Why do people lose money on the market?

in2uxs

Member
Messages
82
Likes
5
It is reasonably interesting why it is the vast majority of people enter the market and lose all their money within a remarkably short time. Let us think about it – markets either go up or down so if you were to pick a stock totally at random and then pick its direction, again at random, then all else been equal at the end of a year you should have made nothing, but lost nothing either.

Considering that there is a vast amount of courses, graphs, tips, reports, systems and information out there you’d think it almost impossible for a person to lose money … yet they do and so quickly too.
 
Last edited:
Correct Mind-set

in2uxs said:
It is reasonably interesting why it is the vast majority of people enter the market and lose all their money within a remarkably short time. Let us think about it – markets either go up or down so if you were to pick a stock totally at random and then pick its direction, again at random, then all else been equal at the end of a year you should have made nothing, but lost nothing either.

Considering that there is a vast amount of courses, graphs, tips, reports, systems and information out there you’d think it almost impossible for a person to lose money … yet they do and so quickly too.
in2uxs

This question comes up fairly frequently on this forum. I suppose the first thing to ask is where is the evidence that the vast majority of people lose all their money ? I hasten to add that I am not saying you are wrong, but it would be interesting to see independent sources verifying this statement.

So moving on to your next point we might expect, over a period of time, a totally random stock-picking strategy to even out. Now the first thing that would alter the probability profile would be the market dynamics. If the market was generally trending up and you were going long then a purely random pick might favour the profitable side. If however you were going short it would favour the loss-making side.

However the main reason for traders losing money is an inability to trade a plan consistently and to allow emotional blockages to interfere. These are caused by greed and fear, which cause traders to deviate from the correct path.

It takes time to change one's mindset and the losses arising from not trading with the correct mind-set may blow one's resolve or account before that happens.

The vast array of courses etc that you mention may build up mechanical and analysis skills but they do nothing to improve the mind-set. Indeed they probably do more to distract from the creation of the correct mind-set.

Charlton
 
A - Who wants and neutral P+L after one year ............ considering the risks involved ?

However, if you exclude those who have to trade for a living or aspire to ............ then your question is very interesting.
 
Consider spreadbetting.....there are good mathematical reasons why the vast majority of speadbetters lose

Aside from psychological issues, if you are trading a market with a spread of 10pts, a movement of 10pts in the underlying market in the same direction as your position means you have gained nothing if you then exit your position. A movement of 10pts against your position means you are 20pts down

That is why IG-Index are rich, and the vast majority of their clients are not
In the long run, "the house" never loses
 
Why do people lose money on the market?

Because trading looks easy, when you first start out. Most are long gone before they can learn how to trade.
 
laptop1 said:
Why do people lose money on the market?

Because trading looks easy, when you first start out. Most are long gone before they can learn how to trade.
What do you mean by being taught "how to trade ?".

It is not a matter of being taught how to, it is a matter of having a natural aptitude to do it, or of not having the natural aptitude to do it.

You can talk yourself blue in the face, and explain everything very clearly, and it is very strange that some are able to grab it and do it and others can't however hard they seem to try.

I have always been puzzled by this curious intangible obstacle that besets a lot of people, perhaps you can enlighten me as to the root cause of the problem.

This is a topic of discussion that has been going on for years amongst successful traders without being able to pin down the real root cause.

I am just as mystified as the others.
 
your assumption is wrong !

if you had to pick an amount of stocks

" at random and then pick their direction, again at random, then all else been equal at the end of a"

period in time

" you should have made nothing, but lost nothing either."

the questions to be answered concern the amount of stocks and the period in time.
 
pssonice said:
if you had to pick an amount of stocks

" at random and then pick their direction, again at random, then all else been equal at the end of a"

period in time

" you should have made nothing, but lost nothing either."

the questions to be answered concern the amount of stocks and the period in time.


Yes, but in order to do that and come out flat, the commission has to be covered, and the spread has to be covered, don't you think ?

And that in itself is a form of success, is it not ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TWI
in2uxs said:
Imarkets either go up or down so if you were to pick a stock totally at random and then pick its direction, again at random, then all else been equal at the end of a year you should have made nothing, but lost nothing either.

Considering that there is a vast amount of courses, graphs, tips, reports, systems and information out there you’d think it almost impossible for a person to lose money … yet they do and so quickly too.

This might be closer to truth if trading really were a "zero sum" game, but its not. After bid/ask spread & commissions, its a negative sum game. So for every transaction, assuming after 100 trades totally break-even, you'd still be significantly down on costs & spread.

Every trade you open is at a slight loss due to these factors, as others have already pointed out, you therefore have to be a net winner just to break even. And there are many other factors which influence results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TWI
Arbitrageur said:
This might be closer to truth if trading really were a "zero sum" game, but its not. After bid/ask spread & commissions, its a negative sum game. So for every transaction, assuming after 100 trades totally break-even, you'd still be significantly down on costs & spread.

Every trade you open is at a slight loss due to these factors, as others have already pointed out, you therefore have to be a net winner just to break even. And there are many other factors which influence results.
Precisely, very well explained, trust you to spot it.:cheesy:
 
laptop1 said:
Why do people lose money on the market?

Because trading looks easy, when you first start out. Most are long gone before they can learn how to trade.
Yes absolutely right, they say it takes about 8 years to become a successful trader. I guess the learning process never ends. Discipline and money management of course, are the most important aspects of trading, the latter being way too underestimated in my opinion. Also the attitude on taking a loss is very important. Executed correctly, a loss does not necessarily have to be a loss if viewed within the whole context of a strategy, it is just a statistical variation.
 
The main reason for traders losing their money is interfering with their winnings. They cut their winners and let their losses run Roulette table is much safer place than stock market because at least you now your winnings are guranteed. In another word when your bet on roulette table , you at least know you be given 1/35 for every £1 you bet ... whereas in stock market you unconsciously can ruin your pay out with taking a silly analysis to cut your pay out,, how many time you sat there thinking ,, had i let my winnings run i would have made X amount more ,,.. I bet millions of times lol


grey1
 
Grey1 said:
The main reason for traders losing their money is interfering with their winnings. They cut their winners and let their losses run Roulette table is much safer place than stock market because at least you now your winnings are guranteed. In another word when your bet on roulette table , you at least know you be given 1/35 for every £1 you bet ... whereas in stock market you unconsciously can ruin your pay out with taking a silly analysis to cut your pay out,, how many time you sat there thinking ,, had i let my winnings run i would have made X amount more ,,.. I bet millions of times lol


grey1
That is obvious. That is common sense. You can tell people this until you are blue in the face.

But that is not the root cause.

What is the root cause ?
 
Grey1 said:
The main reason for traders losing their money is interfering with their winnings. They cut their winners and let their losses run Roulette table is much safer place than stock market because at least you now your winnings are guaranteed. In another word when your bet on roulette table , you at least know you be given 1/35 for every £1 you bet ... whereas in stock market you unconsciously can ruin your pay out with taking a silly analysis to cut your pay out,, how many time you sat there thinking ,, had i let my winnings run i would have made X amount more ,,.. I bet millions of times lol


grey1

Just a slight correction, the odds are 1/37. Each and every spin is also 1/37 and therefore no accumulation of winnings effect at all ever.

Ah, the payout is 1/35 yes but the odds of a number coming up are 1/37........the other 2/37 are the house edge.....

So wannabee traders if we know that the house needs an edge in order to make a profit, what do you suppose a trader needs ?

Trading is nearer to playing poker in fact.

C V
 
Last edited:
Socrates, you said that the spread has to be covered which is a reason why markets are a negative sum game , your wrong , if one party is on the wrong side of the spread then his counter party is on the right side of it , making spread atleast ,a zero sum game .P.S your still a pompouse idiot!!
 
The main reason for people losing money is that other people like me are taking it off them because they either do not have a well constructed strategy that they continue to follow with discipline or they have not accepted that losing is also part of the game and often the entry fee so they mismanage their own expectations and keep reinventing their approach.
It isn't rocket science but it also isn't a punt.
 
henry766 said:
Socrates, you said that the spread has to be covered which is a reason why markets are a negative sum game , your wrong , if one party is on the wrong side of the spread then his counter party is on the right side of it , making spread atleast ,a zero sum game .P.S your still a pompouse idiot!!
Yes thank you, I am pleased you think so.
 
The game is setup so as many people as possible will lose. After all its money we are talking here. Nothing is a bigger driver for most to ensure that FULL advantage will be used in order to MAKE people hand over their cash. Whats the cause. A business model, a plan. which works . The elite are not stupid, they know what buttons to push, leaving aside advantage of known customer order flows. Thats kinda bent if you ask me... waiting for orders to build at levels, the work the price to trigger those orders then stuff em... those big buggers they must dictate huge sums and rob from the people .. thats naughty why dont they trade off a level playing field?

the root cause? picking up money off the floor... I want to see new market behaviour emerge... erractic mental price swings, which everyone would say are untradeable? lol thats the next challenge isnt it? yeah like one of those needles on a seismic measuring graph......
 
Thank you for all your replies. Each of you are lovely, but I dare say some more lovely than others…

The commission, stamp duty, and the spread, are maybe valid reasons for a negative bias, but these alone cannot be held as sole reason why it is people lose money as quickly as they do. In a lot of cases stamp duty and commissions are not even factors.

Quote: “If the market was generally trending up and you were going long then a purely random pick might favour the profitable side. If however you were going short it would favour the loss-making side.”

This trend line theory is flawed. Regardless of the trend on average you should still come out with a neutral bank by randomly picking stocks. For example during a raving bull market if we were to pick 100 stocks at random, and their direction at random, then on average we would be correct 50 times. Out of those 50 times we would on average be correct in hitting the rising trend 25 times, but would also be incorrect 25 times and as such would lose what we had gained resulting overall in neutrality. I agree that the above example isn’t taking into account any run of good or bad luck, but at the end of the day it is still somewhat mystifying why Joe Bloggs with his £10,000 start up fund loses it all within a remarkably short time.

Mystifying it maybe … but here is my view….

I believe the key reason is that people are primed right from the start to lose money owing to psychological reasons. Take a new trader coming to the market for the very first time. Many such traders entering the market will already have – maybe at a sub conscious level - a pre conceived notion of what a traders life entails, and as such they enter the market with their “greed is good” mentality truly believing that high risk and high anxiety are the only things that they must endure in order to become rich.

Let us take the new television adverts by CMC. The adverts show a nervy David hovering over his mouse button as he tries to make a killing on the stock market – it is again this very clichéd view that goes to reinforce the lifestyle of the successful trader – a lifestyle that tells all new traders that high leverage equates to big gains and that anxiety is by product of the business. To many new traders who watch such adverts the stress of it, the late night’s worrying about big investments, does not equate as a negative, but in fact more as a positive - the new trader sees the stressful lifestyle of a successful trader, and becomes excited by it, almost sexually, at the thoughts of a life on the roller coaster.

In addition to the above factors influencing how a new trader should act there are also inbuilt human traits which also prime him to lose – these are the human traits of greed, sloth, and impatience.

Considering that your new trader will have a high dose of all the above it is hardly surprising that when he does start investing he will right from day 1 act like the worst kind of stereotypical Hollywood Wall Street investor. I would not at all be surprised if your new investor’s first purchase isn’t a pair of red braces!

So, brainwashed is your new investor with the thoughts of “this time next year I’ll be a millionaire” that he will kiss goodbye to all reason and logic, and embrace the addictive high risk high leverage flashing light lifestyle of market trading. It is this high risk, high leverage attitude that he mistakenly thinks of as investing that will be his eventual downfall - in fact such investing is more akin to gambling than investing, but he is so brainwashed by the notion that he is an investor not a gambler that his gambling actions go unnoticed. It is only after he has lost a great deal of money will he begin to ask himself this question: I’ve had all the anxiety and sleepless nights but where’s all my money gone?

The leverage factor in my view is one of the worst instruments ever created as leverage only goes to add petrol to the instant wealth fire of thoughts that burn so strongly in the mind of most new traders. A new trader may open a trading account with say £5,000 which in affect gives him the power to buy say £100,000 worth of shares. This fact alone is enough to brainwash the strongest of characters into thinking they’re already in the fast lane let alone the new start up trader.

Taking all the above into account we may now understand more about the psychological state of your average trader when he first enters the market. Let us now see an example of it…

Day 1: your new investor finds himself sat in front of his computer with a brainwashed brain, and the power to buy £100,000 worth of assets at the touch of a button. Immediately, he sees a company’s share price go down and thinking it can’t go down anymore he buys more shares in the company than he really should, and then sits back with little in reserve watching the market see saw in its usual fashion. However, when he sees it sawing against him a sense he has never had before begins to creep into his very soul – anxiety.

He sees £100 gone … then £200, then **** £400 has gone in the blink of an eye! His heart starts pounding, and his imagination begins to work overtime as it tells him that he’s pick a bad ‘un here! Before long a further £1000 has gone, and at this a voice in his head tells him to sell up. He does so … eventually … but not before losing more money … and then he slinks off and eats biscuits for comfort.

Our new investor is now poorer, fatter, and has received a many negative strokes that will in time begin to eat away at his very being. He feels hard done by now, but still the optimist he invests even more money in the hope that he’ll hit on a winner and get his money back. This time he may see himself up £200, but that’s still nowhere near enough so he hangs onto his position, but then things swing against him again and before long not only does he see his profit disappear, but he now faces another loss. He’s only been trading a few days, and he’s lost a 5th of his account already!

Over the next few weeks he’ll invest more and more in a hope of getting back his money, but due to the leverage aspect of his investments he only has to see the market dip slightly against him, and his anxiety and self doubt return forcing him to sell. Before too long he either gives up, or takes to self analyses.

The trader example above is probably a version of many of us in here – especially during the early days?

It is my true belief that it is only after we have self analysed our own minds, and re-educated ourselves on how we should trade that we then stand a chance of becoming professional. I am by nature a keen observer of human behaviour, and I have for quite some time self analysed my own actions regarding trading. I have discovered a very interesting thing: it seems to be that when I invested a lot I lose, but when I invested a small amount I win.

The reason why eluded me for some time, but it is really is quite simple. It is the anxiety factor again - eliminate the anxiety factor, and your on your way to becoming successful. When you invest a small amount, and the market moves against you then the anxiety factor simply doesn't come into play as you don’t have that much at stake - so, you’ve lost a tenner – big deal! Instead of sitting there imagining that the world is against all that you do, you instead just potter off for a cup of tea, and when you come back the market has more often than not swung back more favourably and hey presto you've made a few quid. Even if the market carries on going down then instead of your imagination yelling at you, “QUIT NOW YOU USELESS ******” you instead feel more in control and see this whole situation more as a game of chess - instead of fear you buy a few more shares at the cheaper price which in affect lowers the average price your shares have to reach in order to profit.

It therefore seems to me that the key to success is not to buy red braces on day 1, but to treat the market more as a chess game than a shoot out. Use reason and logic, and eliminate the anxiety factor by reducing your leverage. If you daren't leave your computer just in case the FTSE loses 20 points then take this tip ... half your investment immediately. You should never feel anxious – if you are active in the market, and should you see the market fall then you should always be in a position that you view this as a good opportunity to buy cheap stock off panicking investors rather than be one of the panicking investors who are selling cheap stock.

God bless
 
Top