I am not that familiar with Apex. But found this using Google:
https://support.apextraderfunding.com/hc/en-us/articles/11316873486491-PA-Account-Fees-Lifetime-and-Monthly-Fees

and maybe this link:
https://support.apextraderfunding.com/hc/en-us/articles/10400859371035-MASTER-TRAINING-COURSE-PA-Prop-ACCOUNTS-REQUIRED-Before-Trading

bobwest 

I'm not sure I have this right, so if someone who knows how it actually works can tell me, I would appreciate it. But do I understand that once you get funded with Apex, you also have to pay them a monthly activation fee to trade with them, unless you pay the one time lifetime fee? Why? I may have misunderstood the situation, but I don't think I would do that. Isn't the idea that the funded traders split their profits with the company, so the company benefits from having them trading for them? I think there is sometimes distrust about the funding companies as a class, and I don't want to fall into that without understanding the situation. But can someone explain (preferably without distrust, just with the facts) how this is a good idea, or a bad idea, for the trader? Maybe I just didn't understand something, but this isn't how the other companies are doing this. Does Apex just have their own twist on it? (Which may not be necessarily bad... But how does this work for the trader? It has to benefit both parties to make it a good deal.) Bob.

Some prefer one time fee instead of recurring fees for long term accounts, it was a feature requested by some users as i understand it.

bobwest 

I'm not sure I have this right, so if someone who knows how it actually works can tell me, I would appreciate it. But do I understand that once you get funded with Apex, you also have to pay them a monthly activation fee to trade with them, unless you pay the one time lifetime fee? Why? I may have misunderstood the situation, but I don't think I would do that. Isn't the idea that the funded traders split their profits with the company, so the company benefits from having them trading for them? I think there is sometimes distrust about the funding companies as a class, and I don't want to fall into that without understanding the situation. But can someone explain (preferably without distrust, just with the facts) how this is a good idea, or a bad idea, for the trader? Maybe I just didn't understand something, but this isn't how the other companies are doing this. Does Apex just have their own twist on it? (Which may not be necessarily bad... But how does this work for the trader? It has to benefit both parties to make it a good deal.) Bob.

This is the question and reply that was shadow banned on YouTube:

"Another elephant in the room is the activation fee. APEX used a $250,000 account in their recent video. If you purchased 20 accounts and passed, the activation fee would be $6,000 for all the accounts? Is that correct?

Reply

2 replies
Mike's Channel
Mike's Channel
1 day ago (edited)
If you choose the lifetime activation, that is correct. It is $300 plus 8.25% tax per account. If you choose the monthly fee it is $85 plus tax per account. If you are a seasoned profitable trader knowing what you do, neither option should be a big deal for you. If you are new to futures just starting out, I would advise to start with one 25k account and work your way up once you
are consistently profitable. If you fall into category 2, option 1 would be foolish."

In other words, $6,000 should be no big deal if you're a profitable trader. If you fall into the other category, you can pay $85 per month plus tax.

Their whole setup is to generate cash for payouts. They reduced the evaluation days to 7 days. The affiliate mentioned above thinks this is a great thing. But what they've really done is attract more wannabe traders who will fail more often, generating more resets ($100) for APEX. If they are funded, they're faced with the activation fee either lifetime or monthly. If they fail the funded account, they start all over again. Then there's the 80% off sales which they run about once a month. It's a cash generating machine. The affiliates like the guy above wax poetic about how great they are and what an opportunity they're offering you. If you read the comments, there are no serious questions or comments either on the APEX YouTube channel (I think they've disabled comments on many of their videos now) or on the affiliate channels. It's all good. They get paid and the trader is setup to donate money to the ongoing cash machine.

I'm assuming it all legal, although it smacks of a ponzi scheme - using other people's money to finance the business.

The video where the APEX person compares their activation fees to another company's fees has since disappeared. I thought it was TopStep but I might be wrong - there's nothing at their website about an activation fee.
Earn2Trade and OneUpTrader have no activation fees and no monthly fees except datafeed once funded.
I did verify with Earn2Trade and OneUpTrader that they do not have activation fees.

phantomtrader 

This is the question and reply that was shadow banned on YouTube: "Another elephant in the room is the activation fee. ... Their whole setup is to generate cash for payouts. They reduced the evaluation days to 7 days. The affiliate mentioned above thinks this is a great thing. But what they've really done is attract more wannabe traders who will fail more often, generating more resets ($100) for APEX. If they are funded, they're faced with the activation fee either lifetime or monthly. If they fail the funded account, they start all over again. Then there's the 80% off sales which they run about once a month. It's a cash generating machine. The affiliates like the guy above wax poetic about how great they are and what an opportunity they're offering you. If you read the comments, there are no serious questions or comments either on the APEX YouTube channel (I think they've disabled comments on many of their videos now) or on the affiliate channels. It's all good. They get paid and the trader is setup to donate money to the ongoing cash machine. I'm assuming it all legal, although it smacks of a ponzi scheme - using other people's money to finance the business.

Thanks. It's hard to keep track of all these things. I had never heard of an "activation fee" before.

By the way, I don't see that TopStep has one (I have no idea about Earn2Trade.) I just went to the TS website to make sure, and there is no mention of it.

I think that anyone can offer anything to the public if all the terms are disclosed and if no laws or regulations are broken, and then it is up to them to fulfill their promises, and of course it is up to the customer to decide whether it is a good deal for them. So I've got no real problem with Apex, just as long as they are up-front about what they are doing. If they are not, that would be a problem.

But the main thing for me is the idea of paying to have an account "activated" when I thought the point of a funded account is that the trader is supposed to be trading the firm's capital for them, and splitting the profits. (I'm aware that there is money to be made in fees, and that the firms are always going to adjust things so they can make money overall.)

Of course, if a trader likes the deal, then they like it and it's not really any of my business. I just wouldn't take this one. Someone else might, and no problem.

I was just surprised by the idea. But I get surprised fairly often by what people do, so that's not that unusual, nor a big deal.

Bob.

bobwest 

Thanks. It's hard to keep track of all these things. I had never heard of an "activation fee" before. By the way, I don't see that TopStep has one (I have no idea about Earn2Trade.) I just went to the TS website to make sure, and there is no mention of it. I think that anyone can offer anything to the public if all the terms are disclosed and if no laws or regulations are broken, and then it is up to them to fulfill their promises, and of course it is up to the customer to decide whether it is a good deal for them. So I've got no real problem with Apex, just as long as they are up-front about what they are doing. If they are not, that would be a problem. But the main thing for me is the idea of paying to have an account "activated" when I thought the point of a funded account is that the trader is supposed to be trading the firm's capital for them, and splitting the profits. (I'm aware that there is money to be made in fees, and that the firms are always going to adjust things so they can make money overall.) Of course, if a trader likes the deal, then they like it and it's not really any of my business. I just wouldn't take this one. Someone else might, and no problem. I was just surprised by the idea. But I get surprised fairly often by what people do, so that's not that unusual, nor a big deal. Bob.

APEX had a video about their latest 80% off deal a few days ago. During that video, the guy compared APEX's activation fees to another firm - I thought it was TopStep but I might be wrong.
APEX has removed that video from their YouTube channel - I think in response to questions about the activation fee in the comment section. These comments were shadow banned anyway.
Looks like they're not in a hurry to discuss the activation fees.

I made a note in my previous post that I'm not sure who the other company is that APEX was referring to.

Apex look awful to me, I've had a look at their payout policy and it states that they won't pay out on trades that don't fit in with your trading plan. They have a rule that one day can't be more than 30% of your profit, else your payout will be denied until it's less than 30%, and also deny any news trades that don't fit into your plan.

This is a perfect example of how these "livesim" accounts go against you. Clearly their goals are different to ours, as they are avoiding paying out large winning days by using these rules. They say you can't trade different sizes, can't average into trades - there are instances where it makes sense to trade a different size or average into a trade. I may trade a smaller size when the market is volatile, or may add a second entry to a trade when I'm fairly confident.

And who doesn't like a trade that you let run? I'd imagine most traders are looking for that lucky trade where the market trends and you can sit in it for ages, adding to it as the trend continues. Is that classed as bad trading? According to Apex you won't be paid out on that trade if it doesn't fit in with your usual strategy.

Very dishonest company, none of this is listed on their main page, it's buried deep in their "help desk" section. IMO they are the worst that I have come across so far.

VirtualMark 

Apex look awful to me, I've had a look at their payout policy and it states that they won't pay out on trades that don't fit in with your trading plan. They have a rule that one day can't be more than 30% of your profit, else your payout will be denied until it's less than 30%, and also deny any news trades that don't fit into your plan. This is a perfect example of how these "livesim" accounts go against you. Clearly their goals are different to ours, as they are avoiding paying out large winning days by using these rules. They say you can't trade different sizes, can't average into trades - there are instances where it makes sense to trade a different size or average into a trade. I may trade a smaller size when the market is volatile, or may add a second entry to a trade when I'm fairly confident. And who doesn't like a trade that you let run? I'd imagine most traders are looking for that lucky trade where the market trends and you can sit in it for ages, adding to it as the trend continues. Is that classed as bad trading? According to Apex you won't be paid out on that trade if it doesn't fit in with your usual strategy. Very dishonest company, none of this is listed on their main page, it's buried deep in their "help desk" section. IMO they are the worst that I have come across so far.

Darrell Martin was previously with LeeLoo and NADEX related websites (https://thetradingpub.com/our-story/darrell-martin/)
The lack of transparency follows him wherever he goes. APEX is no different. People don't do their due diligence either so a lot of the fault lies with them - and APEX is counting on those people to finance their business model.

phantomtrader 

This is the question and reply that was shadow banned on YouTube: "Another elephant in the room is the activation fee. APEX used a $250,000 account in their recent video. If you purchased 20 accounts and passed, the activation fee would be $6,000 for all the accounts? Is that correct? Reply 2 replies Mike's Channel Mike's Channel 1 day ago (edited) If you choose the lifetime activation, that is correct. It is $300 plus 8.25% tax per account. If you choose the monthly fee it is $85 plus tax per account. If you are a seasoned profitable trader knowing what you do, neither option should be a big deal for you. If you are new to futures just starting out, I would advise to start with one 25k account and work your way up once you are consistently profitable. If you fall into category 2, option 1 would be foolish." In other words, $6,000 should be no big deal if you're a profitable trader. If you fall into the other category, you can pay $85 per month plus tax. Their whole setup is to generate cash for payouts. They reduced the evaluation days to 7 days. The affiliate mentioned above thinks this is a great thing. But what they've really done is attract more wannabe traders who will fail more often, generating more resets ($100) for APEX. If they are funded, they're faced with the activation fee either lifetime or monthly. If they fail the funded account, they start all over again. Then there's the 80% off sales which they run about once a month. It's a cash generating machine. The affiliates like the guy above wax poetic about how great they are and what an opportunity they're offering you. If you read the comments, there are no serious questions or comments either on the APEX YouTube channel (I think they've disabled comments on many of their videos now) or on the affiliate channels. It's all good. They get paid and the trader is setup to donate money to the ongoing cash machine. I'm assuming it all legal, although it smacks of a ponzi scheme - using other people's money to finance the business. The video where the APEX person compares their activation fees to another company's fees has since disappeared. I thought it was TopStep but I might be wrong - there's nothing at their website about an activation fee. Earn2Trade and OneUpTrader have no activation fees and no monthly fees except datafeed once funded. I did verify with Earn2Trade and OneUpTrader that they do not have activation fees.

Two types of funded accounts exist:
Livesim: orders never hit the exchange, they stay in a simulated environment, in most case supported by Rithmic sim.
Live or cash accounts: orders hit the exchange, you can see them increment the DOM

Now most funding firms use livesim accounts that once you pass the evaluation phase are not replicated to a real live account like they claim, it's not an automatic process nor guaranteed, it's up to the funding firm discretion to replicate trades live, so I highly doubt even 10% of livesim accounts are replicated to a real live account, so the company doesn't make any profit from the "profit splitt" on probably 90% of livesim accounts.
The fact that big PnL days put them at risk and they have to instore PnL consistency rules lets you know that's the case.

In conclusion it's mostly fees and reset that fund payouts, not profit splitts, so yeah livesim is kind of ponzi-ish.

Phoenixoboros 

In conclusion it's mostly fees and reset that fund payouts, not profit splitts, so yeah livesim is kind of ponzi-ish.

I can not fully agree with your conclusion.
Yes, without doubt fees and resets are what funds payouts. Likely the income of most of the prop companies is 97-99% from fees and resets.

BUT it is not ponzi-ish, more mosquito-ish since those prop sims siphon off money that would otherwise be lost in the markets. Since markets are a zero sum game an interesting thought is what happens if most retail traders would trade only with prop firms and no longer "fund" the markets...

If you get paid from a prop firm, being a contractor might have some tax implications. I think only E2T has a different model, but you are counted as professional and have to pay higher professional fees.

Disciplined and consistent traders can get an awesome RoI from prop firms, especially in a sale. They can speed up growing their trading capital by using copy trading.

Trading is all about capital preservation. Thus to me it totally makes sense to use prop firms as long as you still need to improve your trading. Another positive factor is that it takes away some psychological pressure, if you are always able to feed your live trading account with your prop account after some major losses.

But the end goal for most traders is likely a well funded live account.

VirtualMark 

Apex look awful to me, I've had a look at their payout policy and it states that they won't pay out on trades that don't fit in with your trading plan. They have a rule that one day can't be more than 30% of your profit, else your payout will be denied until it's less than 30%, and also deny any news trades that don't fit into your plan. This is a perfect example of how these "livesim" accounts go against you. Clearly their goals are different to ours, as they are avoiding paying out large winning days by using these rules. They say you can't trade different sizes, can't average into trades - there are instances where it makes sense to trade a different size or average into a trade. I may trade a smaller size when the market is volatile, or may add a second entry to a trade when I'm fairly confident. And who doesn't like a trade that you let run? I'd imagine most traders are looking for that lucky trade where the market trends and you can sit in it for ages, adding to it as the trend continues. Is that classed as bad trading? According to Apex you won't be paid out on that trade if it doesn't fit in with your usual strategy. Very dishonest company, none of this is listed on their main page, it's buried deep in their "help desk" section. IMO they are the worst that I have come across so far.

That rule totally makes sense. Otherwise traders would simply buy two accounts and then trade in the opposite directions. Scalp with micros until days met and grab money without risk.

You would not do that with your live accounts, why is it a problem with a prop firm?

Several of my friends are funded with APEX and withdrew money already so I might be biased. But I think prop firms like APEX are beneficial for many traders that look for capital preservation while learning or that aim to boost their trading capital quickly with copy trading.

There are pros and cons using prop firms and it is up to every trader to research the details and find the optimal solution for his current situation.

I can understand if people are skeptical, because those prop firms act as if their business model is based around funding traders and receiving a split, while in fact likely over 95% of their income is from fees and resets. They also advertise f.e. a "50k account" where in reality you can only trade 2000 or 2500 bucks due to trailing, luring traders into overleveraging. Thus, likely over 95% of funded accounts never make it to payouts.

But only a few traders make money in the live markets either.