We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Investing in shares = Gambling
Comments
-
-
I don't think that anyone would dispute that poor investing (such as a single company) would be more like gambling!berbastrike wrote: »And what if you had invested in Tesco in 1995. Their share price has gone done. And thats not to mention the inflation.
If I had invested money in the FTSE 100 in 2005...the FTSE price is around the same today....
10 years...0 gain
And if you'd invested in a FTSE 100 tracker in 2005 you'd have received the compounded benefits of dividends to give growth, even if the underlying index is back to where it was....0 -
savings_my_hobby wrote: »Unfortunately we cant choose are own definitions of words that is for the lexicographers.
As I have stated one definition of gamble is "to take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit". even sensible investing poses a risk as you have admitted.
Of course there are bigger risks, but all the time investing presents a risk it is impossible to to come to any other conclusion that it is therefore a gamble by definition of the word gamble.
"Take a risk in the hope of..." applies to many things in life as I have said. Crossing the road because you want to get to the other side is a risk to provide a benefit. Saving is taking a risk that you will never see your money again in return for some interest. Taking 3 years to go through university in the hope that the resultant better pay will compensate you for the costs and 3 years not earning is a risk.
Are these gambles? if not why not?
If they are gambling, is your definition of gambling useful? We can all agree most things are gambling and so there is nothing different about investing.
I would have thought the usefulness of the term would be enhanced if you brought the degree of risk and benefit into the discussion.0 -
berbastrike wrote: »If I had invested money in the FTSE 100 in 2005...the FTSE price is around the same today....
10 years...0 gain
wrong. including dividends, you'd be up about 52%.
allowing for inflation, RPI was about 34% over 10 years, so your real return from the FTSE 100 would be about 13%.
what would your real return from cash have been over those 10 years? probably less than 0.
and that wasn't a very good 10 years for shares. and the FTSE 100 is a rubbish index to choose. yet it still beat cash.
if you won't be spending some of your savings for at least 10 years, there is a good case for putting part of it in shares. if you're risk-averse, and mainly concerned with preserving the real value of your capital, then it may make sense to put only a smaller proportion in shares (e.g. 20% or so).
data sources:
FTSE 100 total return: http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Summary?s=UKX.T:FSI
RPI: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-3236690 -
berbastrike wrote: »And what if you had invested in Tesco in 1995. Their share price has gone done. And thats not to mention the inflation.
If I had invested money in the FTSE 100 in 2005...the FTSE price is around the same today....
10 years...0 gain
Yet again a post that reinforces my previous comment that you don't understand investing and risk. I'm sure it just confirms to you that there's no point investing so that's fine as long as you're happy. The rest of us can just enjoy the benefits of our investments.
As an alternative to your narrow focus on one share and one index, one of my investment trusts over the same time period has more than doubled and that's without considering dividends either. A balanced portfolio would have a mix of different investments in it not just one.
Do you think it's a coincidence that the wealthy generally have much more invested and maybe that's how they remain wealthy?Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.0 -
Did you?....berbastrike wrote: »If I had invested money in the FTSE 100 in 2005...<snip>0 -
berbastrike wrote: »And what if you had invested in Tesco in 1995. Their share price has gone done. And thats not to mention the inflation.
Not sure where you're getting your data from or are just selectively making up facts to suit your beliefs.
Tesco share price Feb 1995, 88p. Tesco share price now 170p. That doesn't look like a drop to me and also happens to ignore 20 years of accumulated dividends.
Maybe worth getting your facts right as it may help you come to a more realistic understanding of investing.Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.0 -
It is for lexicographers to record actual usage of words, so in some sense we do choose the definitions. That's probably why some of the dictionary definitions of "gamble" are so unhelpful. Everything is a gamble if to gamble is simply to take on some element of risk.savings_my_hobby wrote: »Unfortunately we cant choose are own definitions of words that is for the lexicographers.0 -
He was going to charge you for providing you with financial advice (the clue is in the name). You seriously need that advice, because you understand little about the world of investments, financial services and long term wealth preservation as evidenced by various posts in various threads on the forum. You can afford the advice too, but don't want to spend money on something you don't understand until you understand more about it, which is perhaps, understandableberbastrike wrote: »And buying and selling shares is free of charge? A financial advisor was going to charge me 3% for any sum over £100k "invested"!
You do get given free advice and education on the threads, which you laugh off. As you rejected the offer of advice from the professional regulated financial advisor you are probably unable to comment on its quality. You may be unaware that while he might have charged £3000 for advice on £100k, the charge from most financial advisers would likely not scale up to your £500k investment amount in a straight line, because it does not cost 5x as much to advise on the larger portfolio. Maybe you didn't shop around because you think you know best. The continuing questions and comments suggest you may not.
No, because he was under 18 and not allowed investments. FTSE is just something he heard about on TV and assumes it's not for him because it's for grown-ups and he doesn't count himself as one yet.Did you?....0 -
How much are dividends?This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards