Menu
Sister Sites

Options

Bookmark Thread

First Page First Unread Last Page Last Post

Print Thread

Similar Threads

Anyone trading with a Prop firm 2 replies

prop firm new model - my trading journey 869 replies

So I accepted a Prop Trading job in South Beach Miami 43 replies

Attachments: Prop Firm Hub
Exit Attachments

Prop Firm Hub

Quoting Capablanca
{quote} 1. I don't see how your simple solutions can be applied: "close the losing account and then automagically the trader will be eligible for the payout". You can't close an account unless you bust it, violate rules or request them. 2. Even if you do that, the rule is so generic that they can bend it as they wish. Example: You have 2 x 100K accounts. You bust account 1: -10K and it's closed (but this was "trading activities") You make a profit in account: +2K (this is also "trading activities") Now they can say: "Traders are entitled to 80%...
I only speculate here. Once you bust an account it's no longer live and is no longer a drag on performance.
Yes, they could bend the rules as they wish and it is unethical what they are doing but literally every prop firm does make up new rules as they go. Hence my qualification "the wild wild West of prop forex trading".
Bottom line, if I'd have an account with more than 19k in the red and that's the one holding up my payout, I'd just put on a hail mary trade: either it gets back to green or gets busted and the other account pays out.
Again, I acknowledge that they could bend the rules even further to deny eventually all payouts but they haven't gone so far: as stated and confirmed they have paid reliably several times for months. To me that means that they are trying to reduce their exposure to "unlimited" number of accounts and not that they just refuse to pay anyone.
Quoting sampat
{quote} Agree one should have only one live account to be safer as rules are not clearly defined for multiple live accounts.
I disagree with that sentiment completely.

The binding legal document between the trader and the firm is the contract. And since the contract is signed per account basis, and there is no mentioning of treating P/L as common between multiple live accounts (should there be any) then the trader has no way of knowing such rule.

Therefore, failing the trader on this rule is absolutely deceptive behavior and scammy.
Quoting OranJuice
{quote} I dont agree with you there. Again, for a prop firm to deny users payouts based on rules that the trader had no way of possibly knowing is unethical, deceptive and extremely questionable business conduct. Until they pay me out , my review will remain to alert others of their fishy behavior. And I advise anyone to treat firm like the black pest and stay away from it until further notice.
You keep saying they failed you when it looks that your accounts are still live and only the payout process is suspended. Have you considered busting the account in red? If it's so much in the red your DD must be so low that it'd be nearly impossible to trade it back up again.
Quoting muir
{quote} You keep saying they failed you when it looks that your accounts are still live and only the payout process is suspended. Have you considered busting the account in red? If it's so much in the red your DD must be so low that it'd be nearly impossible to trade it back up again.
Semantics.

I mentioned already I mean deny the payout.

19000$ in total.
Quoting sampat
{quote} Agree one should have only one live account to be safer as rules are not clearly defined for multiple live accounts.
Even so, it's not safe. A firm that bent the rule as we saw could very well say:
- Look, you lost -10K in the 100K closed account and now you are +5K in the new one. We don't pay because, overall, in all trading activities, you are -5K.
- But that 100K account doesn't exist any more !
- We don't care. We take into consideration all trading activities and you are -5K

At least Finotive Funding is transparent on something like that:
"8. 10.2 In order to protect our capital, traders who have failed previous funded accounts (either Challenge Phase 3 or Instant Funding) will be capped to a profit split of 25%, with no scaling options. When all losses have been covered by Finotive Funding’s 75% profit share, the Trader will be reinstated to full profit split and account scaling options."
Quoting Capablanca
{quote} Even so, it's not safe. A firm that bent the rule as we saw could very well say: - Look, you lost -10K in the 100K closed account and now you are +5K in the new one. We don't pay because, overall, in all trading activities, you are -5K. - But that 100K account doesn't exist any more ! - We don't care. We take into consideration all trading activities and you are -5K At least Finotive Funding is transparent on something like that: "8. 10.2 In order to protect our capital, traders...
Do they have rule for simultaneous account or all account together.
For example lets say I have live 100K account and I blew up.
Started challenges again and funded 100K I don't think this rule applies to previous accounts.
I may be wrong but all confusion will happen when you have two live accounts simultaneously at any time.
Quoting OranJuice
{quote} I disagree with that sentiment completely. The binding legal document between the trader and the firm is the contract. And since the contract is signed per account basis, and there is no mentioning of treating P/L as common between multiple live accounts (should there be any) then the trader has no way of knowing such rule. Therefore, failing the trader on this rule is absolutely deceptive behavior and scammy.
Every firm I trade with has the option of trading your accounts separately or to merge them. I can trade 40 x10K, 2 x $200K, 1 x $400K or any combo I wish. If the account(s) are going to be treated as a merged account from an overall P&L standpoint, THAT ABSOLTUELY NEEDS TO BE DISCLOSED!!!!!

From the firm's perspective, I actually understand the rule, if they are indeed copy trading and they have lost say $19K on one of your accounts and you have made say $10K on another account, they are only profiting $2K. So they have lost 19K, are paying you another 8K and made 2K. Not a good business model.

With that being said, I HIGHLY DOUBT this firm is copy trading, so above point is irrelevant.

Personally, I will not be using this firm. Plenty of better options where the rules are quite clear and concise. As you have stated, if it's not part of the contract, they should not be able to enforce it. Unfortunately, in this particular case, I believe the contract has some very gray verbiage which allows them to spin it in their favor.
MFF COMPANY UPDATE: RECORDED LIVE SESSION
Inserted Code
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGNWaIZ5VU
Quoting sampat
{quote} Do they have rule for simultaneous account or all account together. For example lets say I have live 100K account and I blew up. Started challenges again and funded 100K I don't think this rule applies to previous accounts. I may be wrong but all confusion will happen when you have two live accounts simultaneously at any time.
You may be right but they're doing something that other companies don't do so we need to be cautious.

The rule is so generic that can be used as they pleased. From their FAQs:

What is Profit Share?
Traders are entitled to 80% of the profit share resulting from your trading activities.

They may say that a past blown account is a trading activity. Who could fight that ?


And they also have this:

How many accounts can I trade?
There are no limits to the number of accounts you can trade in any phase, if you trade them independently. For instance, you could trade 5 or more 200K accounts separately by placing different trades on these accounts.

So, we can have unlimited accounts if we trade them independently. But P&Ls is not independent.


And finally they have this:

How to make a Withdrawal?
Biweekly withdrawals will be available after you receive your first withdrawal. Your first withdrawal will be available 30 days after you started trading and the “next withdrawal date” will be displayed on your dashboard under Profit Share tab. To be eligible for your withdrawal: Account balance must be above the initial account balance, no violations identified, completed 10 minimum trading days and prior to making a request all positions must be flat. For Biweekly payouts, the same criteria applies but only 5 minimum trading days.


So, now we know it's not enough that account balance is above initial. It's necessary that the sum of all balances are above initial balances.


Not stating that clearly in the rules is not good behavior. It's shady.
Quoting MwlRCT
MFF COMPANY UPDATE: RECORDED LIVE SESSION https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGNWaIZ5VU
They will be broker next year wow what a journey.
Quoting sampat
{quote} They will be broker next year wow what a journey.
I only had time for the first 10 minutes. My immediate takeaway, is, as I suspected, they are profit sharing and copying trades. They state they made about 25% of the 55 million they paid out over the past 4 months. They also even stated, if you are maxed with them, YOU SHOULD use the 1 other firm that has been around a long time. They also state stay away from the overnight pop ups as they will be gone in 3-6 months. Hmmmmm......sounds like everything taki, myself and a few others have been stating for well over a year now.
I will watch in entirety later, but what is this about becoming a broker?......I'm in the US, so hoping they will remain offshore and unregulated.
Quoting pipmaster77
{quote} I only had time for the first 10 minutes. My immediate takeaway, is, as I suspected, they are profit sharing and copying trades. They state they made about 25% of the 55 million they paid out over the past 4 months. They also even stated, if you are maxed with them, YOU SHOULD use the 1 other firm that has been around a long time. They also state stay away from the overnight pop ups as they will be gone in 3-6 months. Hmmmmm......sounds like everything taki, myself and a few others have been stating for well over a year now. I will watch...
Yea something like Darwinex. I am still having hard time understanding their model if they payout 55 million that much how many signups and actual orders in market.
Also josh stated they are breakeven on failed live accounts. How to do that stuff
Quoting Capablanca
{quote} You may be right but they're doing something that other companies don't do so we need to be cautious. The rule is so generic that can be used as they pleased. From their FAQs: What is Profit Share? Traders are entitled to 80% of the profit share resulting from your trading activities. They may say that a past blown account is a trading activity. Who could fight that ? And they also have this: How many accounts can I trade? There are no limits to the number of accounts you can trade in any phase,...
You nailed that thing right on the head! Very good point.

Again, each firm is essentially entitled to their rules and regulation - its a free market. But when the rules are setup in an ambiguos way that gives the firm the option to interpret the rules to their advantage, thats some deceptive and scammy behavior.

Moreover, when the broker has an insistance to deny traders huge payouts based on rules that never existed in the contract in first place, and that trader never had a chance of knowing about that rule since its not in the contract, then that again is deceptive behavior.

We need to call these brokers out on their BS. Its not that they are not making enough money already. They want to screw us around, thinking we are peons that can be tossed and flipped over.
Quoting sampat
{quote} Yea something like Darwinex. I am still having hard time understanding their model if they payout 55 million that much how many signups and actual orders in market. Also josh stated they are breakeven on failed live accounts. How to do that stuff
The way I understood, was they made 25% of the 55 million solely through profit share. I only do eval model, but some of their models only pay 50%, so overall the 55 million represents approx 75% of profits and then they made 25% (so somewhere around 16-17 million). The challenge fees are a completely SEPARATE stream of income, once again, if I am understanding correctly. They clearly have a great risk mode in place which allows them to profit WITH the profitable accounts while breaking even on the failed accounts. All in all, clearly the #1 firm by far to be with, IMO. FTMO still #2 in my book as well. I also believe TFF,TFTP and E8 to be viable options at this point as well.
Quoting pipmaster77
{quote} The way I understood, was they made 25% of the 55 million solely through profit share. I only do eval model, but some of their models only pay 50%, so overall the 55 million represents approx 75% of profits and then they made 25% (so somewhere around 16-17 million). The challenge fees are a completely SEPARATE stream of income, once again, if I am understanding correctly. They clearly have a great risk mode in place which allows them to profit WITH the profitable accounts while breaking even on the failed accounts. All in all, clearly the...

My understanding of it is that they are passing order flow in quite a few ways and break even includes things like b-booking some flow. When you are that big, you probably can do many things with many firms. If they had a higher trading cost it would be easier. e8/tft would be easier to do as their trading cost is higher.
Quoting sampat
{quote} Do they have rule for simultaneous account or all account together. For example lets say I have live 100K account and I blew up. Started challenges again and funded 100K I don't think this rule applies to previous accounts. I may be wrong but all confusion will happen when you have two live accounts simultaneously at any time.
Gee, it would be a pretty dumb dashboard if it cannot show 2 or more accounts separately, don't you think?



Even ForexFactory can do that, think about it!

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: 2022-10-27_5-27-06.jpg Size: 50 KB
Maximize wins, minimize loss, stay in the game as long as you can
Counter-Trend Entry Return This Week: -0.1%
Suppose I have account A which is in 10% drawdown, and account B which is in 10% profit.
Now the firm says account B can not drawdraw profit because the sum of two accounts' total profit is zero.
Now the firm says account A bust because it violated drawdown rule.
When judging payout, the firm treat two account collectively.
When judging violating rule, the firm treat two accounts separately.
Does the firm dare to say account A does not bust? No for sure.
Quoting wmwmw
Suppose I have account A which is in 10% drawdown, and account B which is in 10% profit. Now the firm says account B can not drawdraw profit because the sum of two accounts' total profit is zero. Now the firm says account A bust because it violated drawdown rule. When judging payout, the firm treat two account collectively. When judging violating rule, the firm treat two accounts separately. Does the firm dare to say account A does not bust? No for sure.
I ask them on their discord last week and they didn't responded so I guess it is the case you need to make 10% more to cover up busted account and take profits.
Quoting Tobiazzek
I wonder why nobody is talking here about city trading imperium. Not tqlkimg about their 6month-12 month evaluation as it's garbage, but they have now ftmo like challanges with very good spreads, good prices and 45 days for each phase instead of 30. I do know they have a 9$ fee per lot which is doable. The funded challanges only go up to 50k tho.
Hello, I'm doing fastest possible, I work many hours a day to make a table with all the specs of every good proprietary firm
tomorrow I will do city imperium

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...frw/edit#gid=0

Also I need from this forum a view on Ment Funding, trustpilot only 51 reviews...
is it risky?
Also I noticed that Ment Fund and Funded Trading Plus, both sites, use a table and colors written with the same format... like one of the two website copied the other.
That's make me suspicious about Ment Funding less known.

Your idea about it?
Quoting OranJuice
{quote} I dont agree with you there. Again, for a prop firm to deny users payouts based on rules that the trader had no way of possibly knowing is unethical, deceptive and extremely questionable business conduct. Until they pay me out , my review will remain to alert others of their fishy behavior. And I advise anyone to treat firm like the black pest and stay away from it until further notice.
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: screenshot.png Size: 22 KB

I think they are cheating on their own rules above
- X -
11 traders viewing now, 6 are members:
,
Rjaws
,
inversio
,
,
,
Lagani