This was published in 1999, but the accounts analysed were traded during 1997 to 1998. They were all at one firm. There's no information about initial capitalisation. It's equities trading, not commodities. The important information seems to be on pages 52/53 of the pdf. If I'm reading it right: Of 17 accounts with `statistically significant' day-trading, only one account showed the ability to be profitable, while 65% of the accounts lost 100% of their capital. Out of the 26 accounts included in the study, the most successful single account had limited short term trading and no day trading. This is a very small sample, I think. But it may suggest that the canonical 90-95% figure might be reasonable. I'ld like to see much more extensive studies before drawing any conclusion.
Thanks for the information. I'd rather find one that was done from 2000-2005 but I'll take what I can get
Since I initially asked about some sort of backup to the claims that most traders fail, this is better than nothing! It really would be interesting to see a large sample of accounts/traders to be done over a significant period of time... hmmm... the wheels are turning...
Yup. It's definitely one data point. And I also think it would be really interesting to see more definitive studies on the question. It would be great to know, for example, how results varied with account size, trading style, and time period. It seems like it ought to be possible to make such information publicly available on a purely statistical basis, without damaging anyone's anonymity, or singling out any particular brokers. But I suppose it would require some sort of regulatory action for it to happen.
I have a relative who has a futures brokerage firm , he confirmed that more than 90 % of his clients lose money
the small educated,prepared minority runs away with the money of the uneducated,unprepared masses(gamblers)
All futures speculators (not hedgers) are gambling, especially those who play the financials. This includes the novices and professionals.