How can you possibly lose on investments in stocks?
In your own example of VW, it dropped from its peak price of $253 to $92. If you had invested $10,000 in VW in April 2015, by September of that year it would have gone down to $3,600. If you held on to your investment, you would now be getting back to $6,700 on that original $10,000 investment. Your own example demonstrates that it is possible to lose. I have a friend who put his fortune into a company called WorldCom (one of the examples D Stanley shared). He actually lost all of his retirement. Luckily he made some money back when the startup we both worked for was sold to a much larger company. Unsophisticated investors lose money all the time by investing in individual companies. Your best bet is to start searching this site for answers on how to invest your money so that you can see actual strategies that reduce your investment risk. Here's a starting point: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? If you want to better illustrate this principle to yourself, try this stock market simulation game. "Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. How about Enron?  GM? WorldCom? Lehman Brothers?  Those are just a few of the many stocks that went to 0.  Even stock in solvent companies have an ""all-time high"" that it will never reach again.   Please explain to my why my thought is [in]correct.  It is based on flawed assumptions, specifically that stock always regain any losses from any point in time.  This is not true.  Stocks go up and down - sometimes that have losses that are never made up, even if they don't go bankrupt.  If your argument is that you should cash out any gains regardless of size, and you will ""never lose"", I would argue that you might have very small gains in most cases, but there are still times where you are going to lose value and never regain it, and those losses can easily wipe out any gains you've made.   Never bought stocks and if I try something stupid I'll lose my money, so why not ask the professionals first..? If you really believe that you ""can't lose"" in the stock market then do NOT buy individual stocks.  You may as well buy a lottery ticket (not really, those are actually worthless).  Stick to index funds or other stable investments that don't rely on the performance of a single company and its management.  Yes, diversification reduces (not eliminates) risk of losses.  Yes, chasing unreasonable gains can cause you to lose.  But what is a ""reasonable gain""?  Why is your ""guaranteed"" X% gain better than the ""unreasonable"" Y% gain? How do you know what a ""reasonable"" gain for an individual stock is?" "If you're talking about a single stock, you greatly underestimate the chances of it dropping, even long-term. Check out the 12 companies that made up the first Dow Jones Industrial Average in 1896. There is probably only one you've heard of: GE. Many of the others are long gone or have since been bought up by larger companies. And remember these were 12 companies that were deemed to be the most representative of the stock market around the turn of the 20th century. Now, if you're talking about funds that hold many stocks (up to thousands), then your question is a little different. Over the long-term (25+ years), we have never experienced a period where the overall market lost value. Of course, as you recognize, the psychology of investors is a very important factor. If the stock market loses half of its value in a year (as it has done a few times), people will be inundated with bad news and proclamations of ""this time it's different!"" and explanations of why the stock market will never recover. Perhaps this may be true some day, but it never has been thus far. So based on all the evidence we have, if you hold a well-diversified fund, the chances of it going down long-term (again, meaning 25+ years) are basically zero." "For whatever it's worth.  Judging from the comments in the other answers, I think everyone is addressing your question, ""How can you possibly lose money,""  there are a lot of ways to possibly lose money in the stock market.  Here are my thoughts.  This is a chart of the S&P 500 from about 1996 to about 2012.  At the top from the first arrow the entire S&P500 index fell about 45%.  From the top of the second arrow the entire S&P500 index fell about 52%.  It is really easy to look at our sustained bull market and feel invincible.  And while I'll concede that not every company in the index fell over these two periods, bear in mind that the S&P500 index is a collection of the 500 largest companies in the United States, and the entire index lost half it's value twice.  As the companies contained in the index shrink in value, they were replaced by companies that are the new biggest 500 in the country, then those fell too, and so on and so forth until the entire index lost half. Value is a funny thing because it isn't necessarily tied to the performance of the business (look at the current rosy valuations of all these non-earnings tech-companies).  It could be that a company is still performing very well but there are just no buyers for the stock.   So, how can you lose money in the stock market?  Very easily.  In A practical sense, it's when you need the money and can no longer weather the storm.  People who went out for retirement around 2000 couldn't sit around and wait until 2007 for their account values to be replenished.  This is why you roll off your stock exposure as you age.  As you get older you don't have time and if you stop having income you can find yourself selling your assets at the least opportune time." I think it may be best to take everything you're asking line-by-line. Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. This is not true. Companies can go out of business, or take a major hit and never recover.  Take Volkswagen for example, in 2015 due to a scandal they were involved in, their stocks went downhill. Now their stocks are starting to rise again. The investors goal is not to wait as long as necessary to make a profit on every stock purchase, but to make the largest profit possible in the shortest time possible. Sometimes this means selling a stock before it recovers (if it ever does). I think the problem with most buyers is that they desire the most gain they can possibly have. However, that is very risky. This can be true. Every investor needs to gauge the risk they're willing to take and high-gain investments are riskier.  Therefore, it's better to be winning [small/medium] amounts of money (~)100% of the time than [any] amount of money <~25%. Safer investments do tend to yield more consistent returns, but this doesn't mean that every investor should aim for low-yield investments. Again, this is driven by the investor's risk tolerance. To conclude, profitable companies' stock tends to increase over time and less aggressive investments are safer, but it is possible to lose from any stock investment. "Some stocks do fall to zero. I don't have statistics handy, but I'd guess that a majority of all the companies ever started are now bankrupt and worth zero. Even if a company does not go bankrupt, there is no guarantee that it's value will increase forever, even in a general, overall sense. You might buy a stock when it is at or near its peak, and then it loses value and never regains it. Even if a stock will go back up, you can't know for certain that it will. Suppose you bought a stock for $10 and it's now at $5. If you sell, you lose half your money. But if you hold on, it MIGHT go back up and you make a profit. Or it might continue going down and you lose even more, perhaps your entire investment. A rational person might decide to sell now and cut his losses. Of course, I'm sure many investors have had the experience of selling a stock at a loss, and then seeing the price skyrocket. But there have also been plenty of investors who decided to hold on, only to lose more money. (Just a couple of weeks ago a stock I bought for $1.50 was selling for $14. I could have sold for like 900% profit. Instead I decided to hold on and see if it went yet higher. It's now at $2.50. Fortunately I only invested something like $800. If it goes to zero it will be annoying but not ruin me.) On a bigger scale, if you invest in a variety of stocks and hold on to them for a long period of time, the chance that you will lose money is small. The stock market as a whole has consistently gone up in the long term. But the chance is not zero. And a key phrase is ""in the long term"". If you need the money today, the fact that the market will probably go back up within a few months or a year or so may not help." "Easiest thing ever. In fact, 99% of people are loosing money. If you perform worse then 10% annually in cash (average over 5-10 years), then you better never even think about trading/investing. Most people are sitting at 0%..-5% annually. They win some, loose some, and are being outrun by inflation and commissions. In fact, fall of market is not a big deal, stock indexes are often jump back in a few months. If you rebalance properly, it is mitigated. Your much bigger enemy is inflation. If you think inflation is small, look at gold price over past 20 years. Some people, Winners at first, grow to +10%, get too relaxed and start to grow already lost position. That one loose trade eats 10% of their portfolio. Only there that people realize they should cut it off, when they already lost their profits. And they start again with +0%. This is hard thing to accept, but most of people are not made for that type of business. Even worse, they think ""if I had bigger budget, I would perform better"", which is kind of self-lie."
You can't have even a hundred dollars without it being invested somewhere. If it's cash, you're invested in some nation state's currency.       If that currency is USD, you have lost about 6% so far this year.       But what if you were in the stock market? It's been doing pretty well, no?       Thing is, American stocks are priced in American dollars. You have to put those variables together to see what a stock has really been doing. The principle behind the advice to not throw good money after bad is better restated in economics terms: sunk costs are sunk and irrelevant to today's decisions.   Money lost on a stock is sunk and should not affect our decisions today, one way or the other.  Similarly, the stock going up should not affect our decisions today, one way or the other.  Any advice other than this is assuming some kind of mispricing or predictability in the market.  Mispricings in general cannot be reliably identified and stock returns are not normally predictable. The only valid (efficient markets) reason I know of to allow money you have lost or made on a stock to affect your decision today is the tax implications (you may want to lock in gains if your tax rate is temporarily low or vice versa). "I did once read a book titled ""How I made a million dollars on the stock market"". It sounded realistic enough to be a true story. The author made it clear on the first page that (a) this was due to some exceptional circumstances, (b) that he would never again be able to pull off something like this, and (c) you would never be able to pull of something like this, except with extreme luck.  (The situation was small company A with a majority shareholder, other small company B tries to gain control by buying all the shares, the majority shareholder of A trying to prevent this by buying as many shares as possible, share price shooting up ridiculously, ""smart"" traders selling uncovered shorts to benefit when the price inevitably drops, the book author buying $5,000 worth of shares because they were going up, and then one enormous short squeeze catching out the traders. And he claimed having sold his shares for over a million - before the price dropped back to normal).  Clearly not a matter of ""playing your cards right"", but of having an enormous amount of luck." What you're describing is called timing the market.  That is, if you correctly predict when the market will drop, you can sell before the drop, wait for the drop, then buy after the drop has occurred.  Sell high, buy low. The fundamental problem with that, though, is: What ends up happening, on average, is you end up slightly behind.  There's quite a lot of literature on this; see Betterment's explanation for example.  Forbes (click through ad first) also has a detailed piece on the matter. Now, we're not really talking HFT issues here; and there are some structural things that some argue you can take advantage of (restrictions on some organizational investors, for example, similar to a blackjack dealer who has to hit on 16).  However, everyone else knows about these too - so it's hard to gain much of an edge. Plenty of people say they can time the market right, and even yourself perhaps you timed a particular drop accurately.  This tends to lead to false confidence though; how many drops that you timed badly do you remember? Ultimately, most investors end up slightly down when they attempt to time the market, because of the transaction costs (if you guess two drops, one 'right' and one 'wrong', and they have exactly opposite gains/losses before commissions, you will lose a bit on each due to commission), and because of the overall upward trend in the market (ie, if you picked at random one month a year to be out of the market, you'd lose around 10% annualized gains from doing that; same applies here). All of that aside, there is one major caveat: risk tolerance.  If you are highly risk tolerant, say a 30 year old investing your 401(k), then you should stay in no matter what.  If you're not - say you're 58 and retiring in a few years - then knowledge that there's a higher risk time period coming up might suggest moving to a less risky portfolio, even at the known cost of some gains. If you buy a stock and it goes up, you can sell it and make money. But if you buy a stock and it goes down, you can lose money. "In the UK there are Premium Bonds, http://www.nsandi.com/. In simple terms these get you a ""raffle ticket"" for each £1 you invest. Each month multiple tickets are drawn and they each win between £25 and £1m. Your capital does not go down but you aren't guaranteed to win. So you can't lose your money but there's potential to not make any either." According to my calculations, you always lose money on group B.  x = average monthly balance  Income for a year = 0.015 * (12 * x) = 0.18 * x  Cost of funds for one month = 0.04 * x  Cost of funds for one year = 12 * (0.04 * x) = 0.48 * x  Profit? at end of year   = income_for_year - cost_of_funds_for_one_year  = (0.18 * x) - (0.48 * x)  = forever loss Your question reminds me of a Will Rogers quote: buy some good stock, and hold it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don’t go up, don’t buy it. There's no way to prevent yourself from buying a stock that goes down.  In fact all stocks go down at some times.  The way to protect your long term investment is to diversify, which increases the chances that you have more stocks that go up than go down.  So many advisors will encourage index funds, which have a low cost (which eats away at returns) and low rick (because of diversification).  If you want to experiment with your criteria that's great, and I wish you luck, but  Note that historically, very few managed funds (meaning funds that actively buy and sell stocks based on some set of criteria) outperform the market over long periods.  So don't be afraid of some of your stocks losing - if you diversify enough, then statistically you should have more winners than losers. It's like playing blackjack.  The goal is not to win every hand. The goal is to have more winning hands than losing hands. No, the stock market and investing in general is not a zero sum game.  Some types of trades are zero sum because of the nature of the trade.   But someone isn't necessarily losing when you gain in the sale of a stock or other security. I'm not going to type out a technical thesis for your question.  But the main failure of the idea that investing is zero sum is the fact the a company does not participate in the transacting of its stock in the secondary market nor does it set the price. This is materially different from the trading of options contracts.  Options contracts are the trading of risk, one side of the contract wins and one side of the contract loses. If you want to run down the economic theory that if Jenny bought her shares from Bob someone else is missing out on Jenny's money you're free to do that.  But that would mean that literally every transaction in the entire economy is part of a zero sum game (and really misses the definition of zero sum game). Poker is a zero sum game.  All players bet in to the game in equal amounts, one player takes all the money.  And hell, I've played poker and lost but still sometimes feel that received value in the form of entertainment. "A key principle of economics is: Sunk costs are irrelevant. You bought the stock at 147 and it has now fallen to 144. That's too bad. This has nothing to do with whether it is wise or foolish to buy shares at 144. The only relevant thing to consider is: Do I expect the stock to go up or down from 144? You have lost $3 per share on the original buy. Buying more shares will not ""reduce your loss"" in any way. Suppose you bought 100 shares at 147. The price then drops to 144. You have lost $3 per share, or $300 total. You buy another 50 more shares at 144. The price stays at 144. So your average purchase price is now (147 x 100 + 144 x 50) / 150 = 146. So I guess you could say that your ""average loss per share"" is now only $2. But it's $2 x 150 shares instead of $3 x 100 shares. You still lost $300. You didn't reduce your loss by a penny. Maybe it made you feel better that you reduced your average loss per share, but this is just an arithmetic game. If you believe that the stock will continue to drop, than buying more shares just means you will lose even more money. Your average loss per share may go down, but you're just multiplying that average by more and more shares. Of course if you believe that the stock is now at an unjustifiably low price and it will likely go back up, then sure, buy. If you buy at 144 and it goes back up to 147, then you'll be making $3 per share on the new shares you purchased. But I repeat, whether or not you buy more shares should have nothing to do with your previous buy. Buy more shares if you think the price will go up from the present price; don't buy more shares if you don't think it will go up. The decision should be exactly the same as if you had never previously bought shares. (I'm assuming here that you are a typical small investor, that you not buying enough shares to have any significant effect on the market, nor that you are in a position to buy enough shares to take control of the company.)" "This depends strongly on what you mean by ""stock trading"".  It isn't a single game, but a huge number of games grouped under a single name. You can invest in individual stocks. If you're willing to make the (large) effort needed to research the companies and their current position and potentialities, this can yield large returns at high risk, or moderate returns at moderate risk. You need to diversify across multiple stocks, and multiple kinds of stocks (and probably bonds and other investment vehicles as well) to manage that risk. Or you can invest in managed mutual funds, where someone picks and balances the stocks for you. They charge a fee for that service, which has to be subtracted from their stated returns. You need to decide how much you trust them. You will usually need to diversify across multiple funds to get the balance of risk you're looking for, with a few exceptions like Target Date funds. Or you can invest in index funds, which automate the stock-picking process to take a wide view of the market and count on the fact that, over time, the market as a whole moves upward. These may not produce the same returns on paper, but their fees are MUCH lower -- enough so that the actual returns to the investor can be as good as, or better than, managed funds. The same point about diversification remains true, with the same exceptions. Or you can invest in a mixture of these, plus bonds and other investment vehicles, to suit your own level of confidence in your abilities, confidence in the market as a whole, risk tolerance, and so on. Having said all that, there's also a huge difference between ""trading"" and ""investing"", at least as I use the terms. Stock trading on a short-term basis is much closer to pure gambling -- unless you do the work to deeply research the stocks in question so you know their value better than other people do, and you're playing against pros. You know the rule about poker: If you look around the table and don't see the sucker, he's sitting in your seat... well, that's true to some degree in short-term trading too. This isn't quite a zero-sum game, but it takes more work to play well than I consider worth the effort. Investing for the long term -- defining a balanced mixture of investments and maintaining that mixture for years, with purchases and sales chosen to keep things balanced -- is a positive sum game, since the market does drift upward over time at a long-term average of about 8%/year. If you're sufficiently diversified (which is one reason I like index funds), you're basically riding that rise. This puts you in the position of betting with the pros rather than against them, which is a lower-risk position. Of course the potential returns are reduced too, but I've found that ""market rate of return"" has been entirely adequate, though not exciting. Of course there's risk here too, if the market dips for some reason, such as the ""great recession"" we just went through -- but if you're planning for the long term you can usually ride out such dips, and perhaps even see them as opportunities to buy at a discount. Others can tell you more about the details of each of these, and may disagree with my characterizations ... but that's the approach I've taken, based on advice I trust. I could probably increase my returns if I was willing to invest more time and effort in doing so, but I don't especially like playing games for money, and I'm getting quite enough for my purposes and spending near-zero effort on it, which is exactly what I want." "....causes loses [sic] to others. Someone sells you a stock.  The seller receives cash.  You receive a stock certificate.  This doesn't imply a loss by either party especially if the seller sold the stock for more than his purchase price. A day trading robot can make money off of the price changes of a stock only if there are buyers and sellers of the stock at certain prices.  There are always two parties in any stock transaction: a buyer and a seller.  The day trading robot can make money off of an investment for 20 years and you could still make money if the investment goes up over the 20 years.  The day trading robot doesn't ""rob"" you of any profit." You can't predict when to buy a stock during the day to guarantee not having a loss for the day. In the short run stock prices are really pretty random. There are many day traders who try to accomplish exactly this and most of them lose money. If you don't believe me, create an account on Investopedia and use their free stock market simulator and try day trading for a few months. It's whatever you decide. Taking money out of an S-Corp via distribution isn't a taxable event. Practically speaking, yes, you should make sure you have enough money to afford the distribution after paying your expenses, lest you have to put money back a few days later in to pay the phone bill. You might not want to distribute every penny of profit the moment you book it, either -- keeping some money in the business checking account is probably a good idea. If you have consistent cash flow you could distribute monthly or quarterly profits 30 or 60 days in arrears, for example, and then still have cash on hand for operations. Your net profit is reflected on the Schedule K for inclusion on your personal tax return. As an S-Corp, the profit is passed through to the shareholders and is taxable whether or not you actually distributed the money. You owe taxes on the profit reported on the Schedule K, not the amounts distributed. You really should get a tax accountant. Long-term, you'll save money by having your books set up correctly from the start rather than have to go back and fix any mistakes. Go to a Chamber of Commerce meeting or ask a colleague, trusted vendor, or customer for a recommendation. "When we say ""stock market,"" we are usually thinking of the publicly traded stocks, such as the New York Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ. Shares of individual products do not go on these exchanges, only large corporations.  You won't see a stock ticker symbol for The Force Awakens or for the iPhone 6s Plus.  The reason for this is that when investors buy a stock, they are looking for something that will grow in value theoretically forever. Individual products usually have a limited lifespan. Your movie will (hopefully) generate revenue when it comes out, but after a while sales will slow down after people have seen it. If someone bought a share of stock in a movie on the stock market, they have to realize that eventually the movie will stop making money, and their share of stock won't be worth anything anymore. Instead, people invest in companies that have the potential to make new products, such as Disney or Apple.  So if you were envisioning seeing the ticker symbol of your movie going across the screen on CNBC, sorry, that's not going to happen.  However, you could theoretically sell shares to individual investors for a percentage of the profit. You figure out how much money you need to create the movie, and estimate how much profit you think the movie will earn. Then you find an investor (or group of investors) that is willing to give you the money you need in exchange for a percentage of the profit. Unlike a stock market investor, these investors won't be looking for the long-term growth potential of the resale value of the stock, but simply a share of the profit."