Safe markets for seven investors out of ten, but trust does not erase the risks

Can you trust financial markets and still have already lost money? You can also consider the investment system reliable after being targeted by an attempted fraud. It is this coexistence, more than a simple contradiction, that makes the survey conducted by TGM Research on behalf of XTB and released on 28 October 2026 so interesting: 69% of the Italian investors questioned describe markets as safe or fairly safe, while 38.7% report at least one negative experience linked to their investments. The comparison invites us to ask what respondents mean by safety and how well they are able to distinguish the ups and downs of an investment from the unlawful conduct of those offering a product.

Losing money and encountering fraud are different experiences

The detail provided by XTB helps separate phenomena that the overall figure brings together. 17.9% of investors report a significant financial loss; 15.3% an attempted fraud with no relevant economic consequences; 5.6% both experiences. It would therefore be wrong to turn that nearly four-in-ten into the percentage of people who were scammed. A loss can occur even when buying a regular financial instrument through an authorised intermediary, while an attempted scam can be recognised and stopped before it causes damage. The distinction matters because the responses are different: assessing market risk requires understanding the investment, while countering fraud also requires checks on the counterpart and on the authenticity of the proposal.

According to Gaia Zerbola, Marketing Manager at XTB Italia, «Financial education is the starting point for overcoming fears and inequalities, and for turning knowledge into autonomy and confidence in one’s choices». In the statement accompanying the research, she adds: «Investing is not only a matter of money, but of awareness». This is the position of the company that commissioned the survey, and it should be read alongside the findings without confusing it with a statistical conclusion. What emerges is nevertheless concrete: trust becomes useful when it allows people to recognise the limits of what they are buying, including the possibility of a loss, and to understand which checks come before the decision.

Young people show greater confidence and greater exposure to negative episodes

The gap is particularly clear in the 18 to 24 age group: 81.6% consider markets safe or fairly safe, but 68.4% report at least one negative event. Again among under-25s, 34.2% report an attempted fraud without significant losses, compared with 15.3% in the overall investor group. Negative episodes are also frequent among 25-34-year-olds, with 55.3% reporting losses or attempted fraud. These data describe the responses collected by the survey; they do not automatically measure the financial competence of an entire generation and do not prove that the use of digital tools is the cause of negative experiences.

The editorial reading suggested by the comparison concerns instead the possible distance between ease of access and ability to assess. Opening an app, finding information and completing a transaction can take very little time; understanding why an investment may lose value, which party is offering it and how the various steps are remunerated requires a different effort. For that reason, greater familiarity with interfaces should not be mistaken for sufficient protection. The press release received does not provide details on the size of the sub-samples, the interview period or the margins of error: the age-based percentages therefore deserve a cautious reading, without attributing to the decimal places more precision than has been documented.

Those who stay out want protection and transparency

Among those who do not invest, 53.7% identify capital protection as the main factor capable of generating trust; 44.9% ask for greater transparency on costs and risks, and 22.9% for more accessible educational content. These are expectations that help explain the distance from markets, but the demand for protection must be clarified before it becomes a commercial promise. Reducing the probability of certain losses, preserving liquidity and obtaining a contractual guarantee are distinct objectives. An effective information service should explain these differences, in addition to illustrating possible returns, making visible also what a product cannot guarantee.

Artificial intelligence enters training, but sources remain decisive

XTB links the research to the Financial Education Month and announces four webinars in November on using artificial intelligence to read market information, analyse stocks, interpret macroeconomic data and examine charts. David Pascucci, Market Analyst at XTB Italia, stresses: «The advent of AI provides new tools useful for our investment decisions, both from an informational and an analytical point of view». The value of the initiative lies in learning a method of consultation; the availability of an automated answer, however, does not turn that answer into a verified source or into an assessment suited to the situation of the reader.

The question to take away from this survey is therefore what quality the declared trust actually has. If it stems from the belief that markets are incapable of generating losses, it remains fragile. If it takes into account risks, costs, timing and the possibility of error, it can instead support more informed decisions. For intermediaries and for those involved in financial education, the task will be to help people distinguish between these two conditions, even when the most reassuring communication would be the easiest to put forward.