Avertissement sur les risques des CFD : ce que signifie le pourcentage de pertes

If you have looked at a broker's website in the EU or the UK, you have seen it: a line saying that a certain percentage of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider. This guide explains where the CFD risk warning percentage comes from, exactly how it must be calculated, a worked example, and what it can and cannot tell you when you judge a provider or your own odds.

Where does the CFD risk warning come from?

It comes from product intervention rules. In 2018 the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) used its temporary powers to restrict how CFDs are sold to retail clients in the EU, with the CFD measures applying from 1 August 2018. The package had five parts: leverage limits (30:1 for major currency pairs, 20:1 for gold, non-major currency pairs and major indices), a margin close-out at 50% of required margin per account, negative balance protection per account, restrictions on trading incentives, and a standardised risk warning that includes the provider's own loss percentage.

ESMA stopped renewing its temporary measures at the end of 31 July 2019 because national regulators had adopted permanent national measures that were at least as stringent. In a public statement dated 24 February 2026, ESMA confirmed that these national measures mirror the original ESMA decision and still apply, including the mandatory risk warning.

The UK left the EU framework but kept equivalent permanent rules. The FCA Handbook, in COBS 22.5, sets the UK version, including initial margin of 3.33% on major currency pairs and 5% on gold, which correspond to 30:1 and 20:1 leverage.

How is the loss percentage calculated?

The rules are precise, and the details change how you should read the number. Under the ESMA decision text, now mirrored in national rules, and under the FCA's COBS 22.5:

A firm without a year of data cannot invent a figure. Under the ESMA text, a provider that had no open retail CFD in the last 12 month period uses the standard warning, which reads "Between 74-89% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs." That range came from national regulators' analyses at the time. In the UK, the equivalent standard wording says "The vast majority of retail client accounts lose money when trading in CFDs."

A worked example: how one account and one firm get counted

Take one hypothetical retail account over 12 months. Its closed CFD trades made a gross profit of 900 euros. Spreads, commissions and overnight financing cost 320 euros. At the calculation date it holds an open position showing an unrealised loss of 650 euros.

900 minus 320 minus 650 equals minus 70 euros. Under the rules this account counts as having lost money, even though its closed trades were profitable before costs. Two points stand out. Costs flipped a winner into a loser, and an open loss counted as fully as a realised one.

Now scale up. A hypothetical firm had 10,000 retail accounts with at least one open CFD during the 12 months. Of those, 7,600 had a negative net result. Its warning would read 76%.

What does the percentage NOT tell you?

Read it as a base rate, not a verdict. Five limits matter:

1. It says nothing about the size of losses. An account down 20 euros and an account down 20,000 euros count the same. So do a tiny gain and a large one.
2. It reflects the firm's client mix. A provider whose clients trade small and infrequently can show a different figure from one serving very active traders, without either being a better or worse firm.
3. It only covers retail clients. Accounts classified as professional are outside the calculation.
4. It is a 12 month snapshot. A strong trending year and a choppy year can move the figure without anything changing at the firm.
5. It is not a forecast for you. It describes other people's accounts. Your own result depends on your sizing, costs and behaviour.

Can a lower percentage tell you which broker is better?

Not reliably on its own. A 71% figure next to a 79% figure invites the conclusion that the first broker is safer, but the gap may come from who their clients are rather than anything the firm does. Use the percentage to set expectations, and use other checks to judge the firm.

Those checks are separate questions. Is the firm authorised by its national regulator, and does the register entry match the website you are on? Our due diligence checklist for trading providers walks through it. What leverage and margin rules apply to your account? Our explainer on ESMA leverage limits covers the asset classes. And what happens if the firm itself fails? That is a different protection again: investor compensation schemes can cover certain claims when a firm fails, but they never cover ordinary trading losses, and bank deposit guarantees do not cover money lost on CFDs.

Does the warning apply to perpetual futures and crypto derivatives?

Often, yes. ESMA's February 2026 statement says derivatives marketed as perpetual futures or perpetual contracts are likely to fall within the national CFD measures when they meet the CFD definition, and that the commercial name is irrelevant. A derivative giving exposure to an underlying that is not exclusively settled physically will likely be in scope unless it falls under a specific exclusion. Features such as a funding rate mechanism, or voluntary safeguards like an insurance fund, do not take a product outside the measures. If a leveraged crypto product sold to you as a retail client in the EU shows no risk warning, ask why.

What should you do with the number?

Treat it as the starting assumption. If three quarters of comparable accounts lost money over a year after costs, the sensible prior is that you will be in that group until your own records show otherwise. That changes behaviour in practical ways: smaller size, a cost check before every strategy, and a long enough sample before trusting any result, which our guide on track record sample size quantifies.

The same discipline applies when judging anyone else's performance. TIC publishes its strategy results through independently verified Myfxbook tracking for exactly this reason: a number you can check beats a number you are told.

Sources

• ESMA, ESMA adopts final product intervention measures on CFDs and binary options (1 June 2018)
• ESMA, Notice of ESMA's product intervention decisions, including the risk warning text and calculation rules
• ESMA, ESMA ceases renewal of product intervention measures relating to CFDs (31 July 2019)
• ESMA, Public statement on derivatives in scope of the national CFD product intervention measures (24 February 2026)
• FCA Handbook, COBS 22.5: Restrictions on the retail marketing, distribution and sale of CFDs and similar speculative investments

National measures can differ in detail from the original ESMA text. Check your own regulator's rules and the firm's register entry before relying on any figure here.