Menu
Sister Sites

Options

Bookmark Thread

First Page First Unread Last Page Last Post

Print Thread

Similar Threads

Anyone trading with a Prop firm 6 replies

So I accepted a Prop Trading job in South Beach Miami 44 replies

prop firm new model - my trading journey 871 replies

Attachments: Prop Firm Hub
Exit Attachments

Prop Firm Hub

Quoting Takisd
For the people playing at home, there is a 0% chance that the regulators in the US or Europe will not require all prop firms to be regulated with appropriate licensing. 0. Real money, virtual funds, fairy funds or whatever. Whether its Apex or MFFU or Lux or tradeday or topstep or whatever.
So the props operating In US and EU/UK are going to need licensing( which I imagine only a few will get like FTMO FXIFY or ACG) and they will need to cut leverage. I guess also even something like 5ers will have to have certain licenses to be able to onboard clients from these countries. Are there other additional things that will come out of this? You mentioned FTMO being possibly held accountable for past activity. If so wouldn’t all props in these countries be closed down due to this? I have little knowledge of the topic so I’m just trying to understand what all of this would mean in the future.
Dow is pure easy money if their isn't any 30% consistency rule i would have made 400% in last 4 days clear setups free money.

1. First dow goes up 70-80 points in asian then you know london going to smack it down below the day open then Nyopen will make it fly and then a big retrace candle between 12m-2pm and then retrace back up till the end of the day.... this is how its been for few days.
Attached Image(s) (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: Screenshot 2024-06-07 at 2.15.49 PM.png Size: 74 KB
Click to Enlarge Name: Screenshot 2024-06-07 at 2.19.40 PM.png Size: 57 KB
Extreme gut feeling trader
Quoting Stoneyrocks
{quote} then 5ers is the safest bet around…?
Maybe, I think this is where brokers step in with existing licenses.
Quoting Tobiazzek
{quote} So the props operating In US and EU/UK are going to need licensing( which I imagine only a few will get like FTMO FXIFY or ACG) and they will need to cut leverage. I guess also even something like 5ers will have to have certain licenses to be able to onboard clients from these countries. Are there other additional things that will come out of this? You mentioned FTMO being possibly held accountable for past activity. If so wouldn’t all props in these countries be closed down due to this? I have little knowledge of the topic so I’m just trying...
Anyone operating in the jurisdictions where the regulator is forming these (legal) opinions will be subject to past scrutiny. Futures or forex, doesn't matter. Unless someone fights them and wins but thats both expensive, time consuming and lengthy.
Quoting Takisd
{quote} Anyone operating in the jurisdictions where the regulator is forming these (legal) opinions will be subject to past scrutiny. Futures or forex, doesn't matter. Unless someone fights them and wins but thats both expensive, time consuming and lengthy.
Hummm..... that's a good point because it's not the case of new laws (which could not be retroactive) but more an interpretation of laws already existent (and though applicable).
Quoting Capablanca
{quote} Hummm..... that's a good point because it's not the case of new laws (which could not be retroactive) but more an interpretation of laws already existent (and though applicable).
A friend was trying to get in via new frame work, the regulators response is "we can fit this into existing frame work" although that framework is flawed for the prop model and in that place there are props operating. Which would mean they are illegal. The proposed was far more prop specific and safe for consumers (reserves, disclosures, revenue from trading as well as fees etc.)

The one thing that I think would really nail the coffin of prop is KYC upfront before purchase. Its expensive - you pay even for failed KYC. We know a bunch of props are happy bot users, you could bot someones kyc process to bankruptcy. The crossover between existing frame work and prop operations is flimsy at best, but maybe the idea is to punish those of the past an thats why new framework wont be written? I have heard of lobbying from brokers in the ESMA to get rid of props as well as the US. But its all speculation as the regulator is neither being transparent nor presenting its ideas/opinions publicly for the consumers to decide. So until something finally appears, we guess.
Quoting Expo33
{quote} So some random no name trader scrub didn't get paid because he broke the rules and says 95% of traders aren't getting paid with zero evidence to prove that. Thx for enlightening us Maybe you should stick to the one thing you're good at; tickling Karl's testicles.
My favorite is phantomtrader clown with her "Someone in another group told me" and "The group I'm in is reliable."

Totally believable


EDIT: If you notice, its only two people tugging on each other, much like here.
Trade with confidence, trade without fear.
Quoting Cryptosurf
{quote} My favorite is phantomtrader clown with her "Someone in another group told me" and "The group I'm in is reliable." Totally believable EDIT: If you notice, its only two people tugging on each other, much like here.
Yes, according to our 2 resident experts..........all forex props are a scam and all futures props are great except the ones they don't like.
Quoting Takisd
{quote} A friend was trying to get in via new frame work, the regulators response is "we can fit this into existing frame work" although that framework is flawed for the prop model and in that place there are props operating. Which would mean they are illegal. The proposed was far more prop specific and safe for consumers (reserves, disclosures, revenue from trading as well as fees etc.) The one thing that I think would really nail the coffin of prop is KYC upfront before purchase. Its expensive - you pay even for failed KYC. We know a bunch of...
Damn that doesn't sound good, looks like all we can hope for is that on the forex side at least FTMO and 5ers survive, and topstep and apex on futures side... If not then the trading business is gonna become even harder.
Quoting Tobiazzek
{quote} Damn that doesn't sound good, looks like all we can hope for is that on the forex side at least FTMO and 5ers survive, and topstep and apex on futures side... If not then the trading business is gonna become even harder.
Prop firms don’t necessarily make trading any easier, the disciplined learned should follow with you to your own private account.

IMO people really shouldn’t attach themselves solely to any of these firms for long term financial dependence. They are there to provide capital for your own private account.
Trade with confidence, trade without fear.
I am not doing FX things at the moment as its an election year ( I consult other data related things as well ). But I can say without question that brokerage data and prop data is the same the only difference is the position size and the traders being less likely to take losses before a stop loss / at all. If a UK or EU broker is saying that 70% of traders lose money (which doesnt mean 30% make money as there are a lot of break even traders) then the actual traders with some sort of calculated edge in prop is less than 1%. The chances of someone making money from a prop or from a broker is likely the same, the difference is scale and upfront risk only.
Quoting Takisd
I am not doing FX things at the moment as its an election year ( I consult other data related things as well ). But I can say without question that brokerage data and prop data is the same the only difference is the position size and the traders being less likely to take losses before a stop loss / at all. If a UK or EU broker is saying that 70% of traders lose money (which doesnt mean 30% make money as there are a lot of break even traders) then the actual traders with some sort of calculated edge in prop is less than 1%. The chances of someone...
If you are comparing me depositing 10K in a forex broker vs me with a max DD 10K in a 100K prop funded account, I agree.

However, 10K in a forex broker cost me 10K, while in a prop, assuming a $500 challenge, cost me aprox $500 : 50% : 66% = 1.515 (assuming a TP of 10% in phase 1 and 5% in phase 2).
So, overall, even a losing trader can make money in a prop.
Quoting Capablanca
{quote} If you are comparing me depositing 10K in a forex broker vs me with a max DD 10K in a 100K prop funded account, I agree. However, 10K in a forex broker cost me 10K, while in a prop, assuming a $500 challenge, cost me aprox $500 : 50% : 66% = 1.515 (assuming a TP of 10% in phase 1 and 5% in phase 2). So, overall, even a losing trader can make money in a prop.
Yes the upfront risk is the difference.
If I want to keep an index position in Apex for several days, am I right in assuming that I can close the position everyday a bit before 17:00 ET and reopen it at 18:00 ET ?

Of course I would suffer commission, slippage and open gap (positive or negative) everyday but I don't think they prevent this, right ?
Quoting Capablanca
If I want to keep an index position in Apex for several days, am I right in assuming that I can close the position everyday a bit before 17:00 ET and reopen it at 18:00 ET ? Of course I would suffer commission, slippage and open gap (positive or negative) everyday but I don't think they prevent this, right ?
You can, nothing wrong with that.
Trade with confidence, trade without fear.
Quoting Takisd
But its all speculation as the regulator is neither being transparent nor presenting its ideas/opinions publicly for the consumers to decide. So until something finally appears, we guess.
-This is a big problem that we currently see repeatedly unfolding here in the States... instead of regulators assisting businesses that are seeking guidance, they are, instead, acting purely as enforcers even when it is obviously clear that some companies are eager to satisfy regulatory compliance requirements and are desperate for clarification.

This is not the way that things should be. This creates an us vs. them mentality, while slowly distorting ideals regarding what sort of role regulators should actually be playing. We have seen the dirty tactics played out by both, the SEC and the CFTC as of late, as a result of this currently-mutated perspective. Using blanket regulation and retroactive enforcement is not (should not be) the solution here.

Any decisions made regarding regulation in this area need to be carefully considered because the carryover implications could be very serious, and once that door becomes open, it becomes very difficult to close. Given the current climate, it seems very likely that certain agendas and interest groups are at play here, that do not carry our best interests in mind. My hope would be that any decision made by affected businesses to forfeit their position in an attempt to avoid costly legal battles, would not be done so lightly.
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-This is a big problem that we currently see repeatedly unfolding here in the States... instead of regulators assisting businesses that are seeking guidance, they are, instead, acting purely as enforcers even when it is obviously clear that some companies are eager to satisfy regulatory compliance requirements and are desperate for clarification. This is not the way that things should be. This creates an us vs. them mentality, while slowly distorting ideals regarding what sort of role regulators should actually be playing. We have seen the...
More like prosecution than enforcement. They stalk potential victims for a shakedown.

I remember Brian Armstrong discussing how they had a SEC person in their (Coinbase) office for months, working with them so they could stay on the right side, only to get blindsided by a lawsuit and demanding user’s information.

Was nothing more then a fishing expedition for the SEC in search of way to extort money from them.
Trade with confidence, trade without fear.
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-This is a big problem that we currently see repeatedly unfolding here in the States... instead of regulators assisting businesses that are seeking guidance, they are, instead, acting purely as enforcers even when it is obviously clear that some companies are eager to satisfy regulatory compliance requirements and are desperate for clarification. This is not the way that things should be. This creates an us vs. them mentality, while slowly distorting ideals regarding what sort of role regulators should actually be playing. We have seen the...
ALL executive agencies (most of which are unconstitutional and should not exist) have become like this. It's systemic.
Quoting Cryptosurf
I remember Brian Armstrong discussing how they had a SEC person in their (Coinbase) office for months, working with them so they could stay on the right side, only to get blindsided by a lawsuit and demanding user’s information. Was nothing more then a fishing expedition for the SEC in search of way to extort money from them.
-Yes. I remember him talking about that. And although I try to approach these things with an objective, open mind, understanding that there are always multiple sides to every story, and that some of these companies may say one thing while actually doing another etc., I also see certain, highly-questionable actions carried out by various regulatory groups that cannot simply be misinterpreted as something else.
Quoting Takisd
{quote} Maybe, I think this is where brokers step in with existing licenses.
So couldn't the brokers that have props like 5ers, FXIFY, ICmarkets just have the offering through their actual broker page instead of ex ICmarkets having a whole different thing set up like ICFunded when the EU etc would decide that props have to be regulated? And have the offering within the standards of the EU laws?
34 traders viewing now, 5 are members:
,
,
tianlu
,
,
maltrader