Is investing in financial markets a gamble?
I read about the 90-90-90 rule aka 90% of the people lose 90% of the money in 90 days.  Anything that happens in 90 days or less is speculation (effectively gambling), not investment. And the 90-90-90 thing sounds around right for inexperienced amateurs going up against professionals in that space. I don't know anyone who actually made significant amount money by investing in stocks or other financial products except those appearing in TVs. Lots and lots and lots of people do.  I heard that people who actually encourage common people to invest in stocks are stock brokers and fund managers who actually gain by the fact that more people invest.  No. It's true that lots of people will give you advice to by specific stocks or financial instruments that will earn them comission or fees, but the basic idea of investing in the stock market is very sound; ultimately, it's based on the ability of companies to create value and pay dividends. Could you please give some valid reasons to invest in stocks or other financial market. Thank you. Well, what else can you do with your money? Put it in an interest-bearing bank account? Effectively, you'll still be investing in the stock market, the bank is just taking most of the returns in exchange for guaranteeing that you'll never lose money even temporarily.
"Investing is always a matter of balancing risk vs reward, with the two being fairly strongly linked.  Risk-free assets generally keep up with inflation, if that; these days advice is that even in retirement you're going to want something with better eturns for at least part of your portfolio. A ""whole market"" strategy is a reasonable idea, but not well defined. You need to decide wheher/how to weight stocks vs bonds, for example, and short/long term. And you may want international or REIT in the mix; again the question is how much. Again, the tradeoff is trying to decide how much volatility and risk you are comfortable with and picking a mix which comes in somewhere around that point -- and noting which assets tend to move out of synch with each other (stock/bond is the classic example) to help tune that. The recommendation for higher risk/return when you have a longer horizon before you need the money comes from being able to tolerate more volatility early on when you have less at risk and more time to let the market recover. That lets you take a more aggressive position and, on average, ger higher returns. Over time, you generally want to dial that back (in the direction of lower-risk if not risk free) so a late blip doesn't cause you to lose too much of what you've already gained... but see above re ""risk free"". That's the theoretical answer. The practical answer is that running various strategies against both historical data and statistical simulations of what the market might do in the future suggests some specific distributions among the categories I've mentioned do seem to work better than others. (The mix I use -- which is basically a whole-market with weighting factors for the categories mentioned above -- was the result of starting with a general mix appropriate to my risk tolerance based on historical data, then checking it by running about 100 monte-carlo simulations of the market for the next 50 years.)" "Although this has been touched upon in comments, I think the following line from the currently accepted answer shows the biggest issue: There is a clear difference between investing and gambling. The reality is that the difference isn't that clear at all. Tens of comments have been written arguing in both directions and looking around the internet entire essays have been written arguing both positions. The underlying emotion that seems to shape this discussion primarily is whether investing (especially in the stock market) is a form of gambling. People who do invest in this way tend to get relatively emotional whenever someone argues that this is a form of gambling, as gambling is considered a negative thing. The simple reality of human communication is that words can be ambiguous, and the way investors will use the words 'investments' and 'gambles' will differ from the way it is used by gamblers, and once again different from the way it's commonly used. What I definitely think is made clear by all the different discussions however is that there is no single distinctive trait that allows us to differentiate investing and gambling. The result of this is that when you take dictionary definitions for both terms you will likely end up including lottery tickets as a valid form of investment.  That still however leaves us with a situation where we have two terms - with a strong overlap - which have a distinctive meaning in communication and the original question whether buying lottery tickets is an investment. Over on investorguide.com there is an absolutely amazing strongly recommended essay which explores countless of different traits in search of a difference between investing and gambling, and they came up with the following two definitions: Investing: ""Any activity in which money is put at risk for the purpose of making a profit, and which is characterized by some or most of the following (in approximately descending order of importance): sufficient research has been conducted; the odds are favorable; the behavior is risk-averse; a systematic approach is being taken; emotions such as greed and fear play no role; the activity is ongoing and done as part of a long-term plan; the activity is not motivated solely by entertainment or compulsion; ownership of something tangible is involved; a net positive economic effect results."" Gambling: ""Any activity in which money is put at risk for the purpose of making a profit, and which is characterized by some or most of the following (in approximately descending order of importance): little or no research has been conducted; the odds are unfavorable; the behavior is risk-seeking; an unsystematic approach is being taken; emotions such as greed and fear play a role; the activity is a discrete event or series of discrete events not done as part of a long-term plan; the activity is significantly motivated by entertainment or compulsion; ownership of something tangible is not involved; no net economic effect results."" The very interesting thing about those definitions is that they capture very well the way those terms are used by most people, and they even acknowledge that a lot of 'investors' are gambling, and that a few gamblers are 'investing' (read the essay for more on that). And this fits well with the way those two concepts are understood by the public. So in those definitions normally buying a lottery ticket would indeed not be an investment, but if we take for example Vadim's operation example If you have $1000 and need $2000 by next week or else you can't have an operation and you will die (and you can't find anyone to give you a loan). Your optimal strategy is to gamble your $1000, at the best odds you can get, with a possible outcome of $2000. So even if you only have a 1/3 chance of winning and getting that operation, it's still the right bet if you can't find a better one. this can suddenly change the perception and turn 'gambling' into 'high-risk investing'." "I'm just trying to visualize the costs of trading. Say I set up an account to trade something (forex, stock, even bitcoin) and I was going to let a random generator determine when I should buy or sell it. If I do this, I would assume I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. Your question is what a mathematician would call an ""ill-posed problem.""  It makes it a challenge to answer.  The short answer is ""no.""  We will have to consider three broad cases for types of assets and two time intervals. Let us start with a very short time interval.  The bid-ask spread covers the anticipated cost to the market maker of holding an asset bought in the market equal to the opportunity costs over the half-life of the holding period.  A consequence of this is that you are nearly guaranteed to lose money if your time interval between trades is less than the half-life of the actual portfolio of the market maker.  To use a dice analogy, imagine having to pay a fee per roll before you can gamble.  You can win, but it will be biased toward losing. Now let us go to the extreme opposite time period, which is that you will buy now and sell one minute before you die.  For stocks, you would have received the dividends plus any stocks you sold from mergers.  Conversely, you would have had to pay the dividends on your short sales and received a gain on every short stock that went bankrupt.  Because you have to pay interest on short sales and dividends passed, you will lose money on a net basis to the market maker.  Maybe you are seeing a pattern here.  The phrase ""market maker"" will come up a lot. Now let us look at currencies.  In the long run, if the current fiat money policy regime holds, you will lose a lot of money.  Deflation is not a big deal under a commodity money regime, but it is a problem under fiat money, so central banks avoid it.  So your long currency holdings will depreciate.  Your short would appreciate, except you have to pay interest on them at a rate greater than the rate of inflation to the market maker. Finally, for commodities, no one will allow perpetual holding of short positions in commodities because people want them delivered.  Because insider knowledge is presumed under the commodities trading laws, a random investor would be at a giant disadvantage similar to what a chess player who played randomly would face against a grand master chess player.  There is a very strong information asymmetry in commodity contracts.  There are people who actually do know how much cotton there is in the world, how much is planted in the ground, and what the demand will be and that knowledge is not shared with the world at large.  You would be fleeced. Can I also assume that probabilistically speaking, a trader cannot do   worst than random? Say, if I had to guess the roll of a dice, my   chance of being correct can't be less than 16.667%. A physicist, a con man, a magician and a statistician would tell you that dice rolls and coin tosses are not random.  While we teach ""fair"" coins and ""fair"" dice in introductory college classes to simplify many complex ideas, they also do not exist.  If you want to see a funny version of the dice roll game, watch the 1962 Japanese movie Zatoichi.  It is an action movie, but it begins with a dice game.   Consider adopting a Bayesian perspective on probability as it would be a healthier perspective based on how you are thinking about this problem.  A ""frequency"" approach always assumes the null model is true, which is what you are doing.  Had you tried this will real money, your model would have been falsified, but you still wouldn't know the true model. Yes, you can do much worse than 1/6th of the time.  Even if you are trying to be ""fair,"" you have not accounted for the variance. Extending that logic, then for an inexperienced trader, is it right to   say then that it's equally difficult to purposely make a loss then it   is to purposely make a profit? Because if I can purposely make a loss,   I would purposely just do the opposite of what I'm doing to make a   profit. So in the dice example, if I can somehow lower my chances of   winning below 16.6667%, it means I would simply need to bet on the   other 5 numbers to give myself a better than 83% chance of winning. If the game were ""fair,"" but for things like forex the rules of the game are purposefully changed by the market maker to maximize long-run profitability.  Under US law, forex is not regulated by anything other than common law.  As a result, the market maker can state any price, including prices far from the market, with the intent to make a system used by actors losing systems, such as to trigger margin calls.  The prices quoted by forex dealers in the US move loosely with the global rates, but vary enough that only the dealer should make money systematically.  A fixed strategy would promote loss. You are assuming that only you know the odds and they would let you profit from your 83.33 percentage chance of winning. So then, is the costs of trading from a purely probabilistic point of   view simply the transaction costs? No matter what, my chances cannot   be worse than random and if my trading system has an edge that is   greater than the percentage of the transaction that is transaction   cost, then I am probabilistically likely to make a profit? No, the cost of trading is the opportunity cost of the money.  The transaction costs are explicit costs, but you have ignored the implicit costs of foregone interest and foregone happiness using the money for other things. You will want to be careful here in understanding probability because the distribution of returns for all of these assets lack a first moment and so there cannot be a ""mean return.""  A modal return would be an intellectually more consistent perspective, implying you should use an ""all-or-nothing"" cost function to evaluate your methodology." "The stock market is not a zero-sum game.  Some parts are (forex, some option trading), but plain old stock trading is not zero sum. That is to say, if you were to invest ""at random"", you would on average make money.  That's because the market as a whole makes money - it goes up over time (6-10% annually, averaged over time).  That's because you're not just gambling when you buy a stock; you're actually contributing money to a company (directly or indirectly), which it uses to fund activities that (on average) make money.  When you buy Caterpillar stock, you're indirectly funding Caterpillar building tractors, which they then sell for a profit, and thus your stock appreciates in value.  While not every company makes a profit, and thus not every stock appreciates in true value, the average one does. To some extent, buying index funds is pretty close to ""investing at random"".  It has a far lower risk quotient, of course, since you're not buying a few stocks at random but instead are buying all stocks in an index; but buying stocks from the S&P 500 at random would on average give the same return as VOO (with way more volatility). So for one, you definitely could do worse than 50/50; if you simply sold the market short (sold random stocks short), you would lose money over time on average, above and beyond the transaction cost, since the market will go up over time on average. Secondly, there is the consideration of limited and unlimited gains or losses. Some trades, specifically some option trades, have limited potential gains, and unlimited potential losses. Take for example, a simple call option.  If you sell a naked call option - meaning you sell a call option but don't own the stock - for $100, at a strike price of $20, for 100 shares, you make money as long as the price of that stock is under $21.  You have a potential to make $100, because that's what you sold it for; if the price is under $20, it's not exercised, and you just get that $100, free.   But, on the other hand, if the stock goes up, you could potentially be out any amount of money.  If the stock trades at $24, you're out $400-100 = $300, right?  (Plus transaction costs.)   But what if it trades at $60?  Or $100?  Or $10000?  You're still out 100 * that amount, so in the latter case, $1 million.  It's not likely to trade at that point, but it could. If you were to trade ""at random"", you'd probably run into one of those types of situations.  That's because there are lots of potential trades out there that nobody expects anyone to take - but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't be happy to take your money if you offered it to them.   That's the reason your 16.66 vs 83.33 argument is faulty:  you're absolutely right that if there were a consistently losing line, that the consistently winning line would exist, but that requires someone that is willing to take the losing line.  Trades require two actors, one on each side; if you're willing to be the patsy, there's always someone happy to take advantage of you, but you might not get a patsy." "There are moral distinctions that can be drawn between gambling and investing in stocks. First and I think most important, in gambling you are trying to get money for nothing. You put $100 down on the roulette wheel and you hope to get $200 back. In investing you are not trying to get something for nothing. You are buying a piece of a hopefully profit-making company. You are giving this company the use of your money, and in exchange you get a share of the profits. That is, you are quite definitely giving something: the use of your money for a period of time. You invest $100 of your money, and you hope to see that grow by maybe $5 or $10 a year typically. You may get a sudden windfall, of course. You may buy a stock for $100 today and tomorrow it jumps to $200. But that's not the normal expectation. Second, gambling is a zero sum game. If I gamble and win $100, then someone else had to lose $100. Investing is not a zero sum game. If I buy $100 worth of stock in a company and that grows to $200, I have in a sense ""won"" $100. But no one has lost $100 to give me that money. The money is the result of the profit that the company made by selling a valuable product or service to customers. When I go to the grocery store and buy a dozen eggs for $2, some percentage of that goes to the stockholders in the grocery store, say 5 cents. So did I lose 5 cents by buying those eggs? No. To me, a dozen eggs are worth at least $2, or I wouldn't have bought them. I got exactly what I paid for. I didn't lose anything. Carrying that thought further, investing in the stock market puts money into businesses. It enables businesses to get started and to grow and expand. Assuming these are legitimate businesses, they then provide useful products and services to customers. Gambling does not provide useful products and services to anyone -- except to the extent that people enjoy the process of gambling, in which case you could say that it is equivalent to playing a video game or watching a movie. Third -- and these are all really related -- the whole goal of gambling is to take something from another person while giving him nothing in return. Again, if I buy a dozen eggs, I give the store my $2 (or whatever amount) and I get a dozen eggs in exchange. I got something of value and the store got something of value. We both walk away happy. But in gambling, my goal is that I will take your money and give you nothing in return. It is certainly true that buying stocks involves risk, and we sometimes use the word ""gamble"" to describe any risk. But if it is a sin to take a risk, then almost everything you do in life is a sin. When you cross the street, there is a risk that you will be hit by a car you didn't see. When you drink a glass of water, there is the risk that it is contaminated and will poison you. When you get married, there is a risk that your spouse will divorce you and break your heart. Etc. We are all sinners, we all sin every day, but we don't sin quite THAT much. :-) (BTW I don't think that gambling is a sin. Nothing in the Bible says that gambling is a sin. But I can comprehend the argument for it. I think gambling is foolish and I don't do it. My daughter works for a casino and she has often said how seeing people lose money in the casino regularly reminds her why it is stupid to gamble. Like she once commented on people who stand between two slot machines, feed them both coins and then pull the levers down at the same time, ""so that"", she said, ""they can lose their money twice as fast"".)" "The June 2014 issue of Barclays Wealth's Compass magazine had a very nice succinct article on this topic: ""Value investing – does a rules-based approach work?"".  It examines the performance of value and growth styles of investment in the MSCI World and S&P500 arenas for a few decades back, and reveals a surprisingly complicated picture, depending on sector, region and time-period. Their summary is basically: A closer look however shows that the overall success of value   strategies derives mainly from the 1970s and 1980s. ... in the US, value has underperformed growth for over 25 years   since peaking in July 1988. Globally, value experienced a 30% setback   in the late 1990s so that there are now periods with a length of   nearly 13 years over which growth has outperformed. So the answer to ""does it beat the market?"" is  ""it depends..."". Update in response to comment below: the question of risk adjusted returns is interesting.  To quote another couple of fragments from the piece: Since December 1974, [MSCI world] value has outperformed growth by   2.6% annually, with lower risk. This outperformance on a risk-adjusted   basis is the so-called value premium that Eugene Fama and Kenneth   French first identified in 1992... and That outperformance has, however, come with more risk. Historical   volatility of the pure style indices has been 21-22% compared to 16%   for the market. ... From a maximum drawdown perspective, the 69% drop   of pure value during the financial crisis exceeded the 51% drop of the   overall market." I am a bit at a loss as to how you can read the same book, that inspired Warren Buffet, and take away that trading 600 contracts per month is a way to prosperity.  As a fellow engineer I can say with assurance this speculation scheme is doomed to failure.  Crossing out the word gamble was a mistake.   Instead you should focus on two things.  The first is your core business, which is signal processing.  Work and strive to be the best you can.  Seek out opportunities to increase your income while keeping your costs low.  As an engineer you have an opportunity to earn an above average salary with very low costs. Second would be to warehouse some of those earning and let others who are good at other things work for you.  You may want to read the Jack Bogle books and seek an asset allocation model.  I tend to be more aggressive then he would suggest, but that is a matter of preference.    You don't really have the time, when you focus on your core business, to manage 6 trades a month let alone 600.  Put your contributions on auto pilot and a surprisingly short time you will have a pile of cash. They made an analysis of my readiness to assume a risk and found out that I am willing to take only small risks. I would agree with this analysis. You really should rethink this part. At your age, you have no rational reason whatsoever to be risk-averse! Especially since any reasonably diversified fund already eliminates actual risk (of complete loss) almost completely. Going into bonds and real estate does not reduce risk at all; it reduces volatility - and you're giving up a lot of money merely to avoid seeing your investments go down temporarily(!) "As an aside, why does it seem to be difficult to get a conclusive answer to this question? I'm going to start by trying to answer this question and I think the answer here will help answer the other questions.  Here is a incomplete list of the challenges involved: So my question is, is there any evidence that value investing actually beats the market? Yes there is a lot of evidence that it works and there is a lot of evidence that it does not.  timday's has a great link on this.  Some rules/methods work over some periods some work during others.  The most famous evidence for value investing probably comes from Fama and French who were very careful and clever in solving many of the above problems and had a large persistent data set, but their idea is very different from Damodaran's, for instance, and hard to implement though getting easier. Is the whole field a waste of time? Because of the above problems this is a hard question.  Some people like Warren Buffet have clearly made a lot of money doing this.  Though it is worth remembering a good amount of the money these famous investors make is off of fees for investing other peoples' money.  If you understand fundamental analysis well you can get a job making a lot of money doing it for a company investing other peoples' money.  The markets are very random that it is very hard for people to tell if you are good at it and since markets generally go up it is easy to claim you are making money for people, but clearly banks and hedge funds see significant value in good analysts so it is likely not entirely random. Especially if you are a good writer you can make a more money here than most other jobs. Is it worth it for the average investor saving for retirement?  Very, very hard to say.  Your time might be better spent on your day job if you have one. Remember because of the fees and added risk involved over say index investing more ""Trading is Hazardous to Your Wealth.""" "In gambling, the house also takes a cut, so the total money in the game is shrinking by 2-10 percent.  So if you gain $100, it's because other people lost $105, and you do this for dozens of plays, so it stacks up.  The market owns companies who are trying to create economic value - take nothing and make it something. They usually succeed, and this adds to the total pot and makes all players richer regardless of trades.   Gambling is transactional, there's a ""pull"" or a ""roll"" or a ""hand"", and when it's over you must do new transactions to continue playing.   Investing parks your money indefinitely, you can be 30 years in a stock and that's one transaction. And given the long time, virtually all your gains will be new economic value created, at no one else's expense, i.e. Nobody loses.  Now it's possible to trade in and out of stocks very rapidly, causing them  to be transactional like gambling: the extreme example is day-trading.  When you're not in a stock long enough for the company to create any value (paid in dividends or the market appreciating the value), then yes, for someone to gain, someone else must lose. And the house takes a cut (e.g. Etrade's $10 trading fee in and out).  In that case both players are trying to win, and one just had better info on average.   Another case is when the market drops. For instance right after Brexit I dumped half my domestic stocks and bought Euro index funds. I gambled Euro stocks would rebound better than US stocks would continue to perform.  Obviously, others were counterbetting that American stocks will still grow more than Euro will rebound.  Who won that gamble?  Certainly we will all do better long-term, but some of us will do better-er. And that's what it's all about." Very likely this refers to trading/speculating on leverage, not investing. Of course, as soon as you put leverage into the equation this perfectly makes sense.  2007-2009 for example, if one bought the $SPX at its highs in 2007 at ~$1560.00 - to the lows from 2009 at ~$683.00 - implicating that with only 2:1 leverage a $1560.00 account would have received a margin call. At least here in Europe I can trade index CFD's and other leveraged products. If i trade lets say >50:1 leverage it doesn’t take much to get a margin call and/or position closed by the broker. No doubt, depending on which investments you choose there’s always risk, but currency is a position too. TO answer the question, I find it very unlikely that >90% of investors (referring to stocks) lose money / purchasing power. Anyway, I would not deny that where speculators (not investors) use leverage or try to trade swings, news etc. have a very high risk of losing money (purchasing power). No, inaction is not always the rational choice in your scenario. To give an extreme example as proof: Let's say that you have $1,000. The expected value of inaction is $0 - you will end up with the same amount (minus inflation, but we can ignore that for this exercise). If your only other option is an investment which has a 75% chance of losing all of your money, and a 25% chance of doubling your money, then your expected value is ((75% * -$1,000)+ (25% * $1,000)) = -$500. In that case your best option is obviously inaction. However, let's say that you have a 75% chance of losing all of your money, but a 25% chance of making $1,000,000 on your investment. In that case, the expected value of investing is ((75% * -$1,000)+ (25% * $1,000,000)) = $249,250. This means that the rational thing is to make the investment. Basically, the 25% chance of making $1M is worth the 75% chance of losing everything. One reason why you may have gotten this advice is that stocks have an expected real return over time, while commodities do not. Therefore, when gambling on individual stocks, odds are in your favor that they will ultimately go up over time. You may do better or worse than the market as a whole, but they will likely go up as the whole market, on average, rises over time. Commodities, on the other hand, have no expected real return. It is more zero-sum. In fact, after costs, a real loss should be expected on average, making gambling in here more risky. Chris Rea's comment captures it -- most people don't have working crystal balls. Unless you are a trader, you address risk with diversification. There are several questions on this site discussing strategies to diversify your portfolio. In many ways, the markets offer investors false choices. We have an emotional desire to react to stimuli -- but that often leads to lousy outcomes. For example, selling your NASDAQ 100 fund after its value falls is usually a bad idea. &gt;That's one reason why they let you get access to your credit score, to check it the data is correct and make the 'product' (data about you) better.  If that were true, checking your credit report regularly would be straight forward and free. However, the credit agencies have turned insuring your credit report is actuate into a revenue stream. You can see raw data that goes into your score once a year, because the agencies are required by law to provide that you. In past the agencies have been criticized for trying to trick people into buying their services when they request their annual free report (see [freecreditreport.com vs annualcreditreport.com](http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/02/24/want-to-see-your-credit-report-for-free-freecreditreportcom-vs-annualcreditreportcom/)). If you want to check the accuracy of credit report more than once a year, you have to pay. If you want to know your score, you have to pay, although many credit cards offer this as a perk.