Gambling vs investing

So an investment is always 100% guaranteed in all cases?

Comparing investments/trading with sports betting is comparing chalk and cheese. In the case of sports betting, your time in the market is defined, there is no possible risk mitigation, there is no hedging to be had, upside and downside are pre-defined and there is no scale in-between, there is no real counterparty, there is no asset value derived, price is only influenced by market forces as opposed to dictated to by them and there is little transparency in pricing calculations, I can go on.

They are wholly different things, and sports betting is in no way a trade, although some traders have been poached from the sports-betting world...
 
Thanks. Becoming comprehensible. Stocks is more of a gamble than actual long term investment.
 
I meant the type of amateur trading done by some (you know who)

Yeah, the marcos (retireds) of this world. It's quite entertaining to watch him talk to his own retired clone in the past performance thread...:D
 
Last edited:
I worked in the horse racing industry part time whilst studying. 25% of the revenue from betting is lost to pay for all the expenses. So on average people only get 75% of their money back.

The stock market however grows on average. In the long term you will get +10% on your money back as returns.

So there is over a 35% "loss" (25% +10%) on horse racing gambling vs stock market investing.

This is the average. You will get some people who win. It just means that other people will lose even more than the average.
 
Thanks. Becoming comprehensible. Stocks is more of a gamble than actual long term investment.

Not in the least little bit, considering that 'stocks' are long-term investment instruments. The strategy is dependent on you. The only instruments where time in the market is dictated to you are derivative instruments and bonds, but that isn't to say that you won't stay in the market for that instrument - you will simply move on to the new instrument in the same asset class. For example index futures - they are issued and subsequently traded in batches where they have a specific beginning and end date. Towards the end date, their volatility, and therefore "tradeability" decreases (traders trade risk and love volatility) as they are priced back towards a normalised spot price, at the maturation date, a new index future will be 'issued' and the cycle begins again. You're still exposed to the same instrument, and in fact you can use other instruments at certain periods to expose yourself to the same instrument, but we're getting off the beaten track a bit here, apologies.

Stocks are a long-term investment. No investment is guaranteed. Some are lower risk than others, but this depends on your determination of risk. Don't allow the market to dictate to you the levels of risk, as it is dependent on your strategy.

For amateurs just starting out, it is incredibly tricky to determine these sorts of things. Time, for example, is a risk. The longer you are invested in certain stocks, the greater your levels of risk, as you are exposed to greater price volatility, interest rate risk, and whatever other risk factors influence the company you are invested in. So generalisations that long-term investments are a lower-risk strategy for amateurs isn't entirely correct. The symptom of seeking long-term investment will be that your investment choices will 9/10 be blue-chips, and they tend to move steadily upwards and follow the wider market, or even dictate the market to an extent, depending on market cap and trading volumes. They are rarely volatile stocks, however your time exposed to their price movements (perhaps years) might end up with the same net risk effect as exposing yourself to a month of mid-cap investments/trades.

Risk is a personal calculation that you make...
 
Thanks. Becoming comprehensible. Stocks is more of a gamble than actual long term investment.

Well single or few stock yes, especialy if they are all in the same sector. Say I have just ABSA, FNB, Nedbank and Standard Banks stocks, if the banking sector has a scandal or heavy fines imposed or whatever I am going to suffer, they will become less vaulable, but if I dont sell them I dont "cement" the losses and I can hope that eventually they will recover and then grow.

But now say I have local bank, mining and retail stocks, now I am less vunerable to one sectors performing badly. But I am still exposed to if the SA stockmarket suffers a blow. So once again I diversify, and get foreign stocks in different countries as well as other assets classes like property and bonds.

Looking at my portfolio, initialy I had one satrix investment and the investment property, and as I learnt more and built up money in the satrix one, I expanded to another one and then to other thigns with unit trusts and such.

So one starts small and work your way from there.
 
So an investment is always 100% guaranteed in all cases?

Also it is important to distinguish between chance and uncertainty. If I flip a coin there is a 50% chance of correctly guessing the outcome, but there is 100% certainty that there will be an outcome. Gambling is all about chance and very little about certainty. Investment risk originates almost exclusively in uncertainty.
 
Benjamin Graham on Speculation vs Investment:

“Imagine that in some private business you own a small share that cost you $1,000. One of your partners, named Mr Market, is very obliging indeed. Every day he tells you what he thinks your interest is worth and furthermore offers to either buy you out or to sell you an additional interest on that basis. Sometimes his idea of value appears plausible and justified by business developments and prospects as you know them. Often, on the other hand, Mr Market lets his enthusiasm or his fears run away with him, and the value he proposes seems to you a little short of silly.

If you are a prudent investor or a sensible businessman, will you let Mr Market’s daily communication determine your view of the value of a $1,000 interest in the enterprise? Only in case you agree with him, or in case you want to trade with him. You may be happy to sell out to him when he quotes you a ridiculously high price, and equally happy to buy from him when his price is low. But the rest of the time you will be wiser to form your own ideas of the value of your holdings, based on full reports from the company about its operations and financial position.

The true investor is in that very position when he owns a listed common stock. He can take advantage of the daily market price or leave it alone, as dictated by his own judgment and inclination. He must take cognizance of important price movements, for otherwise his judgment will have nothing to work on. Conceivably they may give him a warning signal which he will do well to heed – this in plain English means that he is to sell his shares because the price has gone down, foreboding worse things to come. In our view, such signals are misleading at least as often as they are helpful. Basically, price fluctuations have only one significant meaning for the true investor. They provide him with an opportunity to buy wisely when prices fall sharply and to sell wisely when they advance a great deal. At other times he will do better if he forgets about the stock market and pays attention to his dividend returns and to the operating results of his companies.

The most realistic distinction between the investor and the speculator is found in their attitude toward stock-market movements. The speculator’s primary interest lies in anticipating and profiting from market fluctuations. The investor’s primary interest lies in acquiring and holding suitable securities at suitable prices. Market movements are important to him in a practical sense, because they alternately create low price levels at which he would be wise to buy and high price levels at which he certainly should refrain from buying and probably would be wise to sell.”
 
Benjamin Graham on Speculation vs Investment:

“Imagine that in some private business you own a small share that cost you $1,000. One of your partners, named Mr Market, is very obliging indeed. Every day he tells you what he thinks your interest is worth and furthermore offers to either buy you out or to sell you an additional interest on that basis. Sometimes his idea of value appears plausible and justified by business developments and prospects as you know them. Often, on the other hand, Mr Market lets his enthusiasm or his fears run away with him, and the value he proposes seems to you a little short of silly.

If you are a prudent investor or a sensible businessman, will you let Mr Market’s daily communication determine your view of the value of a $1,000 interest in the enterprise? Only in case you agree with him, or in case you want to trade with him. You may be happy to sell out to him when he quotes you a ridiculously high price, and equally happy to buy from him when his price is low. But the rest of the time you will be wiser to form your own ideas of the value of your holdings, based on full reports from the company about its operations and financial position.

The true investor is in that very position when he owns a listed common stock. He can take advantage of the daily market price or leave it alone, as dictated by his own judgment and inclination. He must take cognizance of important price movements, for otherwise his judgment will have nothing to work on. Conceivably they may give him a warning signal which he will do well to heed – this in plain English means that he is to sell his shares because the price has gone down, foreboding worse things to come. In our view, such signals are misleading at least as often as they are helpful. Basically, price fluctuations have only one significant meaning for the true investor. They provide him with an opportunity to buy wisely when prices fall sharply and to sell wisely when they advance a great deal. At other times he will do better if he forgets about the stock market and pays attention to his dividend returns and to the operating results of his companies.

The most realistic distinction between the investor and the speculator is found in their attitude toward stock-market movements. The speculator’s primary interest lies in anticipating and profiting from market fluctuations. The investor’s primary interest lies in acquiring and holding suitable securities at suitable prices. Market movements are important to him in a practical sense, because they alternately create low price levels at which he would be wise to buy and high price levels at which he certainly should refrain from buying and probably would be wise to sell.”

Great way of explaining it
 
A school friend of mine worked in his dads Tattersall for a long school holiday. He watched and learn't how to bet. On his last day of work he bet his entire salary from the holiday on a sure win. It was impossible to loose.

He lost.

His comment after that was its a BS industry.
His comment should have been that you never bet your whole salary on a "sure win." If he really knew so much and had a track record of winning back more than what he lost the "sure win" is actually to spend it on multiple bets. Even then it's not certain that he wouldn't have had an unlucky streak.

The chance of gaining money on the stock markets is a lot higher than gambling.
That assumes you know what you're doing. In which case a professional gambler will say they know what they're doing as well and some of them have better earnings to show for it.

The main difference is that with stocks there's also dividends and in the long run that's where the money comes from. But many people just want to make a quick buck by buying and selling shares. Not only is there no difference between that and gambling but it also takes longer to make money.
 
You really believe that long term investments derive their value from div yield? Oh for christ, sake. Shut this section of the forum down now, please. If Swa and marco can post here unablated then there is no hope for this forum. And you also believe that trading is a gamble?! No, please. I can't deal with two different twits posting bullschit in here...
 
Personally I associate the word "gambling" with "odds stacked against me" (house always wins). On the stock side, I consider the odds to be merely *neutral*.

Broadly speaking I expect the stock exchange to work out in my favour since I've got a fin background - but I also make a serious allowance for learning experiences. So if I lose a grand or three then so be it.
 
Investing is always gambling to a certain extent. It's the level of the gamble that varies. You get really safe investments, then you get hands on investments and the second type are the ones that make you a lot of money. It's most certainly not risk free and requires a lot of work.

Real gambling is fun, I went into th of casino the other day, first time in over 2 years. I was on blackjack, started with about R300, walked out at 4 am with close to R5k. Don't do that very often.
 
You really believe that long term investments derive their value from div yield? Oh for christ, sake. Shut this section of the forum down now, please. If Swa and marco can post here unablated then there is no hope for this forum. And you also believe that trading is a gamble?! No, please. I can't deal with two different twits posting bullschit in here...
They don't? Please enlighten us then on how share prices just go up and down because, well, the people buying and selling them just feel like they should. This is just your usual m.o. of throwing insults without giving a reason for why you "disagree."

Trading IS a gamble. If you have reasons for why it's not then give them. But no your only argument seems to be that you know what you're doing. In which case as I said a professional gambler will say the same.
 
What on earth is there to provide evidence for? You simply posted bullschit. Long term investors do not derive their "value" from dividends. Long-term investors typically derive "value" from capital appreciation. And what on earth are you going on about with regards to price movements and dividends? :wtf:

You're another one pretending to know something about the financial markets, while simply talking schit.

I don't understand why you guys do this. I don't go around giving advice in the PC hardware forum, or the software development threads or pretend to know what I'm talking about there. I know next to nothing about either subject. Why do you lot insist on getting involved here? If you don't understand something, then ask questions. Don't make statements and wait to be corrected. That is ridiculous and infuriating.

And wit regards to the second part of your post, I have already dealt with the gambling bit from my perspective. Your rebuttal is that anyone without knowledge like I have will consider it a gamble. Well, yes. Of course. That's kinda how things work, no matter what the industry...
 
What on earth is there to provide evidence for? You simply posted bullschit.
Nobody said anything about evidence ffs. This is just YOUR usual bull**** of calling something bull**** without saying why.

Long term investors do not derive their "value" from dividends. Long-term investors typically derive "value" from capital appreciation. And what on earth are you going on about with regards to price movements and dividends?
I never said they don't make money from capital appreciation. What you don't seem to understand is that capital appreciation is directly related to dividends and dividends are also paid out on shares. Or do you think that share prices just go up and down because the people buying and selling them feel like they should? No they do so based on how well the company is doing. If a company or sector can be expected to make more profit and hence pay out more on dividends then share prices go up. If there is a downturn or a company gets embroiled in some scandal that can cause it to make less profit then share prices go down. Apparently you don't know why it is that the dot com bubble burst.

You're another one pretending to know something about the financial markets, while simply talking schit.
And you're another one just giving out insults to make up for your lack of knowledge. Why don't you just **** off rather than show off your ignorance.

I don't understand why you guys do this. I don't go around giving advice in the PC hardware forum, or the software development threads or pretend to know what I'm talking about there. I know next to nothing about either subject. Why do you lot insist on getting involved here? If you don't understand something, then ask questions. Don't make statements and wait to be corrected. That is ridiculous and infuriating.
And I don't understand why you lot have to continually insist that anyone who disagrees with your view knows nothing of the subject. As if YOU are the authority on what's correct and what isn't.

And wit regards to the second part of your post, I have already dealt with the gambling bit from my perspective. Your rebuttal is that anyone without knowledge like I have will consider it a gamble. Well, yes. Of course. That's kinda how things work, no matter what the industry...
Shows you haven't been listening, or reading.
 
Good god, you know less than marco. That is an impressively pathetic title to hold...
 
I don't think apple have ever paid out a dividend, and Berkshire Hathaway paid just one back in the 60's. Their prices did ok'ish.

Can go on, but point is that dps doesn't always matter.
See here

Apple did pay a dividend until 1995. Since then Apple hasn't "paid out" a dividend but that doesn't mean there hasn't been dividends. There has been profits and so Apple has paid the dividends to itself. That means share price goes up because investors expect Apple to reinvest that money so that there will be some future larger payout. And that dividend does effectively pay out when the shares get sold. Last year they also announced that there will be dividend payouts again. So investors were right to expect a payout and Apple has been sitting on a lot of cash they are unable to invest.
 
You really and truly need to start with the very simple basics. Market forces is probably where you need to begin. This dividend crap you're posting is simply not worth dissecting, Swa. And you keep going on about me pretending to be an expert, however the difference is I have completed my RPEs in multiple modules relating to the bond, equity and derivatives markets, as well as been professionally involved in this industry for over a decade, as well as having formal qualifications from London, and have run my own trading house.

Sometimes people simply know more than others. In this case, you are talking schit. Please begin with the very basics of how market forces work. Price is not fundamentally driven by dividends. Once you accept this, then you can begin to open yourself up to actually learning something. Or you can simply argue as if you know best, and are about to revolutionise the markets. Your choice...
 
Last edited:
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X