not to FTMO.

FTMO isn't actually a "funding company", per se - they have a different business model (albeit with many similarities) but they don't claim to be funding anyone, or that their successful participants are doing anything other than sim-trading.

matthew28 

I looked at the link supplied but then saw that it relates to the FTMO company which I have never looked at and have no knowledge of their offering or rules. I had assumed the link would be somebody complaining about Topstep. So at the moment there is one complaint on this forum from somebody who feels they have a genuine payment grievance against Topstep which does certainly look like it could have been handled a lot better by that company. By my reckoning, on this forum at least which is the only one I look at, that is one major payment complaint I recall in the nine years Topstep has been running.

Why would you assume that? This thread is about all get-funded companies. Which is why I posted it here and not the other thread.

Regarding the FTMO complaint, I would be very upset and complaining too if I had made $266k and was owed $212k but that is a whole different level of complaint and he has quite rightly got legal representation involved.

matthew28 

Without looking at the company website I don't know what their sim policy is, but would they really let a trader make that much if they were on sim? surely they would step in and transfer his account to real money, or mirror his trades to ensure they could afford the pay out. Sure most trader's lose money, but a few do very well and they must have a contingency for covering successful trader profits if they are actually trading on sim. It would be lunacy if company policy was that they don't think any trader will ever make a profit so they just put them all on sim, and not worry about it or monitor them under the assumption they will never need to pay out. Then all they need is one single very profitable trader and that person destroys the business.

Well, that's exactly what I and a few others have expressed concerns about earlier in this thread and way before I knew about this Funding Talent guy not getting paid. Just by luck you'll have some very profitable trader once in a while. As for what will happen when such a guy comes along? Well, with that guy you can see yourself that he's not getting paid.

I was also $7K in profit when my account was liquidated. Good for MES Capital to not have to pay me, right?

bobwest 

My own opinion, and it's only that, is that it would be better to not use the pronouns "they" and "these" so much. I don't know anything about any of "them" except TopStep -- and I am as dismayed as anyone else by the situation in the "other" thread -- but unless someone actually has real-world experience with a firm, lumping "them" all together strikes me as hasty. Not that there are not any reasons to not want to go with any of them, but it seems to me that distinguishing between them, where there are differences, is the better course. I don't care personally one way or another (I have done TopStep Combines, and I was never unhappy with the Combine or the company, but that doesn't mean everyone would be.}

Respectfully, I disagree, Bob.

From the top of my head:

TopstepTrader
Earn2Trade
OneUp/MES Capital
LeeLoo

The business model is exactly the same for all these companies. Sure, there are a few minor differences, but there are more similarities than differences.

If a company existed that would actually fund and stake me - I would try again in a heartbeat, but I see nothing to indicate that any of these companies want that.

I'm back trading my real live account come September.

Howard Roark 

I'm back trading my real live account come September.

I think this is often the best idea, all other considerations aside.

Wish you luck.

Bob.

bobwest 

I think this is often the best idea, all other considerations aside. Wish you luck. Bob.

Hi, Bob.

Thank you.

The only reason I figured it was worth a shot was because I spoke to another trader in private who actually had pulled some money out of such a firm. If not for him I would not even have considered it. Additionally, I was in a place where it was not wise to risk my own capital (been there, done that). So, I figured it was an alternative to pure simulator trading while still staying in the game and maybe pulling some money out of it.

As I progressed and eventually got funded I started seriously thinking this could be something after all, but you know how my journey ended. Coupled with my own experience and common sense, I now know how these firms operate, so why bother. In a good week I'll be settled in a new home and ready to handle the financial markets with peace of mind trading my own money.

I would LOVE to trade with a prop firm, but I know it's not going to happen with any of the firms listed as they're not really funding traders. Some people here may fool themselves thinking otherwise, but that's their choice.

Best wishes.

Howard

Tymbeline 

Just to clarify, Matthew: the situation complained about there relates to "Funding Talent", not to FTMO.

Whoops. That was me skimming through the linked page too quickly and misreading FTMO as an abbreviation of Funding Talent. Then mistakenly thinking them the same company.
Thanks for mentioning that. My post was still editable so I have now changed it.

I've tried most of the get-funded shops. They are similar with some differences in the rules. Yes, they screw things up sometimes (but rarely). It's how everything works... it's not against you specifically.

They'll pay you out, therefore everyone should concentrate on their trading. No one can stop you from extracting money off markets if you find and keep your edge.

Keep improving and don't be bothered with such questions. These shops would not exist if they are not paying out and sticking to the rules.

Enough said.

Comments on OneUpTrader:

I've had no problem with OneUp. I started with a $150,000 account with the goal of gradually scaling up. I trade 6 contracts right now. Daily goal is 3 trades, 15 tick PT or about $1,350 total per day. Days will vary, of course.

The advantage is they cover the margin. If you're a scalper and order flow trader like I am, you need more than the standard margin to trade efficiently.

So far no problems since I've been funded. I took one withdrawal for the minimum of $1,000 after earning about $6,500 in profits - their "cushion" for withdrawal on a $150,000 account is $5,000.

Their support is very good. No complaints.

I'll post updates once in a while.

Glad to hear you're progressing well, phantomtrader!

I'm rooting for your continued success.

phantomtrader 

The advantage is they cover the margin. If you're a scalper and order flow trader like I am, you need more than the standard margin to trade efficiently.

Most futures brokers seems to offer intraday margins, i.e., $500 for index futures. Interactive Brokers have way too high margins.

With OneUp, you'll intially get to trade 5 contracts once you're funded. So, on your own, you would have to put up $2500/$5000 to do the same. Not that good of a deal, IMO, unless there's a trader with a great talent who only have $350 in his bank account.

The interesting thing which is stated in the thread title is long term success and if these companies or OneUp specifically here will at any point stake you. The way I interpret it - they won't. If you withdraw profits, you're back to square one. Meaning you might as well trade your own account with a 100% profit split. The cushion you're building with OneUp is basically your own unrealized profits anyway. So, as long as that's in place it's your own profits that are at risk.

Might as well risk them in one's own account then.

But maybe I'm missing something obvious.