Using Euros to buy and sell NASDAQ stocks
Does the Spanish market, or any other market in euroland, have the equivalent of ETF's?  If so there ought to be one that is based on something like the US S&P500 or Russell 3000. Otherwise you might check for local offices of large mutual fund companies such as Vanguard, Schwab etc to see it they have funds for sale there in Spain that invest in the US markets.  I know for example Schwab has something for Swiss residents to invest in the US market.  Do bear in mind that while the US has a stated policy of a 'strong dollar', that's not really what we've seen in practice.  So there is substantial 'currency risk' of the dollar falling vs the euro, which could result in a loss for you.  (otoh, if the Euro falls out of bed, you'd be sitting pretty.)  Guess it all depends on how good your crystal ball is. Either way you'll be converting to US Dollars somewhere along the line. You are seeking something that is very redundant You can check whether the company whose stock you want to buy is present on an european market. For instance this is the case for Apple at Frankfurt.
So how often do investors really lose money? The short answer is, every day. Let's first examine your assumptions: If the price of the share gets lower, the investor can just wait until   it gets higher. What are the chances that it won't forever, or for   years? There are many stocks whose price goes down and then down further and then to zero. The most apparent example is, of course, Enron. The stock went from about $90 per share to zero in about 18 months. For it to have been sold at $90, obviously, someone had to buy it. Almost no matter where they sold it, they lost money. If they didn't sell it, when the stock was worthless, they lost money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron#/media/File:EnronStockPriceAugust2000toJanuary2001.svg There are more modern examples of companies that are declining in a rapidly changing market. For example, Sears Holdings is getting beat down by Amazon and many other on-line retailers. I suspect that if you buy it today and wait for it to go higher, you will be disappointed. https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ASHLD&ei=E8_fWIjWGsSGmAGx7b_IAw The more common way to lose money is to either not have a plan or not stick to the plan. Disciplined investors typically plan to buy quality stocks at a fair price and hold them long enough for increasing sales and profits to bring the stock price up. If, later, he hears a bit of bad news about his stock and decides to sell out of panic or fear and become a trader instead of keeping to the plan to remain a disciplined investor, he is likely to lose money. He will lose because no-one can predict accurately that a stock is going down and will never recover; nor can he predict accurately when a stock is going up and will never falter. The chance of bankruptcy (especially for huge companies like Apple) is   really low, as I see it, but I may be wrong. Thousands of people lost billions of dollars thinking that about Enron, too. I too believe Apple is a fine stock with excellent prospects, but technology changes and markets change. Twenty or thirty years from now, it may be a different case. The standard advice is that stocks are all over the place, and bonds are stable. Not necessarily true. Magazines have to write for the lowest common denominator reader, so sometimes the advice given is fortune-cookie like. And like mbhunter pointed out, the advertisers influence the advice. When you read about the wonders of Index funds, and see a full page ad for Vanguard or the Nasdaq SPDR fund, you need to consider the motivation behind the advice. If I were you, I would take advantage of current market conditions and take some profits. Put as much as 20% in cash.  If you're going to buy bonds, look for US Government or Municipal security bond funds for about 10% of your portfolio. You're not at an age where investment income matters, you're just looking for some safety, so look for bond funds or ETFs with low durations. Low duration protects your principal value against rate swings. The Vanguard GNMA fund is a good example. $100k is a great pot of money for building wealth, but it's a job that requires you to be active, informed and engaged. Plan on spending 4-8 hours a week researching your investments and looking for new opportunities. If you can't spend that time, think about getting a professional, fee-based advisor. Always keep cash so that you can take advantage of opportunities without creating a taxable event or make a rash decision to sell something because you're excited about a new opportunity. "Very simple. You open an account with a broker who will do the trades for you. Then you give the broker orders to buy and sell (and the money to pay for the purchases). That's it. In the old days, you would call on the phone (remember, in all the movies, ""Sell, sell!!!!""? That's how), now every decent broker has an online trading platform. If you don't want to have ""additional value"" and just trade - there are many online discount brokers (ETrade, ScotTrade, TD Ameritrade, and others) who offer pretty cheap trades and provide decent services and access to information. For more fees, you can also get advices and professional management where an investment manager will make the decisions for you (if you have several millions to invest, that is). After you open an account and login, you'll find a big green (usually) button which says ""BUY"". Stocks are traded on exchanges. For example the NYSE and the NASDAQ are the most common US exchanges (there's another one called ""pink sheets"", but its a different kind of animal), there are also stock exchanges in Europe (notably London, Frankfurt, Paris, Moscow) and Asia (notably Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo). Many trading platforms (ETrade, that I use, for example) allow investing on some of those as well." "In gambling, the house also takes a cut, so the total money in the game is shrinking by 2-10 percent.  So if you gain $100, it's because other people lost $105, and you do this for dozens of plays, so it stacks up.  The market owns companies who are trying to create economic value - take nothing and make it something. They usually succeed, and this adds to the total pot and makes all players richer regardless of trades.   Gambling is transactional, there's a ""pull"" or a ""roll"" or a ""hand"", and when it's over you must do new transactions to continue playing.   Investing parks your money indefinitely, you can be 30 years in a stock and that's one transaction. And given the long time, virtually all your gains will be new economic value created, at no one else's expense, i.e. Nobody loses.  Now it's possible to trade in and out of stocks very rapidly, causing them  to be transactional like gambling: the extreme example is day-trading.  When you're not in a stock long enough for the company to create any value (paid in dividends or the market appreciating the value), then yes, for someone to gain, someone else must lose. And the house takes a cut (e.g. Etrade's $10 trading fee in and out).  In that case both players are trying to win, and one just had better info on average.   Another case is when the market drops. For instance right after Brexit I dumped half my domestic stocks and bought Euro index funds. I gambled Euro stocks would rebound better than US stocks would continue to perform.  Obviously, others were counterbetting that American stocks will still grow more than Euro will rebound.  Who won that gamble?  Certainly we will all do better long-term, but some of us will do better-er. And that's what it's all about." "A lot (sometimes called a round lot) always refers to the quantity of physical good that you're getting, like a carton of eggs or a barrel of oil.  The tricky thing in the case of forex is that the physical good also happens to be a currency. A spot currency product trades in the denomination on the right-hand side (RHS) of the product name.  So if you're buying EUR/USD you are paying USD currency to get EUR ""units"", and if you're selling EUR/USD you are receiving USD by giving away EUR ""units"".  The EUR is the ""physical good"" in this case. The way I remember it is to think of all products (not just currencies) as trading pairs.  So AAPL in my mind is AAPL/USD.  When I buy AAPL/USD I am paying USD to get AAPL units.  When I sell AAPL/USD I am receiving USD by giving away AAPL units. The thing on the left is the physical good (even if it happens to be money) that you are exchanging, and the thing on the right is the money that you are exchanging. So, when I buy a lot of AAPL, I am buying 100 shares at their current price in dollars. Similarly, when I buy a lot of EUR/USD, I am buying 100K Euros at their current price in dollars." "The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or ""going short.""  When you use money to buy shares, it is called ""going long."" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything.  Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share.  You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000.  You are both long and short in the stock for $2000.  At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds.  You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share.  Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000.  However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares.  Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest.  Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share.  Your long shares have lost $1000 in value.  However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares.  However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything.  Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time.  However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame.  The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting.  Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time.  You are only attempting to hedge your bets.  And it doesn't work.  A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position.  And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future.  This, however, doesn't really change things much.  Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term.  Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess.  And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain.  You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop.  You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon.  Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short.  However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position.    And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up.  You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain." "I'm just trying to visualize the costs of trading. Say I set up an account to trade something (forex, stock, even bitcoin) and I was going to let a random generator determine when I should buy or sell it. If I do this, I would assume I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. Your question is what a mathematician would call an ""ill-posed problem.""  It makes it a challenge to answer.  The short answer is ""no.""  We will have to consider three broad cases for types of assets and two time intervals. Let us start with a very short time interval.  The bid-ask spread covers the anticipated cost to the market maker of holding an asset bought in the market equal to the opportunity costs over the half-life of the holding period.  A consequence of this is that you are nearly guaranteed to lose money if your time interval between trades is less than the half-life of the actual portfolio of the market maker.  To use a dice analogy, imagine having to pay a fee per roll before you can gamble.  You can win, but it will be biased toward losing. Now let us go to the extreme opposite time period, which is that you will buy now and sell one minute before you die.  For stocks, you would have received the dividends plus any stocks you sold from mergers.  Conversely, you would have had to pay the dividends on your short sales and received a gain on every short stock that went bankrupt.  Because you have to pay interest on short sales and dividends passed, you will lose money on a net basis to the market maker.  Maybe you are seeing a pattern here.  The phrase ""market maker"" will come up a lot. Now let us look at currencies.  In the long run, if the current fiat money policy regime holds, you will lose a lot of money.  Deflation is not a big deal under a commodity money regime, but it is a problem under fiat money, so central banks avoid it.  So your long currency holdings will depreciate.  Your short would appreciate, except you have to pay interest on them at a rate greater than the rate of inflation to the market maker. Finally, for commodities, no one will allow perpetual holding of short positions in commodities because people want them delivered.  Because insider knowledge is presumed under the commodities trading laws, a random investor would be at a giant disadvantage similar to what a chess player who played randomly would face against a grand master chess player.  There is a very strong information asymmetry in commodity contracts.  There are people who actually do know how much cotton there is in the world, how much is planted in the ground, and what the demand will be and that knowledge is not shared with the world at large.  You would be fleeced. Can I also assume that probabilistically speaking, a trader cannot do   worst than random? Say, if I had to guess the roll of a dice, my   chance of being correct can't be less than 16.667%. A physicist, a con man, a magician and a statistician would tell you that dice rolls and coin tosses are not random.  While we teach ""fair"" coins and ""fair"" dice in introductory college classes to simplify many complex ideas, they also do not exist.  If you want to see a funny version of the dice roll game, watch the 1962 Japanese movie Zatoichi.  It is an action movie, but it begins with a dice game.   Consider adopting a Bayesian perspective on probability as it would be a healthier perspective based on how you are thinking about this problem.  A ""frequency"" approach always assumes the null model is true, which is what you are doing.  Had you tried this will real money, your model would have been falsified, but you still wouldn't know the true model. Yes, you can do much worse than 1/6th of the time.  Even if you are trying to be ""fair,"" you have not accounted for the variance. Extending that logic, then for an inexperienced trader, is it right to   say then that it's equally difficult to purposely make a loss then it   is to purposely make a profit? Because if I can purposely make a loss,   I would purposely just do the opposite of what I'm doing to make a   profit. So in the dice example, if I can somehow lower my chances of   winning below 16.6667%, it means I would simply need to bet on the   other 5 numbers to give myself a better than 83% chance of winning. If the game were ""fair,"" but for things like forex the rules of the game are purposefully changed by the market maker to maximize long-run profitability.  Under US law, forex is not regulated by anything other than common law.  As a result, the market maker can state any price, including prices far from the market, with the intent to make a system used by actors losing systems, such as to trigger margin calls.  The prices quoted by forex dealers in the US move loosely with the global rates, but vary enough that only the dealer should make money systematically.  A fixed strategy would promote loss. You are assuming that only you know the odds and they would let you profit from your 83.33 percentage chance of winning. So then, is the costs of trading from a purely probabilistic point of   view simply the transaction costs? 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? No, the cost of trading is the opportunity cost of the money.  The transaction costs are explicit costs, but you have ignored the implicit costs of foregone interest and foregone happiness using the money for other things. You will want to be careful here in understanding probability because the distribution of returns for all of these assets lack a first moment and so there cannot be a ""mean return.""  A modal return would be an intellectually more consistent perspective, implying you should use an ""all-or-nothing"" cost function to evaluate your methodology." "This probably won't be a popular answer due to the many number of disadvantaged market participants out there but: Yes, it is possible to distort the markets for securities this way. But it is more useful to understand how this works for any market (since it is illegal in securities markets where company shares are involves).  Since you asked about the company Apple, you should be aware this is a form of market manipulation and is illegal... when dealing with securities. In any supply and demand market this is possible especially during periods when other market participants are not prevalent. Now the way to do this usually involves having multiple accounts you control, where you are acting as multiple market participants with different brokers etc. The most crafty ways to do with involve shell companies w/ brokerage accounts but this is usually to mask illegal behavior In the securities markets where there are consequences for manipulating the shares of securities. In other markets this is not necessary because there is no authority prohibiting this kind of trading behavior. Account B buys from Account A, account A buys from Account B, etc. The biggest issue is getting all of the accounts capitalized initially. The third issue is then actually being able to make a profit from doing this at all. Because eventually one of your accounts will have all of the shares or whatever, and there would still be no way to sell them because there are no other market participants to sell to, since you were the only one moving the price. Therefore this kind of market manipulation is coupled with ""promotions"" to attract liquidity to a financial product. (NOTE the mere fact of a promotion does not mean that illegal trading behavior is occurring, but it does usually mean that someone else is selling into the liquidity) Another way to make this kind of trading behavior profitable is via the derivatives market. Options contracts are priced solely by the trading price of the underlying asset, so even if your multiple account trading could only at best break even when you sell your final holdings (basically resetting the price to where it was because you started distorting it), this is fine because your real trade is in the options market. Lets say Apple was trading at $200 , the options contract at the $200 strike is a call trading at $1 with no intrinsic value. You can buy to open several thousand of the $200 strike without distorting the shares market at all,  then in the shares market you bid up Apple to $210, now your options contract is trading at $11 with $10 of intrinsic value, so you just made 1000% gain and are able to sell to close those call options. Then you unwind the rest of your trade and sell your $210 apple shares, probably for $200 or $198 or less (because there are few market participants that actually valued the shares for that high, the real bidders are at $200 and lower). This is hardly a discreet thing to do, so like I mentioned before, this is illegal in markets where actual company shares are involved and should not be attempted in stock markets but other markets won't have the same prohibitions, this is a general inefficiency in capital markets in general and certain derivatives pricing formulas. It is important to understand these things if you plan to participate in markets that claim to be fair. There is nothing novel about this sort of thing, and it is just a problem of allocating enough capital to do so."