95%. However, the success rate of woman are higher than 5 percent.
Http://vantagepointtrading.com/archives/13922
The reason is mentality and ego of men are dominating in nature. Most men never learn from errors or have a wrong mindset. Girls who come to commerce are much more readily able to learn and more determined to win. It is a interesting read.
Good thread.
I get tired of studying things like Each time that I open a commerce it moves against me, my broker has to be a scam! Or even better yet, Fore is a scam.
Or things like, I was winning but the broker started to widen spread etc and I lost it all. At what point did what you stop and think instead of blaming something else? Id say never. It's so much more easy to find a reason for your failure other.
The 95% of traders lose figure's been around for a very long time with no actual proof. Only assumptions. But if you are currently loosing it makes it simple to warrant your loosing is due to the fact that your part of that and effortless to believe. If 95 percent where you and winners kept loosing im sure you'd be saying that amount can not be true.
When studying threads and hearing how folks trade it's simple and actually a great learning tool to see how not to trade. Forex isn't simple, and I think the mistake is made that it's and therefore when you loose you start to feel something else must be causing it, and simply can not comprehend this.
And is this 95% calculated precisely anyway? Could it be the proportion of people who loose everything or simply a little then stop trying? Lets say somebody trades 0.01 lots in their initial year to clinic, makes a yearly loss but begins to win in their second year of trading all whilst someone else is just beginning their journey...
And like one of the posts stated, usually people who earn big bucks dont go around telling people about it. They dont need to as you could tell by looking at them and their lifestyle generally.
It is easier to believe something if you can imagine it and so in the event that you read post after post of unwanted remarks regarding fore along with the huge proportion of losers then you are likely to start to feel this is reality and that a destined to fail. Anything more would just be luck.
Why would anyone buy lottery tickets but scoff at the mention of trading Currency Market? Because of all the positive stories regarding wining the lottery. People may create this connection. You dont hear lots of stories about 99% of people loosing at the lottery, just about the 1 percent who win.
But just stop and think and compare to different matters. Lets say you wish to become an expert sportsman or woman. What percentage go pro and make a livelihood out of it although these people today train all there life? Im sure its quite similar.
Or how about becoming a business CEO. Just how many individuals actually begin at the bottom and work their way up to become CEO of a big business? Anyway, ill try and wind up my rant here...
Great thread. .:
Lots of detailed insights.
In Post#1, HedgePiglet basically says..Heres some annual figures that demone that the proposal that 95% of traders loose money is Boloney?
The data provided are part of the returns by major Fx retail broker (US) to CFTC, for the profitibility of their customer profile at EoY.
It doesnt include largely less controlled non US brokers or the raft of under/unregulated bucketshops that populate the larger marketplace. **
The odds from the data, suggest that, on average, in the event of retail traders employing these greatest, most regulated and most reliable brokers,
ONLY two in every 3 will loose money in any given calendar year. Not 95%.
However, the proposal 95% of traders loose money doesnt cite a time scale? And IMHO supposes the qualifier with Time.
Quite simply it refers a comparison of the equity realised on departing the account together with the equity and funding theyve invested in the course of managing the account... further discounted by their own price of labour and the prevailing Risk-Free rate.
So while the data is persuasive in an annual circumstance, it doesnt prove what I understand to be the significance of this 95% proposal.
That would require data on % of account holders which CLOSED their accounts with less capital than invested over the trading period of the account, in the previous calendar year, and potentially and the average age of those accounts. Accessible but not printed stats.
What may be INFERRED. . Not proven is that when compounded over 3/5 years that the 65% reduction rate could lead to a figure to the mythical 95% compared to 65% indied by the data provided. And that I think is the point.
Sadly Mr HedgePiglet, far from proving your situation the CFTC figures instead contradict it.
However, lets face it. . Does it really matter?
The quote 95% of retail traders loose money. . Isnt a statistic, or a Urban Myth refuted or to be proven. .
Its a proxy for sayinglong term. .
Retail Fx trading for the huge majority, is a mugs game.
Have I missed something?
** See recent and Polish French reports.
Few links to information that covers the subject and may allow you to avoid the expensive mistake of leveraged Foreign Exchange trading:
http://www.financemagnates.com/forex...accounts-down/
http://www.theforexguy.com/forex-traders-lose-money/
http://thereformedbroker.com/2011/04...-boiler-rooms/
....
If you unwrap the fine hundreds of millions USD per year marketing hull around retail Foreign Exchange the one thing that stays is gonna be your pain in the long run!
Keep smiling!