this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
91 points (96.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35312 readers
1038 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Is there a hard threshold? Do high risk investments such as penny stocks qualify as gambling? Do low risk investments? Annuities? Bonds? CDs?

This comment got me wondering.

Is it more to do with the venue? Stock markets and real estate vs casinos and the lottery?

Were the MIT Blackjack Team gambling or investing?

Or Jerry and Marge Selbee?

Is this just another semantic hotdogs are sandwiches discussion or is there an agreed threshold?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Steve 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

It really kinda does.
At least as close as anything can be guaranteed in this world.
Buying into a broad market index fund (S&P500 or wider) and staying in for decades, will absolutely grow in value faster than inflation.

The key here is time.
Anything can go up or down on a daily, monthly, or even yearly basis; The longer your time horizon is, the more all that volatility gets evened out into a steady gentle climb upward. So much so that if you pick any 25 year period over the last 200 years, you won't find a single instance where the total value of all traded stocks was worth less at the end than at the start.

Because when you're investing in the whole market, you're investing in the whole society itself. And society is always doing everything it can to grow, produce, and consume more. That's what humans do. Random forces may slow or stop that, for a time; But as long a humanity exists, it will still be true.

[–] listless@lemmy.cringecollective.io 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

At least as close as anything can be guaranteed in this world

Turns out "close to guaranteed" is in fact, not "guaranteed."

So much so that if you pick any 25 year period over the last 200 years, you won’t find a single instance where the total value of the all traded stocks was worth less at the end than at the start.

Here's my 25 how did they do:

  • Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
  • Washington Mutual Inc.
  • General Motors Corporation
  • Enron Corporation
  • WorldCom Inc.
  • CIT Group Inc.
  • Chrysler LLC
  • Thornburg Mortgage Inc.
  • Conseco Inc.
  • MF Global Holdings Ltd.
  • Energy Future Holdings Corp.
  • Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
  • Toys "R" Us Inc.
  • Sears Holdings Corporation
  • Blockbuster Inc.
  • Eastman Kodak Company
  • American Airlines (AMR Corporation)
  • Frontier Communications Corporation
  • Hertz Global Holdings Inc.
  • JC Penney
  • Peabody Energy Corporation
  • RadioShack Corporation
  • Remington Outdoor Company
  • Pier 1 Imports Inc.
  • Purdue Pharma L.P.

(hint: they've all filed for bankruptcy at some point)

Again, look at the Nikkei from the 1990's - that's an entire index that was flat for 30 years. Hard to put off retirement for 30 years waiting for that index fund to pay off.

Don't bother dying on this hill, son, there's plenty of other, nicer hills to die on.

[–] Steve 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

"All traded stocks" isn't "Any traded stock".
It's all of them collectively.

Nikkei from the 1990's - that's an entire index that was flat for 30 years.

The 1990's was only 10 years. And that's also just Japan, which again isn't "All Traded Stocks".

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

If you had invested in the stock market (all stocks) in 1961, you would have lost 2% a year, every year for 20 years.

So $10000 in the market in 1961 was worth $6600 by 1981.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/02/business/20110102-metrics-graphic.html

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/02/business/20110102-metrics-graphic.html

On that 20-year diagonal, there are only eight of the seventy squares that didn't have returns higher than inflation. And in every one of those few cases, holding just a few years longer made the investment outpace inflation. When even black swan events don't break the strategy, this simply is more confirmation that investing in an index fund for long periods of time is a proven strategy.

Note that light-red boxes are investments that outperformed inflation. No clue why they would color making more money than inflation red...

[–] Steve 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

1961 to 1988. Inflation adjusted, it was 749 in 1961 and 723 in 1988.

27 years.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2324/sp-500-historical-chart-data

[–] Steve 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

My challenge didn't include inflation. Though I did mention it prior to that, so it's an easy assumption to make.

That's also just the S&P500, which isn't even all US stocks, let alone international. But I did previously mention it as the minimum of "broad". I'll accept that as well.

So with some asterics, I congratulate you.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

My challenge didn't include inflation.

That always must be assumed. Otherwise you could claim Zimbabwe had the best return on investment over the past 20 years.

[–] Moneo@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I don't disagree with the general point of, "there's no guarantee". But I think you can make an argument that taking the safest course available to you is not gambling.

When talking about longer time frames you have to account for inflation, holding on to your money instead of investing it is a risk in itself, which makes this entire conversation about semantics.

[–] rah@feddit.uk -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

kinda does

"Kinda" meaning not actually.

as close as anything can be guaranteed

So not guaranteed then.

[–] Steve 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes. True. Just as not guaranteed as the sun rising tomorrow.

[–] rah@feddit.uk -2 points 3 months ago

I'm glad you've realised that what you wrote was incorrect.