Prop Firm Hub | Page 1009 | Metals Mine

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Anyone trading with a Prop firm 31 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

  • #20,161
  • Sep 2, 2023 6:48pm Sep 2, 2023 6:48pm
Quoting OutThere
{quote} I am tempted to say that maybe it is him who complained but the filing against MFF I am sure has been in the works for a long time. MFF rep just ignored him. I guess they couldn't ignore the regulators the same way.
Plenty of videos on YT now, one stated that the investigation is ongoing for a year or more, they have tons of evidence, emails, the lot, the issue will not be resolved quickly, 90% win rate for CFTC.

So ironic as MFF was the top rated firm, wasn't it? And the concept is great, but they just abused it IMHO.

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: prop_499.jpg Size: 55 KB
It takes a lot for me to IGNORE you, but you can try.
  • #20,162
  • Sep 2, 2023 6:59pm Sep 2, 2023 6:59pm
Quoting Erebus
{quote} Plenty of videos on YT now, one stated that the investigation is ongoing for a year or more, they have tons of evidence, emails, the lot, the issue will not be resolved quickly, 90% win rate for CFTC. So ironic as MFF was the top rated firm, wasn't it? And the concept is great, but they just abused it IMHO. {image}
North of 90% of cases in the US - civil or criminal - don't go to trial. There's pretty good reason to believe this will be resolved relatively quickly in the US.
  • #20,163
  • Sep 2, 2023 7:59pm Sep 2, 2023 7:59pm
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: image_2023-09-03_025906593.png Size: 10 KB
  • #20,164
  • Sep 2, 2023 8:36pm Sep 2, 2023 8:36pm
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: unnamed.jpg Size: 41 KB

government control
people leave, but this thread will go on for ever
  • #20,165
  • Sep 2, 2023 8:37pm Sep 2, 2023 8:37pm
Quoting Erebus
{quote} Plenty of videos on YT now, one stated that the investigation is ongoing for a year or more, they have tons of evidence, emails, the lot, the issue will not be resolved quickly, 90% win rate for CFTC. So ironic as MFF was the top rated firm, wasn't it? And the concept is great, but they just abused it IMHO. {image}
yes it was about the cash nothing else
people leave, but this thread will go on for ever
  • #20,166
  • Sep 2, 2023 8:38pm Sep 2, 2023 8:38pm
Quoting 1odi
{image}
  • #20,167
  • Sep 2, 2023 9:24pm Sep 2, 2023 9:24pm
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}
u reckon that s bad thing? if they do that, i d imagine they re just gonna thro in the margin required, 10k for 100k and so on to represent to buying power.. it s the only way but..they might take a hit with the amount of traders failing when they reach funded. still, there are ways to mitigate that risk i think
  • #20,168
  • Sep 2, 2023 9:27pm Sep 2, 2023 9:27pm
I don't see this as coming to a mutual settlement and no prosecution... The govt has MFF "Dead to Rights" it will be a slam dunk case for them. They will squash what remains of MFF like a Freight train running over an ant. Thats the size and power of the Feds.

They will make an example out of MFF...taking out the #1 firm... will be a feather in their cap and accomplish another objective of scaring the shit out of others in the industry..which we already see knee jerk reactions happening from other firms..

Had to laugh at that MyfundedFx CEO... Talking it up about being proactive and they have the top US regulation lawyers...bullshit... He closed Canada in a knee jerk reaction... Reactive to the MFF news...not Proactive ..

And if you have the Top US lawyers...yep sure buddy small biz and you have the best...the best aren't tied up with Wall street firms etc...they are working for you..ok Matt lol... If you had top US regulation lawyers.... You think they would just now say shut down Canada... Maybe a Canadian lawyer ?? . And they would suggest to change your model to STP...

Twitter Land is quite the place.. for fantasy.. scammers abound in "X"landia...

And to those dreaming about getting any money out of MFF or the govt... Give it up ..you would be lucky to get back a fraction of what a challenge cost.. profits are not real...it's 90+% demo money...they are gone...

Cheers and stay safe the sharks are swirling close by ...
Master your Mind,,,Master the Market
  • #20,169
  • Sep 2, 2023 9:51pm Sep 2, 2023 9:51pm
As the attack the idea of daily and max draw downs, if mff falls here, any and all other firms will follow. So this is a land mark case for all of us prop traders.
Trading is gambling. So gamble responsibly.
  • #20,170
  • Sep 2, 2023 9:57pm Sep 2, 2023 9:57pm
Quoting Erebus
It's a hot topic for sure https://youtu.be/aqCU_ugBqn4?si=20lpvFjfhyB5y8Hx
Yes Erebus, the Hottest topic in fx world by far.
Kathy puts it well. Funny how people are not seeing it for the logic put forth.

A previous, similar, but very different matter that was settled and agreement to disgorgement.
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-142
  • #20,171
  • Edited 10:27pm Sep 2, 2023 10:05pm | Edited 10:27pm
Quoting Sovy
As the attack the idea of daily and max draw downs, if mff falls here, any and all other firms will follow. So this is a land mark case for all of us prop traders.
i doubt that. i don t think the US regulator had the oportunity to go after all the US props but instead they decided to hunt just MFF and give the others time to adjust, bail or whatever. this seems more like a case of unhappy employee or customer(s) that complained and with the elections coming etc wouldn t hurt.
think about Funding Talent, same discussions people were having here, all hell broke loose, end of props and so on...i don t recall exactly how many years ago was that.
plus now, some of the smart propfirm owners have again a chance to adjust, relocate, change terms, wordings and so on if they didn t learn that form FT fiasco.
also i think it might bring a bit of fear into the props that still wanna do bussiness in paying out traders, stop with some of the IP shenaningans for instance and so on..when they realise that all it takes are a few complaints and once ur in the crossfire of a regulatory body..it s all downhill from there.
IF MFF survives in some way, and that s a big IF in my opinion, they lost all credibility anyways and bussiness will be so scarce that the ll have a tough time staying afloat. i for 1 know i wouldn t sign up with them after all of this. anyways, we ll see what happens but Panic is never good.
  • #20,172
  • Sep 2, 2023 10:06pm Sep 2, 2023 10:06pm
Quoting 1odi
u reckon that s bad thing?
-A lot of things can be said about Matt at this point, in terms of his business decisions and behavior. I will refrain from that.

I think that what he is proposing will essentially equate to traditional prop. Meaning licensing requirements and long, drawn-out screening processes. No more quick and easy challenges. It is an entirely different model that most traders will not and cannot consider.
  • #20,173
  • Sep 2, 2023 10:14pm Sep 2, 2023 10:14pm
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-A lot of things can be said about Matt at this point, in terms of his business decisions and behavior. I will refrain from that. I think that what he is proposing will essentially equate to traditional prop. Meaning licensing requirements and long, drawn-out screening processes. No more quick and easy challenges. It is an entirely different model that most traders will not and cannot consider.
i really doubt that but ofc remains to be seen. why? cos he knows he ll ose a lot of market share, signups=money lost on trying to keep something afloat that might not be so profitable in the long run considering that he has opened the MFFx futures also. but hey, could be like u say, u never know. also, if he can mitigate the risk from those traders that fail once funded (now with real account>marging etc) it might be a viable solution specially since they are located in US. so a knock on the door from the regulators is very concerning considering also he amount of people that throw money at challenges, fail cos they don t know what they re doing or are trading news and that s the end of it, and end up blaming the prop as beeing a scam. most of these people suffer from GOD complex> meaning if they can t trade no1 can, an it s probably a scam. what can u do...
  • #20,174
  • Sep 2, 2023 10:15pm Sep 2, 2023 10:15pm
Quoting FocusWinReal
{quote} Yes Erebus, the Hottest topic in fx world by far. Kathy puts it well. Funny how people are not seeing it for the logic put forth. A previous, similar, but very different matter that was settled and agreement to disgorgement. https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-142
I don't have a dog in this fight, so from here on out, I'm a silent observer.

Cheers

It takes a lot for me to IGNORE you, but you can try.
  • #20,175
  • Sep 2, 2023 10:16pm Sep 2, 2023 10:16pm
Quoting 1odi
i really doubt that
-You doubt what, exactly? I am having trouble following your comment.
  • #20,176
  • Sep 2, 2023 10:17pm Sep 2, 2023 10:17pm
Quoting Erebus
{quote} I don't have a dog in this fight, so from here on out, I'm a silent observer. Cheers
Nor do I.
All the best.
  • #20,177
  • Sep 2, 2023 10:18pm Sep 2, 2023 10:18pm
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-You doubt what, exactly? I am having trouble following your comment.
i doubt that he s shooting for a traditional prop model. and np
  • #20,178
  • Sep 2, 2023 10:34pm Sep 2, 2023 10:34pm
Quoting 1odi
{quote} i doubt that. i don t think the US regulator had the oportunity to go after all the US props but instead they decided to hunt just MFF and give the others time to adjust, bail or whatever. this seems more like a case of unhappy employee or customer(s) that complained and with the elections coming etc wouldn t hurt. think about Funding Talent, same discussions people were having here, all hell broke loose, end of props and so on...i don t recall exactly how many years ago was that. plus now, some of the smart propfirm owners have again a...
I hope you're right.

I like propfirms and i like the idea that they are also regulated to the sense that it makes it safe to trade in.
Trading is gambling. So gamble responsibly.
  • #20,179
  • Sep 2, 2023 10:38pm Sep 2, 2023 10:38pm
Quoting Sovy
{quote} I hope you're right. I like propfirms and i like the idea that they are also regulated to the sense that it makes it safe to trade in.
who knows at this point? most of us are speculating, atleast i know i am. but, that s just what makes more sence to me. i liked MFF, and it had a nice track record, was considered reputable but now after all of those emails and.. it s just 2 much to ignore imho. but hey, that s just me. who knows what the future will bring..
  • #20,180
  • Edited 11:03pm Sep 2, 2023 10:41pm | Edited 11:03pm
Quoting 1odi
i doubt that he s shooting for a traditional prop model. and np
-I think that a traditional prop is what it would need to be. 100% of all trades getting pushed to market means that they would need to financially-back every single trader with real money. A traditional prop approach would be necessary to ensure that only good traders make it through the screening process.

Most traders fail, so the only way that I could see this working without doing a traditional prop approach, would be if the firm partnered with a B-book broker that agreed to pay out 100% of whatever profits the broker gains from trading against the firm's traders (so that the firm could not lose their own money when bad traders fail), and then the firm paying the broker 100% of whatever profits that the broker has to pay out to the few, successful traders (so that the broker does not lose money).

This would likely require an insurance fund that is placed in escrow to protect the broker. This would require a great deal of up-front capital by the firm, assuming that any sane broker would even agree to this.

This would ensure that the firm only pays out of pocket when good traders come through, at which point, those traders would eventually be A-booked so that the firm no longer loses money with them. Meanwhile, the bulk of the bad traders would generate profit for the firm as the broker pays out whatever profits are earned from B-booking them.

I really cannot see this ever happening. I do not know why a broker would agree to this. I do not even know if any of this would even be possible. This would essentially allow the firm to act as a middle-man broker without actually being a broker, while also letting the actual broker do all of the work while letting you piggy-back off of their efforts.

Maybe I am wrong.
51 traders viewing now