Well I don't really know what kind of criteria did they use to compile this statistics of 95% failure rate? How do they define as "fail" in trading? Closing account? Margin call? Making losses? Quit trading? Because all these three things have happened in about 100% of a trader's trading career at one point of another. So does that mean that the failure rate is 100%?! Most of the traders who have experienced this eventually bounce back and/or keep on trading after a certain period of time. Only a small % of traders actually quit trading permanently after one or all of those things happening to them. So the only % of traders who fail are the ones who quit trading permanently due to persistent losses and that's a very small proportion of the traders population because I wouldn't qualify a trader who quit trading for a while just to develop a better trading system and then came back and became a successful trader as a "failed" trader.
So maybe this 95% failure rate is the failure rate of traders at a GIVEN time? But that's an irrelevant and meaningless figure because at ANY given time, this is the failure rate for any investment instruments out there albeit stocks, bonds, mutual funds and etc. If you are able to poll any stocks, bonds, mutual funds at any given time, you will see that 95% of them is losing money and if they are subject to the same capital limitations as any individual traders, then they will also be subject to margin calls and account closing which would mean that 95% of them have "failed". So are the traders in the other investments necessarily better traders just because they can hide their losses behind their thick capital?
So in conclusion, is it fair to scrutinize on individual retail traders by slapping on a high "failure rate" just because their losses are more transparent and are exposed more swiftly? If taking all these into account, what is the REAL rate of failure among traders? Is it really as high as 95% as thought to be?