Prop Firm Combines- looking at the criteria these firms use- do you think any fund well known managers' results would actually fall in line with these expectations? It seems- they are trying to cherry pick the outrageous unicorn return generators- while the egos of the less accomplished continue to re-up their accounts monthly resulting in steady income for the Prop firm. Any thoughts...

Prop Firm Combines- looking at the criteria these firms use- do you think any well known fund managers' results would actually fall in line with these expectations?

It seems- they are trying to cherry pick the outrageous unicorn return generators- while the egos of the less accomplished continue to re-up their accounts monthly resulting in steady income for the Prop firm. Any thoughts...

Is winning a trading contest a path to managing outside money? Did you ever consider it? IS there a market for good returns (better then the index averages) but with a higher risk profile? I know you know first hand, I'd appreciate the feedback.

I have never traded other people's money, but my impression is that winning a trading contest could only go so far in impressing people. It is name recognition, for sure. But people who invest in funds tend to care more about risk than most retail traders - and controlling risk is exactly the opposite of what the contest measures.

I have considered managing OPM, but many fund managers I know spend more time either gathering new funds, or trying to keep existing funds, than actually trading. Much more marketing than trading. And that is not really what I want to do.

In my case, winning the trading contest lead to a book deal which then opened the door to all kinds of investors and traders seeking me out. My initial book, and subsequent books, are what really "sells" me to to the world - much more than winning the contest - but the contest notoriety is what opened the door.

Hope I explained it well.

No, because aren't the vast majority of the funding companies day trading only where as any fund managers or well known funds I can think of aren't getting flat at the end of each day.



Sounds like the perfect business model to me. Traders actually pay to take a test which is made hard enough to prevent the majority of them being given the opportunity to lose the company money. And as for the ones that pass, if you were backing people with your money wouldn't you do the same, create the rules to try and only pick the best few that you think have the most chance of generating a return with the lowest risk to yourself?

(If these funding companies were the only way for a retail trader to be able to access the markets I guess it could be described as a scam or at least unfair as the majority wouldn't be able to pass or stay funded. But they aren't the only way. People choose to pay to take the tests for whatever their reasons and those who don't like the rules or aren't interested open their own accounts instead. The more options for people to be able to trade if they want to the better as far as I am concerned).

Are there any of these firms that allow swing trading?

Prop Firm Combines- looking at the criteria these firms use- do you think any well known fund managers' results would actually fall in line with these expectations? It seems- they are trying to cherry pick the outrageous unicorn return generators- while the egos of the less accomplished continue to re-up their accounts monthly resulting in steady income for the Prop firm. Any thoughts...