Menu
Sister Sites

Options

Bookmark Thread

First Page First Unread Last Page Last Post

Print Thread

Similar Threads

List of Brokers taking U.S. Clients with hedging, scalping and no FIFO 314 replies

Overseas brokers who take U.S. clients? 3 replies

Another 11 brokers sued for accepting US clients 4 replies

Worried about losing money stored at the brokers account? 6 replies

Attachments: Official percentage of clients losing money (EU brokers)
Exit Attachments

Official percentage of clients losing money (EU brokers)

Are these figures for one year?How many lost at more than one broker?Where are the figures for , how many lost over 3 ,4,5,10 years?

Have you got the actual criteria of these calculations? What about those lost money buying education,books,seminars,scams, EAS , indicators, broker bankruptcy and forex frauds?The good progress is all the education ,books, indicators, eas are free or will all become free soon.

It really will be interesting to see your response.
Your post does not make sense in regard to the intention of the thread to simply share and summarize informations which are available for public.

I do not see any productive input to this topic from your side. Please go and play elsewhere.

*Ignored*
Quoting loozers
{quote} What transparency?How many lose in the following years?How many lose at several brokers? The numbers are much higher .All the forums have many many countless 95 % lose threads.
I don't agree with your train of thought sorry!

If I lost loads of money trading, it would give me great comfort to know I was not alone, or even that I was one of the 95% who also lost (and even more comfort to tell myself that the whole thing is rigged against me). Therefore I have never believed the 95% bandied about on trading forums.

Now, most people probably believe they are in the top 25%-ish of any endeavour. That is to say most people over-estimate their abilities. To be told that they are in the 75% who lose and not the 95%, well that tells them they are not as good as they thought they were. Most of us don't like to be told that.

Successful trading means having taken a long hard look at ourselves, warts and all. Most people really don't want to do that. Hence the 95% figure will be repeated again and again, no matter how many studies come out stating much more realistic figures.
Can anyone find the numbers for interactive brokers UK? I cant..
Quoting shrike
Can anyone find the numbers for interactive brokers UK? I cant..
AFAIK they are not regulated within the EU. That would explain, why they do not have to publish their values (but they are most likely comparable).
Their UK subsidiary is in the EU and has european retail clients. Im sure the numers are somewhere in the dozens of disclosure docs on their website..
Quoting shrike
Their UK subsidiary is in the EU and has european retail clients. Im sure the numers are somewhere in the dozens of disclosure docs on their website..
"Beeing" in the EU and accepting EU retail clients does not necessarily mean they are EU-regulated! Take all the offshorebrokers and scammers for example.
Quoting shrike
Can anyone find the numbers for interactive brokers UK? I cant..
Very likely to be in the same ballpark as the others...
Quoting Drolph
{quote} "Beeing" in the EU and accepting EU retail clients does not necessarily mean they are EU-regulated! Take all the offshorebrokers and scammers for example.

Uuh yes it does. You can also check the FCA register, where they are listed as authorized/regulated. In case this is unclear: offshore brokers arent domiciled in EU by definition.
Quoting shrike
{quote} Uuh yes it does. You can also check the FCA register, where they are listed as authorized/regulated. In case this is unclear: offshore brokers arent domiciled in EU by definition.
Did not check by myself, just gave you a possible explanation for brokers accepting EU clients. But yeah, you are right besides that.

They should be obliged to publish the score then .. interesting.
Hi, interesting stuff. But what is the time-frame used for these numbers ? I hope every broker uses the same.
It seems to me that these numbers are quite higher than the US/CFTC quarterly published ones, aren't they ?

I would guess that the longer the time-frame, the higher amount of looser there are.
NFA numbers are per quater, these are per year..
Quoting shrike
NFA numbers are per quater, these are per year..
I am not sure. See my post No. 2 in the thread. When the month was over and new month started, numbers changed.
  • Post #34
  • Quote
  • Edited 7:48pm Aug 12, 2018 7:28pm | Edited 7:48pm
Quoting IndigoPingvi
{quote} I am not sure. See my post No. 2 in the thread. When the month was over and new month started, numbers changed.
Could as well be rolling yearly numbers. Or all active retail accounts over the account lifetime updated monthly. I searched the ESMA docs but couldnt find any specs about this, not even in the technical Q&A..
  • Post #35
  • Quote
  • Edited 4:23am Aug 13, 2018 3:06am | Edited 4:23am
Quoting shrike
{quote} Could as well be rolling yearly numbers. Or all active retail accounts over the account lifetime updated monthly. I searched the ESMA docs but couldnt find any specs about this, not even in the technical Q&A..
Since I got more and more curious about this as well I was contacting some brokers randomly to ask for details on the calculation of the value. Will update once I got a reply.

edit: got answer from Tickmill which should be valid for rest of the brokers as well.

"The calculation takes into account the retail trading accounts which lost over the past 12 months. Every three months the companies are obliged to recalculate and post a new percentage of the retail trading accounts that lost money over the previous 12 months."

edit2: They provided me some more details on the calculation, which I am adding to the initial post.
Seems like a fair calculation to me...

Thanks for looking into it Drolph :-)
Tnx for the info, Drolph
It would be more meaningful if we knew if the losing accounts included accounts that blew up and closed and/or accounts that were not traded within the past 12 months. Excluding blew up accounts and/or including inactive accounts will understate the reported loser numbers.
Quoting shellback
It would be more meaningful if we knew if the losing accounts included accounts that blew up and closed and/or accounts that were not traded within the past 12 months. Excluding blew up accounts and/or including inactive accounts will understate the reported loser numbers.
Does absolutely makes so sense. Losing means losing, either partly or everything. And if an account was inactive for the past 12 month it is NOT accounted for the calculation.

Please read the initial post carefully.
Quoting shellback
It would be more meaningful if we knew if the losing accounts included accounts that blew up and closed and/or accounts that were not traded within the past 12 months. Excluding blew up accounts and/or including inactive accounts will understate the reported loser numbers.
Agreed.

What would be even more meaningful would be the percentage of winning account holders across multiple brokers. In other words, what percentage of winning account holders at broker X are also winning account holders at broker Y?
Wyckoff VSA: Always FIBbing, but never lying.
0 traders viewing now