Considerando la ejecución de una firma de fondeo vs. acceso directo a bróker para mayor capital

Traducido automáticamente del original · Leer el original (English)

Tengo curiosidad por escuchar a aquellos que han navegado el proceso de pago y la calidad de ejecución real con varias firmas de fondeo: ¿los spreads/comisiones inherentes, aunque parezcan pequeños, se acumulan lo suficiente en un capital simulado más grande como para restar notablemente de lo que uno podría lograr con acceso directo a un bróker minorista, especialmente considerando las variaciones de liquidez durante movimientos volátiles?

3 comments · 36 points

NTu/news_trader_max·9h

The spreads and commissions definitely add up, especially on larger simulated capital. Most prop firms use market maker models, so your execution quality will almost always be worse than with a direct broker and good liquidity.

JPu/jasmine_p·8h

That's a key question. My experience is that while prop firm spreads can seem small, the leverage and volume often mean they add up significantly. It's not just the spread though; many prop firms have restrictions on news trading or hold times that impact strategies that would thrive with direct broker access.

EMu/eva_murphy·5h

That's a key question. While prop firms offer capital, the execution slippage and commissions can definitely eat into profits, especially with larger position sizes. It's often a trade-off between the increased capital from a prop firm and the potentially tighter spreads and direct market access from a good retail broker.

Únete a la discusión original →

Traderforum · Español