isnt the market itself exactly that?
Long term market rate of return is positive (extremely positive of late), where as casino gambling is EV negative.
But options and futures exist as a short term hedge on equity investment. Combine that with the vig Robinhood takes on the front end in the form of higher contract prices, and you end up with an EV negative return - more consistent with high stakes gambling than equity investing.
The way I explain it is it’s like a casino, where the market makers play and also take the rake/odds.
Stock trading is like playing blackjack, it’s hard to win or lose money quickly. Options are like slot machines or roulette, you can win or lose very quickly. But at the end of the day the people who control the casino will come out ahead of you.
I class market trackers as investing rather than gambling.
Sure they can still go down (and by a lot), but it tends to be big events like COVID that do that, and it soon bounced back up again.
If you’re investing more than a few percent of your portfolio in any one company, you’re probably gambling though. And sure, nVidia look a safe bet today, but if Sam Altman comes out tomorrow and goes “sorry guys, this ain’t going anywhere” then you’ll lose over half your money before you can blink.
I wouldn’t invest on a timeframe of less than a few years either. It’s not for boosting your rent money. It’s just better than leaving your spare money in cash. If the concept of “spare money” is alien, then it’s probably not for you.
If you’re investing more than a few percent of your portfolio in any one company, you’re probably gambling though.
I read a forum post many years ago about people that put all their retirement money into some company that was going to be the sole supplier for some components for the iPhone. Apple didn’t end up going with them, and the company was relying entirely on that contract. The company went bankrupt, and the people that invested lost all their money.
In the end, why invest in a small number of companies when you can invest in practically all of them? Bogleheads three fund portfolio (total US stock + total world stock + bonds) is very simple yet will beat most actively-managed portfolios over the long run.
Bogleheads three fund portfolio (total US stock + total world stock + bonds) is very simple yet will beat most actively-managed portfolios over the long run.
This is right. But you don’t really need the ‘total world stock’. I reduced my allocation of that to 2% because it was dragging down my returns.
The point of including worldwide stock is to reduce risk in case the US has a recession, as not all other countries will be affected by that. The aim of the Bogleheads three-fund portfolio is to be reasonably balanced in terms of risk vs reward, which is why it includes bonds too. Past performance is not indicative of future performance, and in general it’s better to diversify (investing entirely in a single country isn’t really diversifying)
If you’re not risk-averse then 100% US stock is fine, just be prepared for larger drops than if it was more diversified.
The point of including worldwide stock is to reduce risk in case the US has a recession, as not all other countries will be affected by that.
This seems to be generally no longer true.
Let’s be honest, most share trading is more like gambling than it is like investing.
I work for a publicly traded company and I have some visibility into what’s happening with our products and business. Then I read the Y! Finance page about our stock and it’s all weird math trends analyses and absolutely zero about our company, its fundamentals, and the future of our business. Stock trading is just a bunch of assholes trying to sift the sea of numbers to divine a magic formula. The irony is that their own behavior drives the price changes, so they are feeding straight into the data they are trying to read and act on. What a circle jerk.
The market is wild sometimes. I work for a fairly large company. Sometimes in our earnings reports, we exceed EPS and revenue expectations (which is good of course), but don’t exceed them as much as some analysts think we’ll exceed them, so the stock goes down. The expectation is that we’ll always exceed the expectations lol
Companies should not even be issuing future “earnings expectations”. They mean little and warp the market. Drives me crazy when I hear financial talk about "future p/e’. It’s just a fake number. The only real p/e ratio is the trailing p/e ratio.
Yes, and good news about the company can drive the stock price down, if enough people decide that that’s probably a high point for the near future and a good time to sell and take profits.
Let’s be honest, our “free market” is a regular casino for the plebs that own about 10% of shares in their 401ks and Robinhood accounts, and an intentionally rigged casino for the oligarchs that own the rest, with marked insider information cards, and loaded market manipulation dice.
Gotta love when the bootlickers defend this economy, and market investment, as somehow inclusive, when 93% of stocks are owned by 10% of Americans.
(Saved Fortune article) https://archive.ph/DW0A8
It would suck if working class Americans lost their retirement money due to Wall Street getting what they deserve. But what sucks more is that our retirement system is based on letting rich people gamble with your money in the first place!
I guess it depends on your main goal. I started out as a gambler then lost a bunch of money and started actually investing. But at the end of the day every transaction you make can be called a gamble.
Semantics.
Bruh, wtf you think stock trading is? Buying into funds is just hiring professional gamblers to work for you, "insider trading* is cheating and dark pools is just the high rollers table.
In gambling, the house always wins, by extracting value from the players. In stock trading, the players (capitalists) collectively always win, by extracting value from labor, technological growth, and natural resources. These are not the same picture.
Sure, you can take on as much risk as you like using derivatives, and emulate a gambler using the stock market as a source of randomness (volatility). But that’s not how most traders behave, and it’s not how most traders’ payoffs work.
90% of users lost money while trading
the end result is very much the same
Damn, I’m up over 100% since I downloaded it seven years ago. Thank you, ETFs and tech companies I dig!
Nice story, bro.
I’m also up, more years, not Robinhood.
Then you glance over to Wallstreet Bets, they are the direct opposite on the curve.
Yet still almost everyone loses money on exchanges, for various reasons which I don’t want to spend time writing up.
But market has been irrational for many years, with no signals of slowing down.
I mean, I feel most people who lost money were doing “options trading”, basically full on gambling/speculation. If you had put that money in an s&p500 index fund, chances of losing money are slim.
Thats… what Robinhood doesn’t advertise, and (at least used to) always buys options by default.
So fuck Robinhood.
Where is the app that has only one button ‘Buy ESG’?
Same, looks like I’m not part of that 90% either, only 4 years account age here.
Heady!
In gambling, the house always wins, by extracting value from the players. In stock trading, the players (capitalists) collectively always win, by extracting value from labor, technological growth, and natural resources. These are not the same picture.
Excellent analogy. People who equate the stock market and gambling should go look up where the DJIA stood in October 1994. The slot machines in Vegas don’t magically start spitting out profit just because you’re patient, but stocks generally do over time.
It is gambling, because dark pools. That is the house. You’re not trading the actual stock. The financial institutions do that. You buy stock from them, and they in turn give you a fake number and invest it in all secrecy.
In essence, you’ll get your money, but they will handle the profits. So it is a rigged slot machine.
Please go look up the Dow as of October 1994.
Thank you.
No.
Please read my original post again. Did I say “was and always has been” or did I say “is”?
In gambling, the house always wins, by extracting value from the players. In stock trading, the players (capitalists) collectively always win, by extracting value from labor, technological growth, and natural resources. These are not the same picture.
Not all gambling requires a casino/house.
Even in a home poker game, it is not possible for all the players to go home having made a profit, whereas that is very possible in the stock market due to growth, labor, and natural resources.
(The coal miner who gets a wage and black lung is not a player in the stock market. Neither is the sun, which provides free energy to agribusiness.)
Yes, general investing is not zero sum, however many methods of advanced trading are. Options trading, which is prominent and easy to access on Robinhood, is much closer to gambling (and is treated that way by many users) and is zero sum.
Most active trading strategies require successfully arbitraging, or extracting inefficiencies out of the market, and you can’t do either of those things without someone else losing money.
Passive investment is investing in the companies that underlay the market, active trading is extracting value out of the market itself.
Stock prices at least have the possibility of being based on something substantial other than dice rolls. Derivatives, not so sure.
“Possibility” but not an “actuality” since share prices are typically based on the feelings of major investors and not necessarily what’s actually happening within a company.
Having a diversified portfolio has a positive expected return. Gambling has a negative expected return. There’s a long history of stock investing resulting in positive average returns, and there’s a long history of slots resulting in negative average returns.
If you’re buying good companies (or buying an index) and holding long-term, you are expected to get positive returns, therefore it’s not gambling. Any investment can have a negative return, it’s the mathematical expectation that separates it from gambling.
How long does an asset need a history of positive returns before it’s no longer “gambling”? Hypothetically, would 15 years be enough?
History is the wrong way to look at it. If I go to a roulette table and the last 10 balls have landed on red, that doesn’t change the odds that the next ball will end on red. Assuming the table and ball are fair, no amount of history will change the probability of the next ball landing on red, so there will always be a negative expected return for any bets placed on a roulette table.
Investment grade securities are different. Businesses are expected to return a profit to shareholders, otherwise they will eventually go bankrupt. So there is a built-in expectation of positive return, regardless of the pricing history of the security. Buy-and-hold investors should always expect a positive return on a diversified portfolio, because, on average, businesses are expected to return a profit. Valuations can certainly fluctuate in the short and medium term separate from profits (valuations include future expected returns), but since it’s not a zero-sum game, long-term returns are expected to be positive.
So no, 15-years is not enough, nor is any other arbitrary amount of time. Any expectation of future returns should be largely founded on the underlying fundamentals of whatever it is you’re buying, and then modified by past returns to adjust the probability of returns going forward.
Stock valuations are a poor proxy for actual value, they’re more a measure of market sentiment, which is why very short-term stock movements (esp. less than a year) are largely just gambling, because as A. Gary Shilling said:
Markets can remain irrational a lot longer than you and I can remain solvent.
So if you’re trading good securities (i.e. companies with positive expected return) on a short-term basis, you’re likely gambling, because you’re betting on changes in market sentiment. But if you’re trading good securities on a long-term basis, the underlying fundamentals should outpace short-term deviations from expected returns. My general number here is 10-years, but many financial experts go as low as 5-years in terms of investment horizon. The historical returns matter a lot less the shorter or longer your time horizon, and IMO are largely only important on medium terms (say, 5-15 years) because at that point we’re looking at more systematic over or under valuations (and tools like the Shiller CAPE do a decent job of indicating that).
It’s possible for the stock market only to grow because it externalizes costs (environmental damage, health of workers, etc.), and if that’s the case, we need to see if society is actually proceeding in a positive direction as a whole (I generally believe this to be the case), but consider for a moment that the economic windfall experienced by many western nations was (and still is in many ways, think banana plantations) largely made possible by the subjugation of imperialized nations. In this case, was the economic windfall experienced by the imperial powers and their trade partners actually a good for society as a tide that rose all boats, or not?
If we fail to consider the biggest losers of the stock market, those that cannot even necessarily participate, it becomes much closer to gambling at the very least. I’m not here to have an argument about whether or not capitalism and the stock market and such things are actually good or bad for society as a whole, just that it’s easy to ignore the biggest losers of the system by virtue of the fact that they don’t necessarily even invest in the first place. In this case, the universe is the casino, and humanity are the gamblers, as compared to just the stock market being the casino and the investors the gamblers.
Not that your comment is wrong necessarily just that there’s more ways of thinking about it.
It’s possible for the stock market only to grow because it externalizes costs
Sure, and ideally governments step in to return those costs to companies. For example, I think we’ve done an absolutely terrible job of managing climate change, and we’ve largely allowed companies to push those costs onto the people at large. That said, just because they are pushing off costs onto society at large doesn’t mean they’re a net negative, it just complicates the math a bit.
I’m a huge fan of Pigouvian taxes, and in the case of carbon emissions, that means carbon taxes (not credits or caps, but direct taxes based on carbon emissions). Those taxes should ideally equal the negative externalities of those companies, so if a competitor can reverse those externalities for less than it would cost the company to eliminate them, everyone wins (i.e. we now have two profitable companies). This has a two-fold impact:
- encourages companies to produce fewer negative externalities
- allows delay of expensive changes, with a short-term plan to compensate impacted individuals (or correct the externality, voter’s choice)
If we can put such a system in place, it makes it a lot easier to assess which companies are actually net positives for society.
People aren’t using Robinhood to invest in index funds via their 401k, they’re using it to “day trade” which is just gambling. Nobody is saying that investing = gambling, they’re saying that buying and selling shares or options in a single company in order to time the market = gambling.
Robinhood has IRAs, and you can totally buy diversified ETFs with it. When I used Robinhood for a few months, that’s basically what I did.
Options can be part of a legitimate strategy (e.g. my brother sells covered calls on dividend-yielding stocks, where the intent is to juice returns a little on a long position), but yes, most people who trade options are gambling.
My argument is that investing != gambling, and the difference is whether there’s a positive expected return. That’s a statistical question, not a “I am smarter than the next rube” question.
It’s damn near a roll of the dice of what is going to come out of a CEOs mouth during an earnings call…
All these copium defend the market takes, you telling me Tesla, a failed venture living off government subsidies, is worth 16x more than the hundred year old Ford that actually makes a profit without fraud?
a failed venture
Bruh wut.
living off government subsidies
Are you referring to the consumer incentives to buy electric? Not only are these ending, but they’re some of the least hinky government subsidies of business in the economy, because they go direct to the consumer. Have you seen what our government does for corn farmers and big oil? Oh right, corn and oil: those other “failed ventures” LOL
Tesla stock prices in the expectation that they’ll have robotaxi services and general purpose robots in the near future. And also that they will be leaders in these fields, ahead of the competition.
How likely/unlikely that is to happen is debatable, but that’s why some people are valuing the company so high right now.
It’s also why he’s hanging it all on Trump right now.
That’s what he’s after - the complete deregulation of self-driving safety standards in the US.
Hi-tech tulips.
What? The stock took a huge hit after that reveal. It’s a cult of personality.
Yeah, because the market went from having the opinion of “I’m 80% sure that Tesla is going to do this robo taxi, automaton thing” to " I’m 65% sure that Tesla is going to do this robotaxi, automaton thing". Things are rarely all or nothing with the market.
I’m 80% sure he’s going to do it, and 100% sure it’ll be a disaster if he does.
“Debatable” is a heavy stretch for someone with a 0% track record when it comes to promised tech while repeating “we can do it NOW and it will be available NEXT YEAR!” for a literal decade. Robo taxies were supposed to be EVERYWHERE 4 years ago. Same with SpaceX, we were supposed to be sending the first people to mars this year, yet all Elon has managed was burn 3 bilion tax payer dollars for literal fireworks, as not a single “starship” managed to reach high orbit. Even the cybertruck is a cheap knockoff of what was promised. Not to mention the countless people that have died because he’s allowed to beta test his death machines in public. Can’t forget his starlink shenanigans in Ukraine, fucking warlord wannabe… Elon is the greatest scam artist in modern history, and it’s absolutely disgraceful that he isn’t behind bars, let alone valued at all.
Tesla, a failed venture living off government subsidies
It’s not a failed venture precisely because it lives off government money. Show me a Fortune 500 company and I’ll show you a large stream of public sector receipts.
Ford are up to their eyeballs in debt, and they completely gave up on making affordable cars, which is the market segment that made Ford what they are in the first place.
Tesla actually makes vehicles normal people can afford to buy and run, so yes, they are worth more than Ford.
Afford to buy Teslas?
What?
They did slash prices on the older models. Heard some guys talking about how they bought model 3s or something at 60k and they cut it to 30.
I’ve heard cyber trucks got way cheaper too.
People can’t afford Ford anymore
Reality, in which the ford f series is the most sold vehicle for the past 42 years
Pick one
Ford is moving its prices upwards because people want and pay for what they’re offering, very clearly given the statistics we have. Also to say that tesla is the brand regular people can afford when both brands have ev trucks and one has a starting msrp almost 30k more than the other is kinda hilarious.
Lastly, ford has a vehicle with an msrp of 23,920 while the lowest priced tesla vehicle is 38,890 dollars. Even taking gas savings over 5 years into account, ($4,223 if you happen to live near my area and drive about 10k miles per year) the tesla is significantly more expensive. Clearly, tesla is not the company concerned with the common man. To make that point even more clear though, one needs only to compare tesla to the Korean and Chinese EVs that are being offered at significantly lower prices.
Talking about affordable cars, and then going on about F series trucks, is pretty out of touch.
And I’m not sure what vehicles they sell where you live, but they’ve stopped selling the Mondeo, focus, and Fiesta, the smallest brand new Ford you can buy near me is a mustang.
Maverick.
According to the American consumer, they are affordable, or else they wouldn’t be the most popular new car.
Also, you were the one that brought up affordability.
I drive a 90s volvo and you can pry it from my cold dead hands. I have no intention of buying a new vehicle any time soon. It has nothing to do with me being out of touch and everything to do with statistics concerning vehicle sales.
The American consumer is swimming in debt. What new cars they buy is not indictive of affordable. Look at the loan lengths from 10 years ago to today. 72 month loans are now normal, and 84/96 is becoming more normal than they should.
We don’t get the Maverick in right hand drive markets.
Yeah idk why I’d be comparing two American companies outside of the US. Fair enough I guess though…
Tesla sell everything except the Cybertruck in right hand drive, so I think it’s a fair comparison.
TL;DR of this response is that a Tesla is not more affordable for most normal people because what they can purchase is influenced by initial buy in costs/their own budgets at purchase:
Many “normal people” have less than 5K in savings. A model 3 is baseline around $40K plus the infrastructure of chargers you will probably need installed to charge it.
A Ford Bronco Sport or Escape start at 29K and I used them as an example because most Americans are buying SUVs or trucks, not sedans or compacts. No infrastructure needed.
Even with high credit scores, you’re talking at least ~$500 monthly payments even with something like 7K down. I know this because I purchased a new Subaru for about 30K within the past 6 months and my credit score was 815 at the time of purchase and I shopped around for the best APR financing I could get.
You have to remember that long term affordability doesn’t matter. Up front costs are influencing most “normal people” purchases because what you can afford NOW is what you can afford.
As an example of this in action - There’s a reason subscription services see monthly or quarterly as their biggest buy-ins because cheaper up front costs mean more to the consumer who has to invest in the NOW despite the long term being a better deal. I was in marketing for a subscription service and guess what we always sold the most of? If you guessed monthly - have a cookie.
A Ford Bronco Sport or Escape
I can’t buy either of those where I live, by the way.
Then you certainly couldn’t buy a Tesla either which is more out of your price range. That’s the point of my response.
No, you utter pillock, I mean they don’t sell them. Most of the vehicles you are yapping about are left hand drive only.
I see. So you don’t live in America. I still stand by what I said because I’m pretty sure that many manufacturers that sell vehicles in your area are cheaper than a Tesla.
Also, why are you getting angry for me pointing out what’s true? You compared Tesla and Ford without specifying where you live and/or availability. If you can’t get a Ford there at all then of course it’s less affordable than a Tesla because it’s not even an option.
If that’s the point then it begs to ask the question of why you even compared the two for your edge case and used a generality of affordability to most “normal people”.
Ford has right hand drive escapes in Australia. Your callout about specific vehicle models is one, not entirely correct, and two, not relevant to the point of the parent comment.
And the bronco?
Tesla’s suck dude. Shut up.
Weren’t they one of those blocking early GME?
They turned off the buy button when it was about to squeeze.
Even before that they have been accused of not buying stocks ordered by users, then buying at sell order and waiting for the price to raise to sell so they get a profit. It’s been questioned a long time.
Yes and no. Iirc, only high-rollers got to have their trades go through.
Great. Now how about Citadel’s $65 Billion in securities sold but not purchased? Just kickin that can, eh?
Hard to see how the SEC and DTCC aren’t complicit.
Citadel commands something like 8-10% of daily market volume. They’re the textbook Too Big To Fail investor. SEC won’t touch them for that reason alone, although there are plenty of other ideological/conflict of interest reasons, too.
I don’t disagree, but it’s the whole REASON the SEC was created in 1934.
If anyone needed further proof of end-stage capitalism, it’s this goddamn insistence on regressive everything.
Anything deemed “Too Big To Fail” is also a national security risk. Nationalize the whole firm, send the executives off with whatever loot they already have, and ironclad legalese to prevent them from ever setting foot in a financial market again.
They’re almost there…
They must not be worried about pissing off Citadel anymore. I wider what that means.
I just want to tip my hat to Elizabeth Lopatto’s writing in this piece. I miss following her on twitter and had forgotten how spicy and on-target she can be. Good stuff.
Let’s pause — I would like to reflect on this incredible phrase, about an asset class that democratizes access to events as they unfold. See, I thought we all had access to the events of the election because we all exist in reality and can find out about them. But apparently, if we can’t gamble on an event, it isn’t happening. This is a fascinating vision of metaphysics, and I would like to hear more about it. No one bet on my birth, for instance, and thus there is no asset class relating to my existence. So am I real?
Run by the types of people that used to run casinos…
contract for difference is the operative term here.
Glad I stopped investing.
Don’t stop investing. Investing the right way is the right thing to do with money you don’t need in the near future to prevent it to rot in bank.
