Understanding the phrase “afford to lose” better
"Well.... If you have alllll your money invested, and then there's a financial crisis, and there's a personal crisis at the same time (e.g. you lose your job) then you're in big trouble. You might not have enough money to cover your bills while you find a new job. You could lose your house, ruin your credit, or something icky like that.  Think 2008. Even if there's not a financial crisis, if the money is in a tax-sheltered retirement account then withdrawing it will incur ugly penalities. Now, after you've got an emergency fund established, things are different. If you could probably ride out six to twelve months with your general-purpose savings, then with the money you are investing for the long term (retirement) there's no reason you shouldn't invest 100% of the money in stocks. The difference is that you're not going to come back for that money in 6 months, you're going to come back for it in 40 years. As for retirement savings over the long term, though, I don't think it's a good idea to think of your money in those terms. If you ever lose 100% of your money on the stock market while you've invested in diversified instruments like S&P500 index funds, you're probably screwed one way or another because that represents the core industrial base of the US economy, and you'll have better things to worry about, like looking for a used shotgun. Myself, I prefer to give the suggestion ""don't invest any money in stocks if you're going to need to take it out in the next 5 years or so"" because you generally shouldn't be worried about a 100% loss of all the money in stocks your retirement accounts nearly so much as you should be worried about weathering large, medium-term setbacks, like the dot-com bubble crash and the 2008 financial crisis. I save the ""don't invest money unless you can afford to lose it all"" advice for highly speculative instruments like gold futures or social-media IPOs. Remember also that while you might lose a lot of your money on the stock market, your savings accounts and bonds will earn you pathetic amounts by comparison, which you will slowly lose to inflation. If you've had your money invested for decades then even during a crash you may still be coming out ahead relative to bonds." It's a phrase that has no meaning out of context.  When I go to Las Vegas (I don't go, but if I did) I would treat what I took as money I plan to lose.  When I trade stock options and buy puts or calls, I view it as a calculated risk, with a far greater than zero chance of having the trade show zero in time.  A single company has a chance of going bankrupt. A mix of stocks has risk, the S&P was at less than half its high in the 2008 crash. The money I had in the S&P was not money I could afford to lose, but I could afford to wait it out. There's a difference. We're not back at the highs, but we're close.  By the way, there are many people who would not sleep knowing that their statement shows a 50% loss from a prior high point. Those people should be in a mix more suited to their risk tolerance. "The way I approach ""afford to lose"", is that you need to sit down and figure out the amount of money you need at different stages of your life. I can look at my current expenses and figure out what I will always roughly be paying - bills, groceries, rent/mortgage.  I can figure out when I want to retire and how much I want to live on - I generally group 401k and other retirement separately to what I want to invest. With these numbers I can figure out how much I need to save to achieve this goal. Maybe you want to purchase a house in 5 years - figure out the rough down payment and include that in your savings plan. Continue for all capital purchases that you can think you would aim for. Subtract your income from this and you have the amount of money you have greater discretion over. Subtracting current liabilities (4th of July holiday... christmas presents) and you have the amount you could ""afford to lose"". As to the asset allocation you should look at, as others have mentioned that the younger you the greater your opportunity is to recoup losses. Personally I would disagree - you should have some plan for the investment and use that goal to drive your diversification." Keep in mind that it's a cliche statement used as non-controversial filler in articles, not some universal truth. When you were young, did you mom tell you to eat your vegetables because children are starving in Ethiopia? This is the personal finance article equivalent of that. Generally speaking, the statement as an air of truth about it. If you're living hand to mouth, you probably shouldn't be thinking about the stock market. If you're a typical middle class individual investor, you probably shouldn't be messing around with very speculative investments. That said, be careful about looking for some deeper meaning that just isn't there. If the secret of investment success is hidden in that statement, I have a bridge to sell you that has a great view of Brooklyn. "I think that people only use the phrase ""only spend what you can afford to lose"" when they are talking about the most risky or speculative investments, or even gambling.   When talking about gambling, the following quote is a bottom line: The speculative investment that brought me to this question via google is how much should I invest in Bitcoin?  I was tempted to put in 10% of my investments, not including the 6 month safety fund and not including equity in my home.  Now thinking about this question, it seems that it depends on your income as a percentage of your investment income (which should grow in proportion to the whole over time).  For example: Early stage of career, not much investment income: 20% Mid career: 5% Mid-late career, moving to more safe investments: 5% Late career, retirement: 1% Another way to calculate would be as a percentage of the amount you put into retirement savings per year.  Maybe 10% of this figure when you're young and 1% nearer to retirement." "The advice to ""Only invest what you can afford to lose"" is good advice. Most people should have several pots of money: Checking to pay your bills; short term savings; emergency fund; college fund; retirement. When you think about investing that is the funds that have along lead time: college and retirement. It is never the money you need to pay your bills.  Now when somebody is young, the money they have decided to invest can be in riskier investments. You have time to recover. Over time the transition is made to less risky investments because the recovery time is now limited. For example putting all your college savings for your recent high school graduate into the stock market could have devastating consequences. Your hear this advice ""Only invest what you can afford to lose"" because too many people ask about hove to maximize the return on the down payment for their house: Example A, Example B. They want to use vehicles designed for long term investing, for short term purposes. Imagine a 10% correction while you are waiting for closing." "I think it's a silly statement. If you are prepared from the start that you might lose it then you shouldn't invest. You invest to earn not to lose. Most often losses are a result of fear.  Remember you only lose when you sell lower than you bought for.  So if you have the patience you will probably regain. I ask my clients many times how much do they want to earn and they all say ""as much as possible"". Last time I checked, that's not an objective and therefore a strategy can't be built for that.  If there is  a strategy then exiting a stock is easy,  without a strategy you never know when to exit and then you are exposed to  bottomless losses. I've successfully traded for many years with large amounts of money. I made money in the FC and in the bubble, both times it wasn't because I was prepared to lose but because I had an entry and exit strategy. If you have both the idea of investing what u are prepared to lose has little value."
The average inflation rate in the US over the last 17 years is 2.17% per year. source So he has $30,000 now. If another 3 years go by and he doesnt invest it in anything whatsoever, he would have 30,000/(1.0217^3) = $28,128 equivalent buying power 3 years from now.   I would not focus on how much money he is losing per year, but instead focus on the religious constraint of not gaining interest. What was the intent of the religious prophet or person who was discussing this issue? If he invested the money with a 1% interest rate, and split the profit down the middle, half of it for his savings and half of it given to a charity of his choice, would that be something that would be likely to change his behavior? Consider this approach if you're trying to help someone to understand the ramifications of a financial. "The key point to answer the question is to consider risk aversion. Assume I suggest a game to you: Throw a coin and if you win, you get $5, if you lose nothing happens. Will you play the game? Of course, you will - you have nothing to lose! What if I suggest this: If you win, you get $10,000,005 and if you lose you must pay $10,000,000 (I also accept cars, houses, spouses, and kidneys as payment). While the expected value of the second game is the same as for the first, if you lose the second game you are more or less doomed to spend the rest of your life in poverty or not even have a rest of your life. Therefore, you will not wish to play the second game. Well, maybe you do - but probably only if you are very, very rich and can easily afford a loss (even if you had $11,000,000 you won't be as happy with a possible raise to $21,000,005 as you'd be unhappy with dropping to a mere $1,000,000, so you'd still not like to play).  Some model this by taking logarithms: If your capital grows from $500 to $1000 or from $1000 to $2000, in both cases it doubles, hence is considered the same ""personal gain"", effectively. And, voíla, the logartithm of your capital grows by the same amount in both cases. This refelcts that a rich man will not be as happy about finding a $10 note as a poor man will be about finding a nickel.  The effect of an insurance is that you replace an uncertain event of great damage with a certain event of little damage. Of course, the insurance company plays the same game, with roles swapped - so why do they play? One point is that they play the game very often, which tends to nivel the risks - unless you do something stupid and insure all inhabitants of San Francisco (and nobody else) against eqarthquakes. But also they have enough capital that they can afford to lose the game. In a fair situation, i.e. when the insurance costs just as much as damage cost multiplied with probability of damage, a rational you would eagerly buy the insurance because of risk aversion. Therefore, the insurance will in effect be able to charge more than the statistically fair price and many will still (gnawingly) buy it, and that's how they make a living. The decision how much more one is willing to accept as insurance cost is also a matter of whether you can afford a loss of the insured item easily, with regrets, barely, or not all." "I'm not sure the term actually has a clear meaning. We can think of ""what does this mean"" in two ways: its broad semantic/metaphorical meaning, and its mechanical ""what actual variables in the market represent this quantity"". Net buying/selling have a clear meaning in the former sense by analogy to the basic concept of supply and demand in equilibrium markets. It's not as clear what their meaning should be in the latter sense. Roughly, as the top comment notes, you could say that a price decrease is because of net selling at the previous price level, while a price rise is driven by net buying at the previous price level. But in terms of actual market mechanics, the only way prices move is by matching of a buyer and a seller, so every market transaction inherently represents an instantaneous balance across the bid/ask spread. So then we could think about the notion of orders. Actual transactions only occur in balance, but there is a whole book of standing orders at various prices. So maybe we could use some measure of the volume at various price levels in each of the bid/ask books to decide some notion of net buying/selling. But again, actual transactions occur only when matched across the spread. If a significant order volume is added on one side or the other, but at a price far away from the bid/offer - far enough that an actual trade at that price is unlikely to occur - should that be included in the notion of net buying/selling? Presumably there is some price distance from the bid/offer where the orders don't matter for net buying/selling. I'm sure you'd find a lot of buyers for BRK.A at $1, but that's completely irrelevant to the notion of net buying/selling in BRK.A. Maybe the closest thing I can think of in terms of actual market mechanics is the comparative total volumes during the period that would still have been executed if forced to execute at the end of period price. Assuming that traders' valuations are fixed through the period in question, and trading occurs on the basis of fundamentals (which I know isn't a good assumption in practice, but the impact of price history upon future price is too complex for this analysis), we have two cases. If price falls, we can assume all buyers who executed above the last price in the period would have happily bought at the last price (saving money), while all sellers who executed below the last price in the period would also be happy to sell for more. The former will be larger than the latter. If the price rises, the reverse is true." "Other people have already demonstrated the effect of compound interest to the question. I'd like to add a totally different perspective.  Note that the article says if you can follow this simple recipe throughout your working career, you will almost certainly beat out most professional investors [...] you'll likely accumulate enough savings to retire comfortably. (the latter point may be the more practical mark than the somewhat arbitrary million (rupees? dollars?) My point here is that the group of people who do put away a substantial fraction of their (lower) early wages and keep them invested for decades show (at least) two traits that will make a very substantial difference to the average (western) person. They may be correlated, though: people who are not tempted or able to resist the temptation to spend (almost) their whole income may be more likely to not touch their savings or investments. (In my country, people like to see themselves as ""world champions in savings"", but if you talk to people you find that many people talk about saving for the next holidays [as opposed to saving for retirement].) Also, if you get going this way long before you are able to retire you reach a relative level of independence that can give you a much better position in wage negotiations as you do not need to take the first badly paid job that comes along in order to survive but can afford to wait and look and negotiate for a better job.  Psychologically, it also seems to be easier to consistently keep the increase in your spending below the increase of your income than to reduce spending once you overspent. There are studies around that find homeowners on average substantially more wealthy than people who keep living in rental appartments (I'm mostly talking Germany, were renting is normal and does not imply poverty - but similar findings have also been described for the US) even though someone who'd take the additional money the homeowner put into their home over the rent and invested in other ways would have yielded more value than the home. The difference is largely attributed to the fact that buying and downpaying a home enforces low spending and saving, and it is found that after some decades of downpayment homeowners often go on to spend less than their socio-economic peers who rent. The group that is described in this question is one that does not even need the mental help of enforcing the savings. In addition, if this is not about the fixed million but about reaching a level of wealth that allows you to retire: people who have practised moderate spending habits as adults for decades are typically also much better able to get along with less in retirement than others who did went with a high consumption lifestyle instead (e.g. the homeowners again).  My estimate is that these effects compound in a way that is much more important than the ""usual"" compounding effect of interest - and even more if you look at interest vs. inflation, i.e. the buying power of your investment for everyday life.  Note that they also cause the group in question to be more resilient in case of a market crash than the average person with about no savings (note that market crashes lead to increased risk of job loss).  Slightly off topic: I do not know enough how difficult saving 50 USD out of 50 USD in Pakistan is - and thus cannot comment whether the savings effort called for in the paper is equivalent/higher/lower than what you achieve. I find that trying to keep to student life (i.e. spending that is within the means of a student) for the first professional years can help kick-starting a nest egg (European experience - again, not sure whether applicable in Pakistan)." I think it's because there are people who build entire wealth-gain strategies around certain conditions.  When those conditions change, their mechanism of gaining wealth is threatened and they may take a short term loss as they transform their holdings to a new strategy. "Chance favors the prepared mind - Einstein   That being said, I liken it to a poker analogy. To win at poker you must play. To play you must already have something to put on the table. If you are betting your entire existence at every hand because you started poor you *can* win but it is far less likely to happen. You will make illogical decisions due to the fear or being destroyed. It's like how walking across a tightrope is easy when it is 6"" above the ground, but not 600 feet above the ground.   Also, in the beggining of life there is a good chance you will flame out or mess up a few times. Rich kids can do this as much as they need to, over and over again, to learn and get their feet under them. Poor kids generally get one chance and if anything goes wrong it's back to the factory to work for several more years to save up money again.   I believe they are calling this growing class of young people on the edge the ""precariat""." "The title of your question is quite different then the content.  The term ""Rat Race"" was coined in the 70's and refers to the endless cycle of working hard to consume more.  Fortunately it is very easy not to participate in the cycle and probably will lead to more happiness.  Just because one ""works"" does not mean they are participating in the ""rat race"", and I would recommend the following: When I think of ""rat race"" I picture a a bumper-to-bumper freeway of people struggling to get to work.  For others it might be different, but that kind of rat race is easily avoided by the multitude of remote work opportunities.  Some jobs allow you to work anywhere in the world. Avoiding the rugged consumerism also helps avoid the feelings of being a rat on the wheel.  Sure one can like nice things, but do we have to have everything that Madison Ave is trying to sell us?  No.  Pick some nice things and pay cash. Debt, especially consumer debt, causes a person (in effect) to work for a bank.  Avoiding debt will remove those feelings. Saving and investing also helps avoid those feelings.  There is profound satisfaction in watching ones account balances grow.  Once you see that your investment earnings can outpace your expenses, and then your salary you really feel like you are getting ahead.      Above all else giving is a paramount and often overlooked part of a person's financial life.  It causes one to be humble and recognize that most people, in this world, are less fortunate that us.  It avoids runaway provide that justifies purchases that we cannot afford.   So yea you can avoid the ""Rat Race"" and still work." For big values the loss becomes negligible. Say you have a 10% chance to get 10 million $/€/Whatever, expected value 1m. You sell that chance for 990k, which loses you 10k of expected income. Why would you throw away 10k? Because in the face of getting almost 1m the 10k are insignificant, 1m and 990k will make you roughly equally rich. Also the richness increase from 1m to 10m is less than 10x since 1m gives you maybe 90% of the freedom that 10m does (depending on how well you can make 10m work for you, most people will just let it rot in the bank). Another way to look at it is to look at bankruptcy risk. Say I have 10k in the bank, which is nice. Those 10k cannot pay for a new house or 2 cars (mine and the one I hit), so I have a small risk of significant loss. If I buy an insurance I reduce my chance of going bankrupt from maybe 0.001% to 0% for a fairly small price. Usually you can buy insurance fairly cheap if you raise your deductible to maybe 5k (both for the house and the car) so that you shoulder the risk you can (shouldering risk = gaining money) and paying an insurance to shoulder the rest for you. That way you minimize the cost to remove the risk of bankruptcy. It makes sense to shoulder as much risk as you can (unless a fixed fee of the insurance makes in unfeasible) before paying others to do it for you so you can optimize your income while removing fatal risks. "I don't think ""cost of carry"" is the right word here.  Yes, you have the opportunity cost (what you could have earned during that time if you had invested the money somehwere else) and then you also have interest rate risk and default risk." The principle behind the advice to not throw good money after bad is better restated in economics terms: sunk costs are sunk and irrelevant to today's decisions.   Money lost on a stock is sunk and should not affect our decisions today, one way or the other.  Similarly, the stock going up should not affect our decisions today, one way or the other.  Any advice other than this is assuming some kind of mispricing or predictability in the market.  Mispricings in general cannot be reliably identified and stock returns are not normally predictable. The only valid (efficient markets) reason I know of to allow money you have lost or made on a stock to affect your decision today is the tax implications (you may want to lock in gains if your tax rate is temporarily low or vice versa). cost of carry is a confusing term to use but this is what i was given to work with   then again, once you factor in interest rate risk and default risk (if you do), what is a better term?  it's not just cost of capital at that pt "It is called ""Opportunity Cost.""   Opportunity cost is the value you lose because of a decision you made.   This is the book definition from Investopedia. The difference in return between a chosen investment and one that is necessarily passed up. Say you invest in a stock and it returns a paltry 2% over the year. In placing your money in the stock, you gave up the opportunity of another investment - say, a risk-free government bond yielding 6%. In this situation, your opportunity costs are 4% (6% - 2%)." "What it means is that you can always come up with alternative framings where the difference between two options is stated as a gain or a loss, but the effect is the same in either case.  For instance, if I offer to sell a T-shirt for $10 and offer a cash discount of $1, you pay $10 if buying with a credit card or $9 if buying with cash.  If I instead offer the shirt for $9 with a $1 surcharge for credit card use, you still pay $10 if buying with a credit card or $9 if buying with cash.  The financial result is the same in either case, but psychologically people may perceive them differently and make different buying decisions. In a tax situation it may be more complicated since exemptions wouldn't directly reduce your tax, but only your taxable income.  However, you can still see that, in general, having to pay $X more in tax for not doing some action (e.g., not purchasing health insurance) is the same as being able to pay $X less in tax as a reward for doing the action.  Either way, doing the action results in you paying $X less than you would if you didn't do it; the only difference is in which behavior (doing it or not doing it) is framed as the ""default"" option.  Again, these framings may differentially influence people's behavior even when the net result is the same." "It will be helpful to establish some definitions: Long ""Long"" is financial slang for ""to have possession of an asset"", legally, and ""to debit an asset"", financially.   Short ""Short"" is financial slang for ""to be liable for an asset"", legally, and ""to credit an asset"", financially. Option ""Option"" is financial slang for ""to have the right but not obligation to force the liable to perform action"", legally.  Without limits and when taken to absurdity, this can mean slavery.  For equities, this means ""to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy/sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right"" for a call/put, respectively. By the above, a call option is ""the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right"". By the definition of ""long"" above, a call option is actually not long the underlying. By the definitions above and with a narrower scope applied to equities & indexes, to be ""long"" the call means ""to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right"" while to be ""short"" the call means ""to have the obligation to be forced to sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right"". So, to be ""long"" a call means to simply own the call." "Here is how the Visa network works: A Visa transaction is a carefully orchestrated process. When a Visa   account holder uses a Visa card to buy a pair of shoes, it’s actually   the acquirer — the merchant’s bank — that reimburses the merchant for   the shoes. Then, the issuer — the account holder’s bank — reimburses   the acquirer, usually within 24 to 48 hours. Lastly, the issuer   collects from the account holder by withdrawing funds from the account   holder’s bank account if a debit account is used, or through billing   if a credit account is used. I read this to mean the Merchant's Bank (the Acquirer Bank) gives the merchant the money within 2 days via the Card Issuer's Bank. The issuing bank is the one that provides the ""credit"" feature since that bank won't get reimbursed until the shopper's bill is paid (or perhaps even longer if the shopper carries a balance). You'll notice the Credit Card company (Visa/MC/etc) is only involved in the process as a way of passing messages. Of course they take a fee for this service so seller ultimately get's less than the buyer bought the shoes for."