What is gambling compared to the stock market

[Janitor]

In an era where the economy is expanding when viewed long-term, ("secular trend" or whatever the cognoscenti in the investing world call it), is it fair to say that stock trading is not zero-sum, in the sense that both the seller and the buyer can say that they ultimately did well from the transaction between the two of them?

A former co-worker told me that statistics show that 90% of stock investors have a net loss over their investing lifetimes. I find that hard to believe, and I suspect it was either sour grapes on his part if he had ever invested and lost at it, or a sort of sadistic wishful thinking if in fact he had never invested and didn't plan to ever do so.

This might be too personal to expect anyone to respond to, but an interesting tangential thread here would be to tell stories of some investment that either did absurdly well for you, or horribly badly.

EDIT: I just read the posts above by Robert and by Bob, so I apologize for the redundancy on the zero-sum issue.

 

[selfAdjoint]

A former co-worker told me that statistics show that 90% of stock investors have a net loss over their investing lifetimes. I find that hard to believe, and I suspect it was either sour grapes on his part if he had ever invested and lost at it, or a sort of sadistic wishful thinking if in fact he had never invested and didn't plan to ever do so.

That isn't sour grapes, it's just the truth. Just like the majority of new business go out of business in three years. People are in denial of what the true situation is. It is true the in the long run the market goes up, but you know what Keynes said about the long run. In the finite run of an actual small investor, the market fluctuates, and people get caught with insufficient funds.

 

[robert Ihnot]

If you look at Minerva, the Greek goddess and patron of Athens and Troy, she excelled above all at spinning, and was enraged when challenged by Arachne, who she changed into a spider. Indeed, women were valued economically in the middle ages by just how efficient they were weaving clothes. The very term "distaff side" refers to an instrument of spinning and to a female. The term "spinster," meant that the unmarried lady was busy practicing her weaving arts in order to attract a suitor.

Then the story of Rumplestilskin, where the Miller tells the King, that his daughter can change straw into gold. The King was very skeptical, interested and angry. Why angry? because such a woman was, after, suitable to marry, even a king! And she did!

Gandhi went around with a small weaving device and wove his own clothes. Why? because as he noticed the British could import the raw materials from India, run it through their mills, and then ship it back to India, and put the local weaver out of business!

This is the story of capitalism and the machine age. Sure, people were displaced. But do women want to go back to an age where they spent all day weaving at home? Remember it is a very tedious job, there wasn't much lighting at home in the Middle Ages, and you could cut your fingers!

Capitalism creates wealth, and today everybody has more and better clothes than he had when women spent much of their time spinning at home.

 

[russ_watters]

robert Ihnot, you're right of course, and though I'd like to think that's irrelevant, apparently the view is so widespread (even some people who don't realize they have it have it - see below...) that it makes people stay out of this thing we call "the economy" for fear of losing. In a zero-sum game, you only have to be above average to win (I like those odds) - but in a real economy that expands at a couple of percent over inflation per year, there are only two ways to lose: be really, really stupid (greedy) or don't play.

If I own a buisness, in order to make money, I must profiet from your labor. It does not matter if you are in need or not. I take from the exess of your labor or else how could I employee you. In essence that is stealing?

Tick, tock, TENYEARS: that's the sound of your clock generating wealth from nothing. But how much monetary wealth you get from the ticking of the clock depends on how you use the time you are given.

A former co-worker told me that statistics show that 90% of stock investors have a net loss over their investing lifetimes. I find that hard to believe, and I suspect it was either sour grapes on his part if he had ever invested and lost at it, or a sort of sadistic wishful thinking if in fact he had never invested and didn't plan to ever do so.

It is sour grapes. It simply isn't true (neither in "real" nor inflation adjusted dollars).

Now that certainly may be true when you talk about specific groups - like day-traders.

That isn't sour grapes, it's just the truth. Just like the majority of new business go out of business in three years. People are in denial of what the true situation is. It is true the in the long run the market goes up, but you know what Keynes said about the long run. In the finite run of an actual small investor, the market fluctuates, and people get caught with insufficient funds.

But since an enormous amount of wealth is created in the market (in 1970, the Dow was at about 1,000, today, its at 10,000), for only 10% of the people to see any gains would mean that the other 90% are either horribly unlucky or horribly inept.

Its a myth that you have to be smart to make money in the market - the truth is you only have to not be stupid.

When The Wall Street Journal had a handful of big-name investors throw darts at a market report to pick stocks, they proved 2 things:

1. You don't have to be smart to make money.
2. You don't have to be an expert to do as well as the experts.

And if I may get a little philosophical - this pessimistic view itself is what holds the economy (and individuals) back. Capitalism requires optomism to work - it requires that you believe in capitalism. That's why the "consumer confidence" index is so important. Optomism is the most force in a market economy.

The danger, of course, is irrational exuberence - but I believe we've grown past the point where that can really damage the economy (ie, 1929). Time will tell, of course.

 

[chronon]

I can make money at anything I wish I do not because it is a hollow prospect. I was 13 when I understood this. To make money from the blood of others is this a good thing?

Tenyears, how much unemployment is there where you live? Are you really saying that you have the ability to start a business and employ some of the unemployed people but you choose not to because it would be stealing from them?

 

[TENYEARS]

Not that much unemployment. Yes I could start a business, I am an idea man. The ideas sometimes flow like water. Money creates complexity, I try to keep this urge at bay. Money creates problems, complexity and the simple clarity of life disappears. What is important disappears and regret forms. I could have, I wish, if only and so forth. Once the wheel rolls in a direction it's power will drag you even though you may think you can stop it. That wheel may take many forms, but the reality of the power of the flow is not debateable. Only one thing will change people and the way they interact, that is the truth and nothing but the truth. It must be time for the truth. It must be proved, then and only then is there hope for change.

 

[cragwolf]

Huge difference, in gambling you are depending mostly on a random occurence (roll of the dice, getting certain cards, etc...) When you invest in the stock market, unless you are an idiot, you do a lot of research into the company you plan to invest in, you don't invest unless you see potential for increased profit. The decision is knowledge driven.

This is utter nonsense. No, not about investing, but about gambling. There are companies out there which are knowledge driven and use this knowledge to make money out of gambling on horses or sports or other things, usually via so-called betting exchanges. The models they have are as sophisticated as the models currency traders use, for example. There are individual punters out there who gamble for a living or as a recreation who use their knowledge of whatever it is they're gambling on to make money. They generally look for prices which are inflated or depressed with respect to (what they think is) the true value of the object they're betting on. Then, depending on whether the price is inflated or depressed they will either back or lay that object on the betting exchange. The punters with the best knowledge will consistently win.

 

[TENYEARS]

Ah, someone understands something. This is a physics forum though, you would think people would understand the possibilites. All methods of profiet are taking from the efforts or failures of others. If you do not see, you will be doomed to live what you do not see. The universe is quite balanced. Pay now pay later, life is a credit card with a balance you cannot escape. You are the card and you strech in one direction or the other but the equalibrium will be expresed for that is the law of the unvierse.

 

[cragwolf]

You are calling it a zero-sum game, TENYEARS. I think the veracity of that claim depends on your perspective or what you are prepared to include in the calculation of that sum. Personally, I would include everything from the destruction of the environment to technological change, from democratic rights to getting blown up by a "liberation" bomb, from social enjoyment at work to mental illness due to work. Hard to quantify those things, though.

 

[Evo]

This is utter nonsense. No, not about investing, but about gambling. There are companies out there which are knowledge driven and use this knowledge to make money out of gambling on horses or sports or other things, usually via so-called betting exchanges.

Interesting, I admit I had given no thought to professional gambling.

Do you think horse racing, for example, can really be made into a safe bet unless it's fixed? How about roulette? I know there are odds, and you can count cards in games, there was that group of (MIT I think?) college students that went to Vegas and made a bundle before they were stopped.

I assume no studies have been made between the two, professional gamblers and professional stock/commodities brokers to see who have the better track record?

Aren't there two distinct categories here? You have the person that walks up to a gambling table and lays down money without knowing anything, hoping to "get lucky", and you have the person that invests blindly in the stock market placing their money on a company without knowing anything, hoping to "get lucky". Then you have the person that takes the time and effort to become informed. The former can certainly make money, but are more likely to lose over the long run. The latter are more likely to remain profitable over the long run. Of course, there are always exeptions.

 

[TENYEARS]

Evo, you can make money being a professional gambler, but you can make just as much or more on the stock market since the pool of revenue is far larger. You can make money on anything you commit yourself to. There is a cost to someone, to something at every point. I was about 15 years old when I realized a lesson which cannot be taken or given. Every breath every act has a consequence to someone or something. It even works with things such as love and spirutal experiences. There is no free ride, there is no land of perpetual bliss. There is no gain, there is no loss. What there can be is responsible pain with responsible joy. When this happens life will be in balance. We cannot step out of life so in the absolute we may say how can the universe be out of balance. This is absolute logic. Yet we cannot deny the law of causal effect(physics) for this is what guides all movement. This is what will show the balance over time for the total sum of humanity. Like I said I do see the future kiddo and it's not a figurative expression. It is indeed absolute. Evo, I have a recent thread open which I was awaiting a response from Russ. I would like your opinion if you are interested in the subject. It had to do with the proving of which I speak. I have an idea to jump start the process which I believe would potentially show beyond probability aspects of what I speak.

 

[russ_watters]

I assume no studies have been made between the two, professional gamblers and professional stock/commodities brokers to see who have the better track record?

I'd be awfully surprised if professional gamblers do better than professional stock/comodities brokers because in the long run, the bets don't ever pay out more than they take in (otherwise casinos would go broke). With investments, they always pay out more than they take in in the long run. Breaking even when the game pays 110% is a lot easier than when it pays 90%. Heck, many investments are government insured sure-thing winners.

Casino gambling is a zero-sum game, with the house taking a cut off the top. Investing is not a zero-sum game: the pot increases in size.

Every breath every act has a consequence to someone or something. It even works with things such as love and spirutal experiences. There is no free ride, there is no land of perpetual bliss. There is no gain, there is no loss. What there can be is responsible pain with responsible joy. When this happens life will be in balance. We cannot step out of life so in the absolute we may say how can the universe be out of balance. This is absolute logic.

Your logic (or rather, your premise) is flawed and you only have to look as far as the definition of "consequence" to see why: not all consequences are negative and as a result, not all games are zero-sum. This should be obvious.

On a side-note, your philosophy is really depressing. Its like the laws of thermodynamics applied to life: you can't win, you can't break even, and the game is fixed.

 

[TENYEARS]

Russ, it may be depressing, but I am correct. No human in the history of the world could alter my view because my view is what is. A resounding two word phrase will increase with time "Oh ****". It will be in reference to the acknowlegement of the truth.