Are marijuana based investments promising, or just another scam?
Is there any truth to this, or is this another niche scam that's been brewing the last few years? While it may not be an outright scam, such schemes do tend to be on borderline of scams. Technically most of what is being said claimed can be true, however in reality such windfall gains never happen to the investors. Whatever gains are there will be cornered by the growers, trades, other entities in supply chain leaving very little to the investors.  It is best to stay away from such investments. "Any advertisement for a ""business opportunity"" is nearly always a scam of some kind. In such deals, the seller is the one making the money. They rely on the fantasy of the average person who imagines themself with a profitable business. Real businessmen do not get their businesses from flyers on the sides of telephone poles. Real businessmen already know every aspect and detail of their business already. They do not need to pay some clown $10,000 to ""get them started"". If you are reading such advertisements, it means you have money, but do not know what to do with it. Although I cannot tell you what to do with your money. I can tell you this: giving it to somebody who advertises a ""great business opportunity"" would be a mistake."
Based on several of the comments, I can foresee a situation in which an activist investor kicks in a lot of his own money, which, along with funds from kickstarter and possibly some of the investor's buddies, are enough to purchase a major share in a large bank, and by persuading other sympathetic shareholders, they are able to make headway in changing the industry. While improbable, it would at least be plausible. Not lies.  I worked with punkgeek at some of those startups.  One we founded together and it was a colossal failure.  Two later ones had IPOs in the $700M market-cap range.  If you hang around the valley a while (and get lucky) it gets a good bit easier to sniff out the likely successes. ATTENTION ZYNGA INVESTORS  I HAVE A UNIQUE BUYING OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU  STEM YOUR LOSSES AND INVEST IN TULIP BULBS NOW  TULIP BULBS SHOW REMARKABLE RESISTANCE TO MARKET CHANGES AND ONLY INCREASE IN VALUE  STUDIES SHOW IT'S BETTER THAN GOLD  EMAIL ME AT GASDFAJKNWERIUERBIUEBERITUERBTI@YAHOO.COM FOR MORE INFO And it's only as cheap as 1.78% if you stay with them 10 years! They'd love that. You can kind of tell they really want to lock you in for over 4 years. I also think it's daylight robbery, but as a self execution investor I tend to have to talk myself out of that belief by default to be fair. One can wonder too, why are there even 2 fixed (percentage wise) fees? They are desperate not to have one number that is too big sounding, either the advisor fee is a rip off because they have to do all the same analysis regardless, or you could take the view that it's the only valid fee as you're paying for a slice of something, where as the other fee is what? A share of the fixed costs? Well, isn't advising as essential as anything else? I actually think Nutmeg is OK, I've not used them or dealt with them in any way but they are, to a greater or lesser degree, what I've wished for to recommend to friends who don't want to DIY, which is a cheaper next generation online investment facility, and their fees drop significantly over 100K. Going by their claimed past performance and fee structure, whilst I'd like them to be cheaper, I personally think they are not a bad choice in the market. I mean, when the federal government can pull your bank charter and the FDIC can revoke your government insurance, it's not worth the benefit just to support some small town pot grower. It's likely to be this way until the federal government legalizes it or gives outright approval to the banks. "Let me start by giving you a snippet of a report that will floor you. Beat the market? Investors lag the market by so much that many call the industry a scam.   This is the 2015 year end data from a report titled Quantitive Analysis of Investor Behavior by a firm, Dalbar. It boggles the mind that the disparity could be this bad. A mix of stocks and bonds over 30 years should average 8.5% or so. Take out fees, and even 7.5% would be the result I expect. The average investor return was less than half of this. Jack Bogle, founder of Vanguard, and considered the father of the index fund, was ridiculed. A pamphlet I got from Vanguard decades ago quoted fund managers as saying that ""indexing is a path to mediocrity."" Fortunately, I was a numbers guy, read all I could that Jack wrote and got most of that 10.35%, less .05, down to .02% over the years. To answer the question: psychology. People are easily scammed as they want to believe they can beat the market. Or that they'll somehow find a fund that does it for them. I'm tempted to say ignorance or some other hint at lack of intelligence, but that would be unfair to the professionals, all of which were scammed by Madoff. Individual funds may not be scams, but investors are partly to blame, buy high, sell low, and you get the results above, I dare say, an investor claiming to use index funds might not fare much better than the 3.66% 30 year return above, if they follow that path, buying high, selling low. Edit - I am adding this line to be clear - My conclusion, if any, is that the huge disparity cannot be attributed to management, a 6.7% lag from the S&P return to what the average investor sees likely comes from bad trading. To the comments by Dave, we have a manager that consistently beats the market over any 2-3 year period. You have been with him 30 years and are clearly smiling about your relationship and investing decision. Yet, he still has flows in and out. People buy at the top when reading how good he is, and selling right after a 30% drop even when he actually beat by dropping just 22%. By getting in and out, he has a set of clients with a 30 year record of 6% returns, while you have just over 11%. This paragraph speaks to the behavior of the investor, not managed vs indexed." Yeah and Doctor Oz has a medical degree. There's a whole lot of skepticism and critique of the outdated and abandoned methods he's using. A quick google search will say from plenty of other experts from MIT and other name dropping schools that his data isn't and cannot be realistic.   I'm anticipating a market correction, but I'm also not a conspiracy theorist. "This article is written by an idiot!!  Risk ≠ failure, risk = possibility of failure  Reward (return) should be commensurate with risk and this is why long-shot propositions should be worthwhile. An example of this could be something like the following; an investment with a 95% chance of success should return about 5% on the investment (1 in 20 risk of loss, 1/20th return on investment for taking the risk) while a long-shot investment with a 5% chance of success should be paying a 2000% return (1 in 20 will succeed but they will pay 20 times the investment if they do).  An investment with a 0% chance of return (that you are suckered into due to ""opacity"") is not an investment, it is being robbed and it should be illegal. WTF is opacity? Lying?" If I needed a safe-ish way to bank a lot of cash in vegas I'd exchange for high value chips at the local gambling establishments.  I have to imagine that's being done already for other less than legal enterprises. This sort of question pops up with every new or sexy technology, and it's born (IMO) from the misguided opinion that a growth industry is a source of huge, guaranteed profit.  The reality is that, even in rapidly growing tech sectors, there is a high infant mortality rate. A lot of balloons go up, many pop, some drift far off course, some get tangled in the branches... and a few rise to the heavens, making the early investors look like supergeniuses.  Some very few of them were! They did their research, they made calculated risk assessments, and they chose AAPL over competitive companies.   Some bought AAPL near the IPO through luck. If your investment strategy idealizes these guys, go to Las Vegas and bet on red. Red never fails. Plus: you'll get free drinks, a buffet, and a nice stage show while you go bankrupt.  But in general, companies within a new, rising sector like marijuana dispensaries/farms/whatever aren't guaranteed growth. Do your research, and diversify your investments! "One alternative to bogleheadism is the permanent portfolio concept (do NOT buy the mutual fund behind this idea as you can easily obtain access to a low cost money market fund, stock index fund, and bond fund and significantly reduce the overall cost).  It doesn't have the huge booms that stock plans do, but it also doesn't have the crushing blows either.  One thing some advisers mention is success is more about what you can stick to than what ""traditionally"" makes sense, as you may not be able to stick to what traditionally makes sense (all people differ). This is an excellent pro and con critique of the permanent portfolio (read the whole thing) that does highlight some of the concerns with it, especially the big one: how well will it do in a world of high interest rates?  Assuming we ever see a world of high interest rates, it may not provide a great return. The authors make the assumption that interest rates will be rising in the future, thus the permanent portfolio is riskier than a traditional 60/40.  As we're seeing in Europe, I think we're headed for a world of negative interest rates - something in the past most advisers have thought was very unlikely.  I don't know if we'll see interest rates above 6% in my lifetime and if I live as long as my father, that's a good 60+ years ahead. (I realize people will think this is crazy to write, but consider that people are willing to pay governments money to hold their cash - that's how crazy our world is and I don't see this changing.)" You are right. It's not actually a scam but people call it that way because MLM promoters lie and use misleading statistics and demonstrations to make it look easy despite having pretty much no chance of success. Also MLM promoters usually lie to people about owning a supercar or mansion, and telling them that they can be rich by joining MLM. But yes it's a gamble disguised as a decent business. "I mean, in the eyes of investors it is a good investment.  &gt; ""Demand for stock from fund managers exceeded supply by more than 29 times at that price, two people said.""  They also have plantations in Malaysia and Indonesia, along with refining plants in China, Indonesia, Turkey, and South Africa. So it already has a stable foot hold in various economies.   Like I said, it's nice to see a business IPO that offers a tangible product with a relatively cheap IPO along with a chance to see much growth. You don't see many of these around nowadays." "She claimed that she makes money. When you wanted to make some too, she asked for your account credentials - which are only needed to take money away, never to give. The simplest explanation would be loan scam: Even if you have only $10 on your account, you can lose much more - the trick is that someone using your credentials can take an online loan in your name, and steal that money. If the scheme is long-running, she'll be taking new loans and using the money to pay back the earlier ones, building up credit history for her victims - only to allow taking even bigger loans. Her victims see the incoming transfers and are happy about the scheme ""working"". Until she decides that the pot is big enough to cash it in and disappear, leaving everyone deep in debt. Those who fell for this could be already defaulting loans they have no idea about and the loan companies have no way of notifying them, because she redirected the contact details. Never reveal your password. Nobody needs your password for any legitimate purpose." "No. I glanced through the article you linked to.  It's quite lengthy, but not compelling. I'd not lose any sleep over this.  Others with far better credentials are making the opposite claim, that life is good and the Dow on its way to 20,000.   Back to this guy - StansberryResearch.com Reviews – Legit or Scam? offers a look at this company. Stansberry calls his company ""one of the largest and most recognized investment research companies in the world"" but references to his firm call it a clearinghouse for other authors newsletters.  Why would you give any more credence to his ranting than any other extreme prognostications?  I suppose if I told you I never heard of him it would be pretty meaningless. I certainly haven't heard of every financial writer. But if he's one of the most recognized, you'd think I might have. Note, I've edited since seeing I was downvoted. But to the question author, you might want to summarize your questions in the future instead of linking to a video or  13,000 word rant. (when you click to shut the video, the text is available.)"