Scalpingtrader 

Thanks @NinjaTrader. Then maybe @Earn2Trade should do some investigating on where exactly their issue is with NT platform and margins, as they seem to be unable to reproduce this as described (see their website as linked below) and seem to believe that this is a software limitation (in combination with Rithmic). https://help.earn2trade.com/platform/how-does-margin-work-with-ninjatrader Would be awesome if you guys could clarify/resolve this topic! Cheers, ST.

The only time extra margin would not be required when using an ATM strategy with Rithmic is if the order is being held locally and has not yet been submitted to Rithmic.

Earn2Trade 

Please see: https://help.earn2trade.com/platform/how-does-margin-work-with-ninjatrader. This has already been discussed, in depth, with NT support staff, NT brokerage staff, and Rithmic.

Maybe there was a misunderstanding or misinformation somewhere along the line, but as I understand it, my statement is not incorrect.

Rithmic RMS calculates worst case position. If you are long 1 and the ATM enters a stop and target, you only need $500 margin (for ES). The open position uses $500 and Rithmic RMS calculates the worst case position if both the stop and target are filled. In the worst case event that both orders are filled, the position would reverse resulting in a requirement of $500. Margin requirement = 1 contract, not double.

The only time it appears to require double is when the max leverage is used and the position causes the balance to go under the requirement. In those cases, only 1 order is approved to close the position. The additional order is rejected since there are insufficient funds to cover the 1 contract.

NinjaTrader 

Maybe there was a misunderstanding or misinformation somewhere along the line, but as I understand it, my statement is not incorrect. Rithmic RMS calculates worst case position. If you are long 1 and the ATM enters a stop and target, you only need $500 margin (for ES). The open position uses $500 and Rithmic RMS calculates the worst case position if both the stop and target are filled. In the worst case event that both orders are filled, the position would reverse resulting in a requirement of $500. Margin requirement = 1 contract, not double. The only time it appears to require double is when the max leverage is used and the position causes the balance to go under the requirement. In those cases, only 1 order is approved to close the position. The additional order is rejected since there are insufficient funds to cover the 1 contract.

Before I comment any further, I'm going to try and get an NT license to test this with and show what's happening. If you have one I can use, please PM me so we can get this settled. Of course we would be 1000000% happy if we were incorrect but from our knowledge on a daily basis dealing with clients and directly from the Rithmic owner, this is unfortunately how it appears to be, at least with our setup.

I tested and it worked as we expected it to.

This is on a $25,000 account, with NQ using the maintenance margin of $7000. This should be able to trade 3 contracts of NQ. Which it can, just not with an ATM strategy. NT uses too much margin and it rejects. RTrader/Sierra, or other platforms using server side OCO's can use 3 contracts with a stop and target no problem.

As you can see here, extra margin. A $25k account cannot trade 3 contracts NQ and use an ATM strategy.



3 contracts, $21000 margin (no ATM)





1 Contract, no ATM, $7000





1 Contract, ATM, $14000 (2x)



Thus the reject on 3 with ATM

Thanks for checking.

I realize what you are doing, your account is set up to use SMAC risk settings. It’s a relatively new option with Rithmic, one that NinjaTrader Brokerage does not use.

So to summarize for accuracy, using NinjaTrader with ATM strategy:

A) At NinjaTrader Brokerage and any other FCM that uses worst case position risk in Rithmic RMS, a 1X margin requirement is used

B) Any Rithmic instance that uses the SMAC risk settings are subject to 2X margin requirement

NinjaTrader 

Thanks for checking. I realize what you are doing, your account is set up to use SMAC risk settings. It’s a relatively new option with Rithmic, one that NinjaTrader Brokerage does not use. So to summarize for accuracy, using NinjaTrader with ATM strategy: A) At NinjaTrader Brokerage and any other FCM that uses worst case position risk in Rithmic RMS, a 1X margin requirement is used B) Any Rithmic instance that uses the SMAC risk settings are subject to 2X margin requirement

Not trying to be a pain here but @Earn2Trade - is SMAC absolutely necessary for your purposes?

Earn2Trade 

Thanks for the questions! if you hit your 10% and completely change your trading style to limit your trading until the 60 days it up, this will reflect poorly and you are likely to receive a lower funding offer. To receive the best possible offer you should continue trading with the same style and frequency throughout the entire 60 day period.

As soon as I make the necessary 10% profit, my risk of losing this profit will be many times greater than the reward to improve the conditions of your offer.
There is NO POINT in trading the same style further. We are traders, and we must correctly assess the risks.
"Trade a minimum of 30 Calendar days and once per week"
Is this rule not enough for the trader to show his skills?
Ok, let it be 40 days, but why force it to trade further? This is contrary to common sense.
Change your opinion about this, please
And I will be yours

Scalpingtrader 

Not trying to be a pain here but @Earn2Trade - is SMAC absolutely necessary for your purposes?

And, I would add, what's the point of it? Obviously there has to be one, so what is being accomplished with it? It seems to be an extreme safeguard for the FCM, but apparently is not widely used, because it was described as a new option with Rithmic.

I would add the question, for anyone familiar with it, of whether other FCM's, using Rithmic or not, do something similar. In other words, is it industry standard practice?

Bob.

remarka 

As soon as I make the necessary 10% profit, my risk of losing this profit will be many times greater than the reward to improve the conditions of your offer. There is NO POINT in trading the same style further. We are traders, and we must correctly assess the risks. "Trade a minimum of 30 Calendar days and once per week" Is this rule not enough for the trader to show his skills? Ok, let it be 40 days, but why force it to trade further? This is contrary to common sense. Change your opinion about this, please And I will be yours

You make a good point when you say "we are traders and we must correctly assess the risks". Showing good risk management in general is the key to get the best possible offer, as I believe it has been pointed out here as well. Therefore we can't really blame you for managing your risk, albeit on a different level.

However please try to think about it this way: you are essentially trying to impress the prop firm to get the best offer you can get. What is more impressive? Hitting the bare minimum and stopping there, or showing consistency all the way through? By continuing trading successfully, you are showing them that there was likely no fluke, no luck involved, Earn2trade just caught you on a random 60-day period, which is just as profitable as any other 60-day period would be. Many successful professionals know that you never know what that market is going to give you so they keep on going. I can say I've never seen a successful money manager just stop trading once they hit a certain % on the month, let alone over a 2 months period.

Once again, you make a good point, but Helios has a different viewpoint and it is unlikely to change.

NinjaTrader 

Thanks for checking. I realize what you are doing, your account is set up to use SMAC risk settings. It’s a relatively new option with Rithmic, one that NinjaTrader Brokerage does not use. So to summarize for accuracy, using NinjaTrader with ATM strategy: A) At NinjaTrader Brokerage and any other FCM that uses worst case position risk in Rithmic RMS, a 1X margin requirement is used B) Any Rithmic instance that uses the SMAC risk settings are subject to 2X margin requirement

I tested it last night with other risk algo's too. I'm being told by the person that wrote the Rithmic software (for a 3x position):

"I don't think the algorithm matters, I would expect the same behavior if you use SMAC or Margin and Quantity Limits.

The Target and Stop are both free if you use Rithmic Server Side Brackets. I could be wrong, but I believe that Ninja chooses not to use Rithmic Server Side Brackets, which means if you are using Ninja then it would be 3x for the position + the first exit order is free and the other exit order (i.e. the stop) is not free so another 3x."

I'm going to test it again this morning and report back.