The evidence
Read the finding. Check who it describes. Keep the caveat. The case against trading hype is stronger when the sources are easy to inspect.
8 sources
Individual equity-derivatives traders · India · FY2025–26
SEBI reported that 87.7% of individual traders in this segment incurred losses in FY26.
Keep the context: This is one market, product group and financial year—not a worldwide rate for all trading or investing.
20 August 2026
Individual equity F&O traders · India · FY2021–22 to FY2023–24
The regulator reported losses for 93% of individual equity futures-and-options traders across this three-year study period.
Keep the context: A historical three-year result. Do not compare it directly with a single-year rate, or apply it to diversified long-term investors.
23 September 2024
Retail CFD customers · UK regulator statement · December 2022
The FCA stated that approximately 80% of customers lost money when investing in contracts for difference (CFDs).
Keep the context: A dated, product-specific statement—not the percentage of all stock investors who lose money, and not a current universal rate.
1 December 2022
Households at one US discount broker · 1991–1996
In this sample, the most active traders earned 11.4% annually versus 17.9% for the market. That is a 6.5-percentage-point gap, not proof that emotions alone caused it.
Keep the context: Historical household stock-account evidence, not a measurement of today’s day-trader loss rate. Returns depend on the paper’s definitions and sample.
April 2000
US securities day trading · Rule 2270
FINRA warns about severe day-trading losses, execution difficulties and the possibility of losses beyond initial funds with margin or short selling.
Keep the context: Risk disclosure, not a study or a probability estimate. Product protections, account rules and legal obligations differ by jurisdiction.
Live rule page; accessed 6 September 2026
General investor education · United States
Diversification spreads exposure across investments. It does not guarantee protection from a broad market decline.
Keep the context: A risk-management principle, not a promised return or a recommendation for any particular fund.
Accessed 6 September 2026
General investor education · Fee illustrations
The SEC illustrates how ongoing fees reduce the money left to grow over time, even when the percentage looks small.
Keep the context: An illustration of cost drag, not a prediction of future market returns. Real results also reflect taxes, inflation and market movements.
23 July 2025
Gambling-related harm · UK health guidance
NHS guidance describes warning signs and routes to help for people affected by gambling, including people worried about someone else.
Keep the context: Applying gambling-support ideas to compulsive trading is this project’s practical framing. This page is not a validated trading assessment or diagnosis.
Accessed 6 September 2026
No sources match. Try a broader term or choose All.
Transparency is part of the work
The letter is preserved as an original author document, including its wording and references. These notes are new editorial material; they are not part of the original letter. The evidence library above does not adopt every claim in that document.
The cited Barber & Odean (2000) paper does not establish the letter’s general 70–80% day-trader loss rate. Its abstract reports 11.4% annual returns for the most active households versus 17.9% for the market. The resulting 6.5-percentage-point gap is not a finding that emotions alone cause a universal 6.5% annual penalty, nor is that finding established by the cited Odean (1998) paper. Use the scoped evidence above instead.
The letter’s precise claim that diversification reduces volatility “by up to 50% without sacrificing returns” is not verified here. The new resource does not repeat that number as evidence. The SEC guidance supports a more careful statement: diversification can spread risk but cannot guarantee protection against losses.
The historical anecdotes remain in the letter, but their dates, reported amounts and interpretations have not all been independently verified for this edition. In particular, do not treat the “demo account” or anonymous social-media stories as established research. None is used as the basis for the new campaign statistics. The section also contains discussion of suicide; support is available on our help page.
Not every reference in the letter has been re-audited. Claims about manipulation, algorithmic trading, mental-health causation, tax treatment and specific financial products should not be taken as established by the new evidence library. A study of one population does not automatically describe another. Tax rules and protections depend on jurisdiction; clinical conclusions need clinical evidence.
“Trading is gambling” expresses the project’s view of short-term speculative behavior. It is not a legal classification of every trade, a diagnosis of every trader, or a claim that all investing is equivalent to a casino game. We make this scope visible because the distinction matters.