Is the Stock Market a Positive-Sum Game or a Ponzi Scheme?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tosh5457
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on whether the stock market operates as a positive-sum game or resembles a Ponzi scheme. Participants argue that while companies create wealth, the stock market facilitates liquidity and investment opportunities for these companies. It is established that the stock market does not inherently create wealth; rather, it allows for the transfer of ownership of existing wealth. The correlation between stock prices and company earnings is emphasized, countering the notion that stock trading is merely speculative.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of stock market mechanics and trading principles
  • Knowledge of company valuation metrics, including Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios
  • Familiarity with the concepts of liquidity and market capitalization
  • Awareness of economic cycles and their impact on stock prices
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of liquidity in capital markets
  • Study the relationship between company earnings and stock valuations
  • Explore the fundamentals of market cycles and their effects on stock performance
  • Learn about investment strategies that account for market speculation
USEFUL FOR

Investors, financial analysts, and anyone interested in understanding the dynamics of stock market trading and its relationship with company performance.

  • #121
russ_watters said:
What I can tell you is that never in its history has the US stock market had a 15 year period where a highly diversified group of stocks didn't turn a profit. Not even if you bought a bunch of stocks the day before the 1929 stock market crash.

This obviously must rely on dividends as well as capital gains. Since you have the data, can you check this for the 15-year period ending with the Dow's low of 41.22 in min-1932?

What I find surprising is that this discussion is focused almost entirely on capital gains. Dividends are very important. If I were to buy shares in, say, Coca-Cola, I would get 2.75% of my money in dividends. Even if I believed that the price of KO would be constant over time, this would be a good investment.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
Vanadium 50 said:
This obviously must rely on dividends as well as capital gains.
Yes.
Since you have the data, can you check this for the 15-year period ending with the Dow's low of 41.22 in min-1932?
Unfortunately, that's a paraphrase from a book. It doesn't have the actual numbers.
What I find surprising is that this discussion is focused almost entirely on capital gains. Dividends are very important. If I were to buy shares in, say, Coca-Cola, I would get 2.75% of my money in dividends. Even if I believed that the price of KO would be constant over time, this would be a good investment.
Meh - it was just a specific question.
 
  • #123
Here's a 15 year window on google finance for the DJI (no dividends) going back to '73. No losses for a 15 year window ever occur, though regrettably the lowest 15 year returns are recent. This past Summer-Fall had 15 year returns of 60-80%, lower even than placing the window close on the bottom of the crash in March 2009.
 
  • #124
mheslep said:
Here's a 15 year window on google finance for the DJI (no dividends) going back to '73. No losses for a 15 year window ever occur, though regrettably the lowest 15 year returns are recent. This past Summer-Fall had 15 year returns of 60-80%, lower even than placing the window close on the bottom of the crash in March 2009.

That doesn't prove anything, as I said over and over, the stock market being a zero-sum game, excluding dividends, doesn't imply that stocks can't grow in the long term. I could also show a graph of any commodity future that grew for a long time, it doesn't make speculating in commodities futures a non zero-sum game. Somehow I get the impression many people are confounding zero-sum game with a game which in nobody can win.
 
  • #125
Tosh, if you read the last few posts, that's a response to a different question.
 
  • #126
mheslep said:
... No losses for a 15 year window ever occur, though regrettably the lowest 15 year returns are recent. This past Summer-Fall had 15 year returns of 60-80%, lower even than placing the window close on the bottom of the crash in March 2009.
That is to say, for the market (DJI) to be returning traditional 15 year returns it should be well above 20000 now.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
36K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
68
Views
12K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K