Are there statistics showing percentage of online brokerage customers that are actually making a profit trading forex/futures/options?
"Finding statistics is exceedingly hard, because the majority of traders lose money. That is, not only they don't ""beat the markets"", not only they don't ""beat the benchmark"" (S&P 500 being used a lot as reference): they just lose money. Finding exact numbers, quality statistics and so on is very difficult. Finding recent ones, is almost impossible. With enormous effort I have found two references that might help make an idea. One is very recent, Forex ""centered"" and has been prepared by a large finance group for the the Europen Central Bank (ECB). It's available on their website, at an obscure download location. The document is stated to be confidential, but its download location has been disclosed to the public by CNBC. I can't post CNBC's link because I have just joined this Stack Exchange portal so I don't have enough reputation. You can find it by looking for their article about FXCM Forex broker debacle due to the Swiss Central Bank removing the EUR/CHF peg at 1.20. The second is a 2009-ish paper about Taiwanese retail traders profitability statistics published by Oxford University Press and talks about stocks. Both documents focus on retail traders. I strongly suggest you to immediately save those documents because they tend to disappear after a while. We had a fantastic and complete statistics report made by a group of German Banks in 2011... they pulled it off in 2012." Interactive Brokers advertises the percent of profitable forex accounts for its own customers and for competitors. They say they have 46.9% profitable accounts which is higher than the other brokers listed. It's hard to say exactly how this data was compiled- but I think the main takeaway is that if a broker actually advertises that most accounts lose money, it is probably difficult to make money. It may be better for other securities because forex is considered a very tough market for retail traders to compete in.  https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/?f=%2Fen%2Ftrading%2Fpdfhighlights%2FPDF-Forex.php "It looks like these types of companies have to disclose the health of their accounts to CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission). That is the gist I get at least from this article about the traders that lost money due to the Swiss removing the franc’s cap against the euro. The article says about the U.S. retail FOREX brokerage: Most of FXCM’s retail clients lost money in 2014, according to the company’s disclosures mandated by the CFTC. The percentage of losing accounts climbed from 67 percent in the first and second quarters to 68 percent in the third quarter and 70 percent in the fourth quarter. Side note: The Swiss National Bank abandoned the cap on the currency's value against the euro in mid-January 2015. But above paragraph provides data on FXCM’s retail clients in 2014. It could consequently be concluded that, even without ""freak events"" (such as Switzerland removing the franc cap), it is more likely for an investor to NOT make a profit on the FOREX market. This is also in line with what ""sdfasdf"" and ""Dario Fumagalli"" say in their answers."
It is an undeniable fact that 95% of all retail forex traders lose money. In order to break free from this crowd of losing traders we must first understand the forex trading strategies they use. Only then can we learn how to trade forex profitably. Disclosure: I am working for an aggregation startup business called Brokerchooser, that is matching the needs of clients to the right online broker. FxPro and similar brokers are rather CFD/FX brokers. If you want to trade stocks you have to find a broker who is registered member of an exchange like LSE. Long list: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/traders-and-brokers/membership/member-firm-directory/member-firm-directory-search.html From the brokers we have tested at Brokerchooser.com I would suggest: I've been a retail trader for close to 7 years and while I have a specialized futures account, I use Interactive Brokers for my other trading. They charge per share or contract rather than per trade (good for smaller accounts  or if you want to piece into and out of positions). You can also trade just about anything. Futures, options, options on futures, individual stocks, ETFs, Bonds (futures), currencies. The interface is pretty good as well. I have seperate charts (eSignal) so I'm not sure how good their charting is Oanda.com is a very respectable broker. They don't offer ridiculous leverage options of 200 to 1 that prove the downfall of people starting out in Forex. When I used them a few years back, they had good customer service and some nice charting tools. It seems to be that your main point is this: No matter what, my chances cannot be worse than random and if my trading system has an edge that is greater than the percentage of the transaction that is transaction cost, then I am probabilistically likely to make a profit? In general, yes, that is true, but... Consider this very bad strategy: Buy one share of stock and sell it one minute later, and repeat this every minute of the day. Obviously you would bleed your account dry with fees. However, even this horrible strategy still meets your criteria because: if this bad strategy had an edge beyond the transaction fees you would likely still make a profit. In other words, your conclusion reduces to an uninteresting statement: If there were no transactions fees, then if your trading system has an edge then you will likely make a profit. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but IMHO, that statement, and others made in the question are just obvious things stated in convoluted ways. I don't want to discourage you from thinking about these things though. I personally really enjoy these type of thought experiments. I just feel you missed the mark on this one... "I interned for about six months at a firm that employed a few technical analysts, so I'll try to provide what little information I can. Since the bulk of the intra-day trading was decided algorithmically, technical analysts had two main functions: This basically boils down to my answer to your question. There are still enough people, trading firms, etc. who believe in candlestick charting and other visually subjective patterns that if you notice a trend, pattern, etc. before the majority of traders observing, you may be able to time the market successfully and profit. This is becoming increasingly dangerous, however, because of the steps I outlined above. Over time, the charting patterns that have been proven effective (often in many firms individually since the algorithms are all proprietary) are incorporated into computer algorithms, so the ""traders"" you're competing with to see the pattern are increasingly low-latency computer clusters less than a few blocks from the exchange. Summary: Candlestick charting, along with other forms of subjective technical analysis, has its believers, and assuming enough of these believers trade the standard strategies based on the standard patterns, one could conceivably time the market with enough skill to anticipate these traders acting on the pattern and therefore profit. However, the marginal benefits of doing so are decreasing rapidly as computers take over more trading responsibility.  Caveats:  I know you're in Australia, where the market penetration of HF/algo traders isn't as high as in the US, so it might be a few more years before the marginal benefits cease to be profitable; that being said, if various forms of technical analysis proved wildly profitable in Australia, above and beyond profits available in other markets, rest assured that large American or British trading firms would already have moved in.  My experience is limited to one trading firm, so I certainly can't speak for the industry as a whole. I know I didn't address candlestick charts specifically, but since they're only one piece of visual technical analysis, I tried to address the issue as a whole.  This somewhat ties into the debate between fundamental or technical analysis, which I won't get into. Investopedia has a short article on the subject. As I said, I won't get into this because while it's a nice debate for small traders, at large trading firms, they don't care; they want to make profit, and any strategy that can be vetted, whether it's fundamental, technical, or astrological, will be vetted.  I want to add more information to my answer to clear up some of the misconceptions in the comments, including those talking about biased studies and a lack of evidence for or against technical analysis (and candlestick charts; I'll explore this relationship further down).  It's important to keep in mind that charting methods, including candlestick charts, are visually subjective ways of representing data, and that any interpretations drawn from such charts should, ideally, represent objective technical indicators. A charting method is only as good as the indicators it's used to represent. Therefore, an analysis of the underlying indicators provides a suitable analysis for the visual medium in which they're presented.  One important study that evaluates several of these indicators is Foundations of Technical Analysis: Computational Algorithms, Statistical Inference, and Empirical Implementation by Lo, Mamaysky, and Wang. Lest anyone accuse its authors of bias, I should point out that not only is it published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (a highly reputable organization within economics and finance), but also that the majority of its authors come from MIT's Sloan school, which holds a reputation second to none. This study finds that several technical indicators, e.g. head-and-shoulder, double-bottom, and various rectangle techniques, do provide marginal value. They also find that although  human judgment is still superior to most computational algorithms in the area of visual pattern recognition, ... technical analysis can be improved by using automated algorithms Since this paper was published in 2000, computing power and statistical analysis have gained significant ground against human ability to identify and exploit for visual pattern detection like candlestick charts.  Second, I suggest you look into David Aaronson's book, Evidence-Based Technical Analysis: Applying the Scientific Method and Statistical Inference to Trading Signals. He finds similar results to the Lo, et. al. paper, in that some technical indicators do add value to the investment process, but those that do are those that can be represented mathematically and thus programmed directly into trading algorithms (thus bypassing visual tools like candlestick charts).  He describes how studies, including Lo, et al., have found that head and shoulders patterns are worse than random, i.e. you would earn higher returns if you simply traded at random. That point is worth than repeating. If a day-trader is using a candlestick chart and using head-and-shoulders patterns as part of their toolkit, he's rolling the dice when he uses that pattern and returns that come from its application come from chance. This reminds me of that old story about a company that sends out pamphlets predicting the results of sports games, complete with ""strategies"" and ""data"" to back up the predictions. The company sends out several versions of the pamphlet every game, each predicting a different winner. Given a large enough sample size, by the end of the season, there are a few people who have received a pamphlet that accurately predicted the winner for every game and they're convinced the system is perfect. The others weren't so lucky, however. Relying on candlestick charts and TA patterns that are relics from the pre-computerized era is reassuring to some traders and gives them a sense of control and ""beating the market,"" but how long will chance remain on your side? This is why I maintain that visual tools like candlestick charts are a slowly dying medium. They certainly still add value to some trading firms, which is why Bloomberg terminals still ship with this functionality built in, but as more and more research shows, automated algorithms and statistical indicators can provide more value. It's also important to think about whether the majority of the value added by visual tools like candlestick charts comes in the form of profit or a sense of security to traders who learned the field using them over the past few decades.  Finally, it's extremely important to realize that the actions of retail investors in the equities market cannot begin to represent the behaviors of the market as a whole. In the equities markets alone, trading firms and institutional investors dwarf retail investors, and the difference in scale is even more vastly pronounced in derivatives and currency markets. The fact that some retail investors use candlestick charts and the technical indicators they (hope) underlie them provides nothing but minor anecdotal evidence as to their effectiveness." This. Everyone knows it is impossible for more than a handful of VERY well-funded hedge funds to actually run computerized trading operations that actually outperform the market significantly, and then that advantage is very difficult to defend.  Any hedge fund that just depends on traders that outperforms consistently is very likely to be cheating. The vast majority of retail Forex brokers are market makers, rather than ECNs. With that said, the one that fits your description mostly closely is Interactive Brokers, is US-based, and well-respected. They have a good amount of exoitcs available.  Many ECNs don't carry these because of the mere fact that they make money on transactions, versus market makers who make money on transactions and even more on your losses. So, if the business model is to make money only on transactions, and they are as rarely traded as exotics are, there's no money to be made. "That's like a car dealer advertising their ""huge access"" to Chevrolet.  All brokers utilize dark pools nowadays, either their own or one belonging to a larger financial institution.  Why?  Because that's a primary source of broker income.  Example: Under current US regulations the broker is under no obligation to pass these orders to actual (a.k.a. lit) exchanges.  Instead it can internalize them in its dark pool as long as it ""improves the price"".  So: If a broker doesn't run its own dark pool, then it sends the orders to the dark pool run by a larger institution (JPMorgan, Credit Suisse, Getco, Knight Capital) and gets some fraction of the dark pool's profit in return. Are Mom and Pop negatively impacted by this?  Not for most order types.  They each even got a free penny out of the deal!  But if there were no dark pools, that $1.00 difference between their trade prices would have gone half ($0.50) to Mom's counterparty and half ($0.50) to Pop's counterparty, who could be someone else's Mom and someone else's Pop. So ... that's why brokers all use dark pools, and why their advertisement of their dark pool access is silly.  They're basically saying, ""We're going to occasionally throw you a free penny while making 49 times that much from you""! (Note: Now apply the above math to a less liquid product than AAPL.  Say, where the spread is not $0.01, but more like $0.05.  Now Mom and Pop still might make a penny each, while the broker can make $4.98 on a 100 share trade!)" I just called options express, and apparently you need a margin account for futures and options, but you don't NEED margin to trade futures. I will have to debate the merits, but I think I may try playing with it once I build up my regular stock account. I trade futures. No FX or equities though. It is my only source of income, and has been for about 5 years now.   Equities and FX, to me, seems like more of a gamble than Vegas. I don't know how people do it. The problem is that while there are a lot of statistics that can be created from basic market data such as prices and volume, along with the fundamentals of the company, I think that if you talk to 8 different day traders, you'll get 12 different theories of how to interpret and trade based on those numbers.  Also quite likely, the more successful someone is at day trading, the more closely they are likely to guard their secrets and not want to divulge them. If there was any uniform concensus, they you'd see all the daytraders doing the same thing, and moving as a group, shortly after which you'd get 'contra' folks who would try to gain by moving in opposition, or 'predicta' folks who would try to front-run the pack. and.... (I think you can see where this leads)  A better idea might be to just work on educating your-self firstly with regard to nomenclature and terms, and then move on to reading some stuff about how markets work   etc.  I'd suggest starting with a book like 'Wall Street Words' and/or 'A Random Walk Down Wall Street' since both are great introductions to things, and move on from there.  Note that both of those books have gone through multiple editions, so be sure to get the most recent one (especially if you are trying to save money and buy a used version)   You are also likely to find an nearly endless supply of 'seminars' that will offer to teach you somebody's proven method for a fee, or for 'free' but after which you find our you need to use their special tools or data sources etc (which cost money) to use their 'system'  (either of which makes me think that their system can't be that great if they figure it's a surer thing to charge for 'teaching' or 'tools/services' than it is to use their system, otherwise they'd just shut up, practice what they preach and make money that way instead)  It might be worth attending the free ones just to get exposure to someone's theory on how to game the system, provided you are 'not an easy mark' and can withstand the high pressure sales pitch for their books/software/services etc that pays their bills and almost invariably comes along with such a seminar. "Yes, there is a lot they are leaving out, and I would be extremely skeptical of them because of the ""reasons"" they give for being able to charge $0 commissions. Their reasons are that they don't have physical locations and high overhead costs, the reality is that they are burning venture capital on exchange fees until they actually start charging everyone they suckered into opening accounts. They also get paid by exchanges when users provide liquidity. These are called trade rebates in the maker-taker model. They will start offering margin accounts and charging interest. They are [likely] selling trade data to high frequency trading firms that then fill your stock trades at worse prices (Robinhood users are notorious for complaining about the fills). They may well be able to keep commissions low, as that has been a race to the bottom for a long time. But if they were doing their users any actual favors, then they would be also paying users the rebates that exchanges pay them for liquidity. Robinhood isn't doing anything unique as all brokers do what I mentioned along with charging commissions, and it is actually amazing their sales pitch ""$0 commissions because we are just a mobile app lol"" was enough for their customers. They are just being disingenuous." To answer your original question: There is proof out there. Here is a paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis that might be worth a read.  It has a lot of references to other publications that might help answer your question(s) about TA.  You can probably read the whole article then research some of the other ones listed there to come up with a conclusion.  Below are some excerpts:  Abstract: This article introduces the subject of technical analysis in the foreign exchange market, with emphasis on its importance for questions of market efficiency.  “Technicians” view their craft, the study of price patterns, as exploiting traders’ psychological regularities.  The literature on technical analysis has established that simple technical trading rules on dollar exchange rates provided 15 years of positive, risk-adjusted returns during the 1970s and 80s before those returns were extinguished.  More recently, more complex and less studied rules have produced    more modest returns for a similar length of time.  Conventional explanations that rely on risk adjustment and/or central bank intervention do not plausibly justify the observed excess returns from following simple technical trading rules.  Psychological biases, however, could contribute to the profitability of these rules. We view the observed pattern of excess returns to technical trading rules as being consistent with an adaptive markets view of the world.    and  The widespread use of technical analysis in foreign exchange (and   other) markets is puzzling because it implies  that either traders are   irrationally making decisions on useless information or that past   prices contain useful  information for trading.  The latter   possibility would contradict the “efficient markets hypothesis,”   which holds that  no trading strategy should be able to generate   unusual profits on publicly available information—such as past    prices—except by bearing unusual risk. And the observed  level of   risk-adjusted profitability measures market  (in)efficiency. Therefore   much research effort has been directed toward determining whether   technical analysis is  indeed profitable or not. One of the earliest   studies, by Fama and Blume (1966), found no evidence that a particular   class of TTRs could earn abnormal profits in the stock market.   However, more recent research by Brock,  Lakonishok and LeBaron (1992)   and Sullivan, Timmermann an d White (1999) has provided contrary   evidence. And  many studies of the foreign exchange market have found   evidence that TTRs can generate persistent profits (Poole  6  (1967),   Dooley and Shafer (1984), Sweeney (1986), Levich and Thomas (1993),   Neely, Weller and Dittmar (1997),  Gençay (1999), Lee, Gleason and   Mathur (2001) and Martin (2001)). "From what I have read from O'Neil to Van Tharp, etc, etc, no one can pick winners more than 75% of the time regardless of the system they use and most traders consider themselves successful if 60% of the trades are winners and 40% are losers.  So I am on the side that the chart is only a reflection of the past and cannot tell you reliably what will happen in the future. It is difficult to realize this but here is a simple way for you to realize it. If you look at a daily chart and let's say it is 9:30 am at the open and you ask a person to look at the technical indicators, look at the fundamentals and decide the direction of the market by drawing the graph, just for the next hour. He will realize in just a few seconds that he will say to him or her self ""How on earth do you expect me to be able to do that?""  He will realize very quickly that it is impossible to tell the direction of the market and he realizes it would be foolhardy to even try. Because Mickey Mantle hit over 250 every year of his career for the first 15 years it would be a prudent bet to bet that he could do it again over the span of a season, but you would be a fool to try to  guess if the next pitch would be a ball or a strike. You would be correct about 50% of the time and wrong about 50% of the time. You can rely on LARGER PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR OVER YEARS, but short hourly or even minute by minute prediction is foolish. That is why to be a trader you have to keep on trading and if you keep on trading and cut your losses to 1/2 of your wins you will eventually have a wonderful profit.  But you have to limit your risk on any one trade to 1% of your portfolio.  In that way you will be able to trade at least 100 times.  do the math.  trade a hundred times.  lose 5% and the next bet gain 10%.  Keep on doing it. You will have losses sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row and also wins sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row but overall if you keep on trading even the best traders are generally only ""right"" 60% of the time.  So lets do the math. If you took 100 dollars and make 100 trades and the first trade you made 10% and reinvested the total and the second trade you lost 5% of that and continue that win/loss sequence for 100 trades you would have 1284 dollars minus commissions. That is a 1200% return in one hundred trades.  If you do it in a roth IRA you pay no taxes on the short term gains.  It is not difficult to realize that the stock market DOES TREND. And the easiest way to make 10% quickly is to in general trade 3x leveraged funds or stocks that have at least 3 beta from the general index.  Take any trend up and count the number of days the stock is up and it is usually 66-75% and take any down trend and it is down 66-75% of the days.  So if you bet on the the beginning of a day when the stock was up and if you buy the next day about 66-75% of the time the stock will also be up. So the idea is to realize that 1/3 of the time at least you will cut your losses but 2/3 of the time you will be up then next day as well.  So keep holding the position based on the low of the previous day and as the stock rises to your trend line then tighten the stock to the low of the same day or just take your profit and buy something else.  But losing 1/3 times is just part of ""the unpredictable"" nature of the stock market which is causes simply because there are three types of traders all betting at the same time on the same stock.  Day traders who are trading from 1 to 10 times a day, swing traders trading from 1 day to several weeks and buy and hold investors holding out for long term capital gains. They each have different price targets and time horizons and THAT DIFFERENCE is what makes the market move.  ONE PERSON'S SHORT TERM EXIT PRICE AT A PROFIT IS ANOTHER PERSONS LONG TERM ENTRY POINT and because so many are playing at the same time with different time horizons, stop losses and exit targets it is impossible to draw the price action or volume.  But it is possible to cut your losses and ride your winners and if you keep on doing that you have a very fine return indeed."