99.99999% lose money

95-99% of losing is some what exaggerated. That stat must include all the not serious, casual players who enjoy trading as an entertainment. I remember Oanda once said 40% of their accounts were profitable. (The exact stat may not be accurate). Kathy Lien also once mentioned traders in countries allow lower leverage have higher percentage of being profitable (50% in Honkong or Singapore?) For details, you may want to do some Google keyword search.

100% of winning traders lose money. I had 3 losers last week. Not a big deal this time as they were all .01 lot losses. But still proves the point. Everyone loses, sometimes;-)

Question is are you making money in Forex?? If you are than it doesn't matter how many are losing. Why would you care?
On the other hand, if you are not making money you are part of the majority. All you have do is NOT DO what the majority is doing. How many are losing is still not relevant. Who cares??

The comments are actually sad.

Hell if I know somebody who wants to learn to trade, I'll tell him to have a better business.

You need at least 5++ year to get good on trading. I learn programming for two years and the monthly payment gives me more than my monthly forex of 8 years experiences (see my joined date). The demanded learning effort to be good on trading is just too high.

It's not about the statistic of how many %tage. It's about the effort to get the return money. And in the end, you feel suck when trading because you give very little benefit to the world, added, the frustation on how unstable your income are.

Tho, there will be many who disagree with my view, as it ruin their imagination of becoming sensational rich in no time.

Yes you can become rich in no time, yes you can be good in one or two year, but the percentage of people who can do it is very slim, just like how it's hard to get famously followed on instagram. You need a very amazing luck.

If you who alr trade for 2~3 years and still get a consecutive losing month/barely break even, you must familiar to this. And like my old me, too embarassed to acknowledge it publicly. Because you don't have anything to show beside one or two winning trade with lots of pips and percentage but still in a bad montly income performance, hoping the future will be better.

For thos who are still starting, I may say to search for a better business.

God Bless

'Lose', not 'loose'.

It's always the same story. Like in trading, it all depends of the TIME FRAME. Quarterly, there are on average around 40% of profitable traders. On the LONG RUN, far less, because a lot of them will be in the 60% of loosers some quarters in the future, usually for bigger losses than what they won previously.

give me the budget to open that restaurant and watch me success in couple of months or years,
give me 5 trillion dollar and watch me success in this game u called business and be sure that you wont give me less than 5 trillion dollar

comparing real life business to a hustlers game is creepy

p.s
even with 5 trillion dollars my capital is still at risk unless i buy a few things and a few guys, ok now you know how some hustlers rule this game

by the way how much restaurant open and close facing big loss in your country over a year ?!

Absolutely right. I didn't think of it like that. In fact we lose money every single time we open a trade!

1. 98.1% of speculative, leveraged retail forex traders lose money over a time period > 5 years.
2. There is in enough evidence available that not only fits forex, but more or less all forms of speculative trading
3. This number can be proven mathematically by using just a very simple efficient market, zero sum, trading cost model....it's amazing how well account statistics can be simulated by such a simply model over all participants as a group - making it highly probable that the model is valid and can indeed explain why speculative traders lose money and at what pace depending on which factors.
4. It can further more visualize what luck can do even over longer time periods....and if we come into the range of less than 1% winners looking a long periodes, the winners seem to have a tendency to forget the influence of luck in their overal results....and call it (often mistankenly) skill.
5. The shovel sellers have a very much higher probabilty to achieve profits than the gold diggers..... that's similar in forex.
6. The average retail trader wipes out his account in < 6 months
7. Some quit, some become addicted to forex gambling and continue to lose, till their lives seriously detoriate.
8. Even if a trader has a positive history of 5 years, most studies show that looking a the following years, his "success" can't be projected into the future. Past performance is no indicator of future results..... you know this sentence, don't you? And there is overwelming evidence and good reason why this statement has to included wenn selling investment products of all kinds....

Why:

1. Over all participants forex is a zero sum game.
2. From a retail trader perspective, including trading costs (spread, slippage, commissions, rollover asymmetry, etc), forex is a negative sum game.
3. If you trade with a market maker, a bucket shop etc. it isn't just a negative sum game.....it is a 100% chance to lose everything hard and fast.
4. The more leverage you apply, the faster the negative expectancy will hit you....even the biggest amount of luck won't last forever.
5. The main function of a functioning market is to kill edges (that may temporarly exist - inefficiencies)
6. To come up with new edges that hasn't yet weared of, you have to invest huge efforts to generate them....the more efficient the market becomes, the more difficult it will become to generate new edges..... that a retail trader can discover a real edge in 2018 seems to be quite low....from a logical point of view it was far easier to come of with an edge 30 years ago than do so today.
7. Therefore only the most significant market design based edges available to retail traders do not wear of over time....however, these edges are all of the kind that do not allow a participant to generate huge profits and can't be scaled by using leverage. If this would be the case, the market would become very instable and collaps over a relative short period of time, because money would be shifted exponentially towards those using such an edge..... I never saw a retailer bringing an market to the point of collaps by using such an edge....although in theory it can be easily shown that only a small edge combined with
8. Not all participants have speculative motives to participate....trading un- or underleveraged can be an edge that allows you to gain in the long run from the cohort of participants that apply leverage, even after trading costs and is probably the biggest edge of all in the long run.
9. However, to use this edge you need significant capital and the profit you can achieve in terms of percentage is limited to the amount of dumb speculative money taking the other side of your long term trades..... this should make sense to everbody that approaches the problem with a little bit of logic.

From a retailer perspective currency markets are highly efficient. The business models of broker are all designed to enhance their chance against you beyond the clearly visible edges they have through market making, spreads, rollovers, leverage etc. You might gain against some subgroups of participants (p.e. other retailers), but you will by design lose against participants with edges regarding leverage, speed, information.....however, this is often a death by thousand cuts and you won't recognize what happens to you with your natural given senses.

What other business would you conduct that has such a lousy chance of generating profits? ..... None!
So don't wast your time and money trading retail forex.
For 99.99% of you this is a priceless advice.

Try commodities lol.....

after 2 hours of video, get what he ment

I saw him years ago doing a nasty, misleading sales pitch for the dodgiest outfit I have ever seen. Which is ironic.

Yeah, I saw that too.

I guess even for professional, trading alone is not a very good business either

It's very hard like any other business. You think rich people sit in the office taking naps all day. These guys work their ass off every single day. The same in trading, this is hard work. It gets even harder as your account grows, you go from risking $1000 per trade to 5000, 20000,50000. The burden just becomes bigger day by day. At a point in my growth curve I stopped compounding. I couldn't manage a million dollar account like I did a 50-100k

The only interesting topic was the Goldman Sachs annual 10K report , how much money (millions) they made on average per day with pure trading.

That is true, you pay commission and the spread on the bid/ask. So really every trade starts as a loser.

How you manage your losers is the difference between success and failure. In every venture in life.

It doesn't matter how much people are losing money. That fact is what you are doing. This statistics doesn't make one successful or loser. In every industry Millons of people are entering but very few are getting success.

Absolutely right people personalize failure in the market but the truth is failure is the nature of every single endeavor of man. Think about the number of people trying to make it as a singer, pianist, actor, or other businesses.

some people make money but its not high.
give people leverage and ego and its a doomed project to start.