4 ms·

> If you fiddle with "investments" with the intent of making money without doing anything else, that's gambling. There are lot of value investors which sit at

> If you fiddle with "investments" with the intent of making money without doing anything else, that's gambling. There are lot of value investors which sit at home do stock picking occasionally. They don't work for their money. I don't think they are gambling. The only investors that fits your non gambling definition seems to be the active investors who take part in the companies. But most investors don't

hgomersall 28d ago
Why don't you think they are gambling?
- gloryjulio 28d ago
  Because investing conservatively is not gambling. Your definition of gambling is weirdly associated of how money is made, instead of risk making. Nobody uses this word in this way. Gambling is about of risk. It's not about how you are making the money For example, it's also possible to be actively taking part in the money making activity while taking unnecessary risk. A person can run his own company but recklessly making bets on the loan or spending decisions. So this is the other side of the story where they are gambling and they are actively working with their money.
  - hgomersall 28d ago
    That's the point. Most financial investment is really putting money into something higher risk to get a (hopefully) higher return. Most "investing conservatively" is just being a bit more wary as to what risks are acceptable.
    - gloryjulio 28d ago
      > That's the point. Most financial investment is really putting money into something higher risk to get a (hopefully) higher return. It's about risk adjusted returns, not higher returns. If you are not considering the risk assessment you are objectively wrong. Take my previous example, how is actively working with you money by taking higher risk less gambling, than passively investing for example an all weather portfolio which is designed to preserve the capital? An all weather portfolio is firstly proposed by Ray Dalio to be as conservative as possible to hedge against all kind of risks while hopefully get some gain. > Most "investing conservatively" is just being a bit more wary as to what risks are acceptable. That's objectively wrong. For example lots of etf is designed to reduce risk by diversifying the investment. Just take your own just put money in the bank example. Suppose you do not live in stable country US/EU, and your country is having high inflation. How is just putting money in the bank with your country's depreciating currency less risky than let's say you invest in a global portfolio or an all weather portfolio? In this case, by not managing your risk profile, you are taking more risk. I am only giving out 1 example to show that `Most financial investment is really putting money into something higher` is objectively wrong. It's actually the opposite if you look into how portfolio managing works. Majority of the funds managed for the Sovereign state or the rich are about hedging against the risks, it's the opposite of gambling.
- danielmarkbruce 28d ago
  Because they aren't creating risk. They already have risk - any time you have capital, you have risk it disappears. You don't have risk that the lakers win tonight. You don't have to bet on the game.

hgomersall 28d ago

Why don't you think they are gambling?

gloryjulio 28d ago
Because investing conservatively is not gambling. Your definition of gambling is weirdly associated of how money is made, instead of risk making. Nobody uses this word in this way. Gambling is about of risk. It's not about how you are making the money For example, it's also possible to be actively taking part in the money making activity while taking unnecessary risk. A person can run his own company but recklessly making bets on the loan or spending decisions. So this is the other side of the story where they are gambling and they are actively working with their money.
- hgomersall 28d ago
  That's the point. Most financial investment is really putting money into something higher risk to get a (hopefully) higher return. Most "investing conservatively" is just being a bit more wary as to what risks are acceptable.
  - gloryjulio 28d ago
    > That's the point. Most financial investment is really putting money into something higher risk to get a (hopefully) higher return. It's about risk adjusted returns, not higher returns. If you are not considering the risk assessment you are objectively wrong. Take my previous example, how is actively working with you money by taking higher risk less gambling, than passively investing for example an all weather portfolio which is designed to preserve the capital? An all weather portfolio is firstly proposed by Ray Dalio to be as conservative as possible to hedge against all kind of risks while hopefully get some gain. > Most "investing conservatively" is just being a bit more wary as to what risks are acceptable. That's objectively wrong. For example lots of etf is designed to reduce risk by diversifying the investment. Just take your own just put money in the bank example. Suppose you do not live in stable country US/EU, and your country is having high inflation. How is just putting money in the bank with your country's depreciating currency less risky than let's say you invest in a global portfolio or an all weather portfolio? In this case, by not managing your risk profile, you are taking more risk. I am only giving out 1 example to show that `Most financial investment is really putting money into something higher` is objectively wrong. It's actually the opposite if you look into how portfolio managing works. Majority of the funds managed for the Sovereign state or the rich are about hedging against the risks, it's the opposite of gambling.
danielmarkbruce 28d ago
Because they aren't creating risk. They already have risk - any time you have capital, you have risk it disappears. You don't have risk that the lakers win tonight. You don't have to bet on the game.