‘Why 95% of investors lose money’

Why do so few private investors make money in shares? Stephen Bland reckons he has the answer. In this video, Stephen explains exactly why so many private investors go wrong. And he points to “the only reliable way to build your wealth over time”.

• To find out more about Stephen’s investment strategy, click here.

  • Jackson

    Good rant. There’s no dull money or exciting money – just money!

  • SteveH

    Is 95% a true figure, where’s the data please?

    If it’s true then it’s roughly what is called a scientific fact (95%) that everyone loses money except through luck. Which kind of puts Moneyweek out of business.

  • TonyS

    He’s not called ‘Bland’ for nothing!

  • Baxter Basics

    Always a pleasure to hear PYAD speak, one of the (very few) pundits I take seriously.

  • Joe V

    Well said Stephen. That makes a lot of sense for a portion of capital. Personally, I’m still going to have a punt on the odd growth stock I like the look of. Can’t help it – I like the thrill of it and if it doesn’t work out, that’s my bad luck. But I utterly agree that long-term returns will come from dividends.

    I’ll definitely give The Dividend Letter a go. I didn’t even know it existed – so thanks for highlighting it.

  • Antony

    What a GREAT video clip – totally agree, and really enjoyed the delivery. Keep doing these kind of clips!

  • Kawasakifreak

    Thank you Mr Bland. I agree completely. Some parts of the investment industry won’t thank you because you focus on value – not jam tomorrow promises of ‘new’ opportunities.

  • Shaun O’Toole

    I’m not sure that I agree. I think that anybody intelligent, like me for instance, can make a fortune on stocks and shares. I’ve watched Wall Street 6 or 7 times now. I think I know what I’m doing folks!

    I have to run…some bloke from Nigeria just phoned….seemingly I have won thousands of dollars….I just need to give him my sort code and account number so as he can send me the money!!!!

    Top of the mornin’ to ya !

  • Mike S

    Just to correct Mr Bland – getting a 200% return on your investment is not the same as betting on a 200-1 horse winner – it is the same as betting on a 2-1 winner (ie £1 on a 2-1 winner returns a profit of £2 or 200%). A 200-1 winner is a return of 20,000%.

  • SB

    Mike S: “Just to correct Mr Bland – getting a 200% return on your investment is not the same as betting on a 200-1 horse winner – it is the same as betting on a 2-1 winner (ie £1 on a 2-1 winner returns a profit of £2 or 200%). A 200-1 winner is a return of 20,000%.”

    I didn’t mean that a 200% return is the same as a 200-1 winner. I do understand the math. My point was the general one that very long shots which carry high risk of failure are not the way for the great majority to make money. Yet too many small investors think this is the way to win in the market.

  • NeutronWarp9

    Yeah, Mike, we understand sums no probs! I’m with you 110% SB.

  • Ash

    SB – what do you think of simple mechanical strategies that are allowed to play out over a long period of time? For example, if you only ever put new money into the market/index if the previous quarter was a negative one, you would do very well over time because you would be buying the market below its long term average price.

  • Rob

    Id argue most end up missing out because they ASSUME the small, rubbish companies pushing something new will make 200,500, 1000% gains.

    Rather than sell when at a paper profit of 40% after an update claiming some ultra awesome advancement/development, most hold on, and end up losing out on the gains/the majority of their original investment when it becomes obvious that a, its nothing special or b, it was rubbish.

    Bayfield Energy is a good example. Prior performance/expected increase in production and regular glowing RNS’s blinded the smaller investors, who could have bagged a 10% gain within weeks of buying, instead many are now down 50-80%

  • Dividend Income Investor

    Fully agree with most of Stephen’s comments.

    Though, I disagree with him that one needs to be fully invested all the time as mentioned in his promotional material.

    I rather invest when high quality dividend paying shares are historically undervalued and sell them when they have become historically overvalued. Often this can take years. In the meantime, I am raking in increasing dividends.

    For more on this see http://www.dividend-income-investor.com


Claim 12 issues of MoneyWeek (plus much more) for just £12!

Let MoneyWeek show you how to profit, whatever the outcome of the upcoming general election.

Start your no-obligation trial today and get up to speed on:

  • The latest shifts in the economy…
  • The ongoing Brexit negotiations…
  • The new tax rules…
  • Trump’s protectionist policies…

Plus lots more.

We’ll show you what it all means for your money.

Plus, the moment you begin your trial, we’ll rush you over THREE free investment reports:

‘How to escape the most hated tax in Britain’: Inheritance tax hits many unsuspecting families. Our report tells how to pass on up to £2m of your money to your family without the taxman getting a look in.

‘How to profit from a Trump presidency’: The election of Donald Trump was a watershed moment for the US economy. This report details the sectors our analysts think will boom from Trump’s premiership, and gives specific investments you can buy to profit.

‘Best shares to watch in 2017’: Includes the transcript from our roundtable panel of investment professionals – and 12 tips they’re currently tipping. The report also analyses key assets, including property, oil and the countries whose stock markets currently offer the most value.