Is diversification a sham? (financial advice)

  • Thread starter Thread starter scientific601
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Diversification in investing is primarily aimed at reducing potential losses rather than increasing the probability of winning. It works by narrowing the variance of returns, which can help mitigate risks associated with market fluctuations. While diversification can improve the likelihood of achieving a positive payoff when the expected return is above zero, it does not enhance the expected payoff itself. In contrast, in gambling scenarios where the expected return is negative, diversification can actually increase the chances of losing. Ultimately, effective diversification requires understanding the correlations between different investments to avoid concentrated risks.
  • #51
russ_watters said:
Why? You said "will" there, but in your examples said "can"...and also singled out individual products, not the entire market Those are big differences.

Your tulip market example implies you think all stock market values are 100% speculation and 0% tangable. That's true of beanie babies and tulips, but it is not true of stocks and as a result, there is no "will" about it.

The stock market's consistent long term growth is neither a fad nor a coincidence. It's a reflection of tangeable value.
Given an infinitely long time, it will happen.

How the market reacts between now and then is the interesting bit.

Tulips and beanie babies have tangible value. They were just way overvalued by today's standards.

Value is determined by people. (At least until the robot apocalypse. :olduhh:) Something is worth what people are willing to pay for it. And this amount changes through time. Should conditions change, value changes. It doesn't matter is the change is for the worse, like a government seizure, or for the better, like railroads replacing wagons. The world changes and value changes with it. There is more call for tulips today than there is for the more "tangible" wagon freight business of yesteryear.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Jeff Rosenbury said:
Given an infinitely long time, it will happen.
Again, why? Because in 4 billion years the sun will swallow the Earth and vaporize the markets? You're being very vague, yet expressing a highly certain fatalistic view about this claim of yours.
Tulips and beanie babies have tangible value.
No they don't (at least not of any significance). Not that it is necessarily a reliable source, so I won't bother posting it, but a google tells me a Beanie Baby cost 38 cents to manufacture. It should be self-evident that a little scrap of fabric and some pvc pellet filler has essentially zero value outside of a fad.

And tulips, unless people eat them and I don't know about it, are flowers. Their value is aesthetic only. Not quite the same as a fad, but close.
Value is determined by people. (At least until the robot apocalypse. :olduhh:) Something is worth what people are willing to pay for it. And this amount changes through time. Should conditions change, value changes. It doesn't matter is the change is for the worse, like a government seizure, or for the better, like railroads replacing wagons. The world changes and value changes with it. There is more call for tulips today than there is for the more "tangible" wagon freight business of yesteryear.
Again, an individual product or company going out of business does not imply that an entire stock market must eventually or can at any time go to zero. And saying that value is determined by people glosses over your claim, which is of a specific intrinsic value: zero. There are an infinite number of possible values that aren't zero and you need to explain why zero, specifically, is inevitable.
 
Last edited:
  • #53
russ_watters said:
And tulips, unless people eat them and I don't know about it, are flowers. Their value is aesthetic only.
As is a preference for a full stomach over an empty one.

As Jeff said, the (economic) value of something is what someone is prepared to pay for it. The cost of ingredients is irrelevant. I have never encountered an economic theory that says anything to the contrary.
 
  • #54
russ_watters said:
Again, why? Because in 4 billion years the sun will swallow the Earth and vaporize the markets? You're being very vague, yet expressing a highly certain fatalistic view about this claim of yours.

There are an infinite number of possible values that aren't zero and you need to explain why zero, specifically, is inevitable.

Because as long as the market has a higher value than the transaction cost, it will keep functioning. When I say zero, I mean less than the transaction cost.

Markets express chaotic behavior. As soon as someone figures an expression for the market value, it feeds back into the market and changes the expression. Thus market value has a large random component.

That means the value of the market will climb and fall. In an infinite time it will reach zero at some point. At that point the market ceases to function and goes away.

There are a large number of real events that can drive a market to the zero point. In addition to random psychological action, transaction costs can increase dramatically. Theft is usually cheaper than bargaining, and it's only social control that keeps transaction costs low. War, famine, disease, and lawlessness all raise transaction costs.

This is in addition to changing values due to changing desires, technological innovation, and changing physical needs.

Suppose for example someone expands the digital currency idea and forms an efficient digital stock market with tighter controls on graft. Transaction costs are driven down, so people stop using old markets like the NYSE. Without people using it, the NYSE can no longer afford maintenance, so it closes. This is just one example of millions that can drive a market to zero.

Humans have used many forms of social control/government historically. Now we are reaching an era when we start to question just what it is to be human. It is difficult (impossible) to foresee all eventualities, but it's safe to say tomorrow won't be like today.

So no, I can't be specific about how and why a market will reach zero.
 
  • #55
andrewkirk said:
control buyers could care less

Sorry for the tangential link BWV, but that phrase is a source of perpetual perplexity to me
I find that people capable of eating marmite can be easily perplexed ;)

Cool video though
 

Similar threads

Replies
36
Views
16K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
38
Views
8K
Replies
82
Views
15K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Back
Top