How would one follow the “smart money” when people use that term?
"Smart money (Merriam-Webster, Wiktionary) is simply a term that refers to the money that successful investors invest.  It can also refer to the successful investors themselves.  When someone tells you to ""follow the smart money,"" they are generally telling you to invest in the same things that successful investors invest in.  For example, you might decide to invest in the same things that Warren Buffett invests in.   However, there are a couple of problems with blindly following someone else's investments without knowing what you are doing. First, you are not in the same situation that the expert is in.  Warren Buffett has a lot of money in a lot of places.  He can afford to take some chances that you might not be able to take.  So if you choose only one of his investments to copy, and it ends up being a loser, he is fine, but you are not. Second, when Warren Buffett makes large investments, he affects the price of stocks.  For example, Warren Buffett's company recently purchased $1 Billion worth of Apple stock.  As soon as this purchase was announced, the price of Apple stock went up 4% from people purchasing the stock trying to follow Warren Buffett.   That having been said, it is a good idea to watch successful investors and learn from what they do.  If they see a stock as something worth investing in, find out what it is that they see in that company." To supplement Ben's answer: Following 'smart money' utilizes information available in a transparent marketplace to track the holdings of professionals.  One way may be to learn as much as possible about fund directors and monitor the firms holdings closely via prospectus. I believe certain exchanges provide transaction data by brokers, so it may be possible for a well-informed individual to monitor changes in a firms' holdings in between prospectus updates.  An example of a play on 'smart money':  S&P500 companies are reviewed for weighting and the list changes when companies are dropped or added. As you know there are ETFs and funds that reflect the holdings of the SP500.  Changes to the list trigger  'binary events' where funds open or close a position. Some people try to anticipate the movements of the SP500 before 'smart money' adjusts their positions. I have heard some people define smart money as people who get paid whether their decisions are right or wrong, which in my opinion, best captures the term. This Udemy course may be of interest: https://www.udemy.com/tools-for-trading-investing/
This was such a wonderful and clear explanation. It has helped me to understand (at 28) a concept that I have always been a bit murky on. I would feel safe making the bet that you are a teacher of some sort. I would find it extremely interesting to hear you thoughts on why we don't use the gold standard anymore. Do you work in finance? That's the point though.  They are allowing themselves to be *led*, in the first place, to the decision to do something with their capital that they don't understand.  While I don't condone how these Wall St. people behave with peoples money (hence why I don't put any of my money into it), I also cant sympathize with the people who lose money to Wall St. because they were too lazy to be informed about what was going on with their money and to act in their own best interest.  I am guessing (pure speculation) that a lot of the problem with the financial industry could've been avoided if people were proactive about their money and only made investments that they were personally knowledgeable about. "The problems of the government ""watching your money"" only apply to paper cash money which has pictures of presidents on it, and it's for anti-laundering/anti-crime/drug reasons. Nobody cares who you write a $100,000 check to.  The paper trail is there, but nobody ever looks at it. No reputable money management firm would even want cash. The apocryphal ""briefcase of money"" would be a nightmare for them. They'd need to count it in front of you, guard it, call in a security firm to transport it, and then make the same exact justifications to the government that you have to make, which means, chain of custody, they'd have to give you the same grilling your bank just gave you!  They would strongly discourage cash for those reasons.   So the crook wants the paper bag o' cash because he plans to do none of those things; he plans to take it from you and doesn't want a paper trail.  Often when the financial industry uses the term ""cash"", it's a slang for checks, money orders, cashiers checks, savings bonds, and other things that instantly map to denominated US dollars or a foreign currency routinely traded like yen, pound, franc, or Euro.  The opposite of ""cash"" would be stocks, bonds, real estate holdings, patents, heirlooms, debt, vehicles, etc. where they must be sold to make them into USD.   Just as a warning: most ""financial management firms"" rip you off; they pretend to be cheap or free, but actually earn their pay through deception: they talk you into fairly mediocre investments which pay them a huge sales commission. Sure, your money goes up, but not half as much as it should've, and they pocketed the difference.  They also recommend products which are unnecessarily complex, as a snow job.  Investment is simpler than that." "I think you came up with a worthy Masters/PhD research project, it is a great question. This is in Australia so it is difficult for me to have complete perspective.  However, I can speak about the US of A. To your first point relatively few people inherit their wealth.  According to a brief web search about 38% of billionaires, and 20% of millionaires inherited their wealth.  The rest are self-made. Again, in the US, income mobility is very common.  Some act like high level earners are just born that way, but studies have shown that a great deal of income mobility exists.  I personally know people that have grown up without indoor plumbing, and extremely poor but now earn in the top 5% of wage earners.   Quid's points are valid.  For example a Starbucks, new I-Phone, and a brake job on your car are somewhat catastrophic if your income is 50K/year, hurts if your income is 100K, and an inconvenience if you make 250K/year.  These situations are normal and happen regularly.  The first person may have to take a pay day loan to pay for these items, the second credit card interest, the third probably has the money in the bank.  All of this exaggerates the effect of an ""emergency"" on one's net worth.    To me there is also a chicken-and-egg effect in wealth building and income.  How does one build wealth?  By investing wisely, planning ahead, budgeting, delaying gratification, finding opportunities, etc...  Now if you take those same skills to your workplace isn't it likely you will receive more responsibility, promotions and raises?  I believe so.  And this too exaggerates the effect on one's net worth.  If investing helps you to earn more, then you will have more to invest. To me one of the untold stories of this graph is not just investing, but first building a stable financial base.  Having a sufficient emergency fund, having enough and the right kind of insurance, keeping loans to a minimum.  Without doing those things first investments might need to be withdrawn, often at an inopportune time, for emergency purposes. Thanks for asking this!" "Well said. And I get it, really I do. Rational means something very specific in the theoretical model of EMH, and it's not the same way that ""rational"" is usually used.  When a person actually gets to the point where he can trade on the stock market, you expect they would have information like ""know which stock you're trading"". Maybe these people didn't.  And even if we assume people have perfect information, they still make mistakes. Regularly. Repeatedly. Sometimes predictably. And those mistakes can overwhelm the right-price-finding effect of EMH." Very wealthy people usually have an investment manager who is constantly moving money between investments and accounts. They hold cash (or cash equivalent) accounts for use in a near-term buying opportunity, for example if they believe certain stocks will go down in price soon. This amount can vary from under 1% (for a money manager with no intention of any short-term trading) to over 20% (for a market pessimist who expects a huge price reduction shortly).  In rare cases they will also hold significant cash because of a planned large purchase, but there's almost never a reason for that to exceed 1% of their net worth. I don't understand your question. What the article is talking about is a bit more than circulating money indiscriminately. It is saying that by circulating more of it to rich and less to the poor will result in less growth overall, which I think we can all agree is a bad thing. Ok so Arbitrage?  I was looking specifically at the people who took this deal to the extreme taking the $5k and using the $10 giftcards to buy prepaid credit cards.  Would the better term would be positive-feedback loop, since the only constraint would be time and energy to the people exploit this deal.  Is there a financial term that fits this better? Well anyone who spends 95% of their money isn't very wise. There's really no quantifiable way to determine exactly what percentage they spend, but I seriously doubt it's a tiny fraction   Edit: I'm not saying wealthy individuals spend more than half their money or even a quarter of it, but they definitely play a crucial role in the economy. Particularly, in the credit and lending markets which drives investment "Some of it is very simple but almost all of it is very non-intuitive. Imagine that Donald Trump owns a lot of property that is valued at $1bn. So he puts that up as collateral to buy some gold worth $2bn dollars. A little while later the banks discover that the properties are only worth $100mm.   In this case $900mm has suddenly disappeared and moreover the banks are in deep shit because the Donald owes them $2bn and has posted collateral worth $100mm.   When they try to rough up Donald he tells them that instead if they go along with his ponzi scheme they might be able to sell his new $2bn property to someone else for $4bn, this way the banks will get their money bank and Donald will make a nice little profit. So the banks lend him some more money.   This scheme only works until people start refusing to buy these properties at Donald's prices. This is a nutshell what has happened. Property prices were much higher than they should have been and Banks had derivatives which weren't worth as much as they claimed. When the market/people wised up to this fact the prices came crashing down and money ""disappeared""." "It is my opinion that part of having a successful long-term relationship is being committed to the other person's success and well-being. This commitment is a form of investment in and of itself. The returns are typically non-monetary, so it's important to understand what money actually is. Money is a token people exchange for favors. If I go to a deli and ask for a sandwich. I give them tokens for the favor of having received a sandwich. The people at the deli then exchange those tokens for other favors, and that's the entire economy: people doing favors for other people in exchange for tokens that represent more favors. Sometimes being invested in your spouse is giving them a back rub when they've had a hard day. The investment pays off when you have a hard day and they give you a back rub. Sometimes being invested in your spouse is taking them to a masseuse for a professional massage. The investment pays off when they get two tickets to that thing you love. At the small scale it's easy to mostly ignore minor monetary discrepancies. At the large scale (which I think £50k is plenty large enough given your listed net worth) it becomes harder to tell if the opportunity cost will be worth making that investment. It pretty much comes down to: Will the quality-of-life improvements from that investment be better than the quality-of-life improvements you receive from investing that money elsewhere? As far as answering your actual question of: How should I proceed? There isn't a one-size fits all answer to this. It comes down to decisions you have to make, such as: * in theory it's easy to say that everyone should be able to trust their spouse, but in practice there are a lot of people who are very bad at handling money. It can be worthwhile in some instances to keep your spouse at an arms length from your finances for their own good, such as if your spouse has a gambling addiction. With all of that said, it sounds like you're living in a £1.5m house rent-free. How much of an opportunity cost is that to your wife? Has she been freely investing in your well-being with no explicit expectation of being repaid? This can be your chance to provide a return on her investment. If it were me, I'd make the investment in my spouse, and consider it ""rent"" while enjoying the improvements to my quality of life that come with it." TL/DR  Yes, The David popularized the Debt Snowball. The method of paying low balance first.  It's purely psychological. The reward or sense of accomplishment is a motivator to keep pushing to the next card.  There's also the good feeling of following one you believe to be wise. The David is very charismatic, and speaks in a no-nonsense my way or the highway voice. History is riddled with religious leaders who offer advice which is followed without question.  The good feeling, in theory, leads to a greater success rate. And really, it's easier to follow a plan that comes at a cost than to follow one that your guru takes issue with.  In the end, when I produce a spreadsheet showing the cost difference, say $1000 over a 3 year period, the response is that it's worth the $1000 to actually succeed. My sole purpose is to simply point out the cost difference between the two methods. $100? Go with the one that makes you feel good. $2000? Just think about it first.  If it's not clear, my issue is less with the fact that the low balance method is inferior and more with its proponents wishing to obfuscate the fact that the high interest method is not only valid but has some savings built in. When a woman called into The David's radio show and said her friend recommended the high rate first method, he dismissed it, and told her that low balance was the only way to go.  The rest of this answer is tangent to the real issue, answered above.  The battle reminds me of how people brag about getting a tax refund. With all due respect to the Tax Software people, the goal should be minimizing one's tax bill. Getting a high refund means you misplanned all year, and lent Uncle Sam money at zero interest(1). And yet you feel good about getting $3000 back in April. (Disclosure - when my father in law passed away, I took over my mother in law's finances. Her IRA RMD, and taxes. First year, I converted some money to Roth, and we had a $100 tax bill. Frowny face on mom. Since then, I have Schwab hold too much federal tax, and we always get about $100 back. This makes her happy, and I'll ignore the 27 cents lost interest.)  (1) - I need to acknowledge that there are cases where the taxpayer has had zero dollars withheld, yet receives a 'tax refund.' The earned income tax credit (EITC) produces a refundable benefit, i.e. a payment that's not conditional on tax due. Obviously, those who benefit from this are not whom I am talking about.  Also, in response to a comment below, the opportunity cost is not the sub-1% rate the bank would have paid you on the money had you held on to it. It's the 18% card you should be paying off. That $3000 refund likely cost over $400 in the interest paid over the prior year. "&gt; The economic term for this concept is ""velocity of money"", and it gets into stuff that I didn't really cover above.  I noticed that it wasn't covered, and it seems to me that this actually has something to do with the original question, about where all the money has gone.   It's my understanding that the velocity of money has slowed, with corporations, being uncertain of future prospects (both due to the economy itself as well as to an uncertain regulatory environment) and thus hesitant to make new investments.  However, this doesn't make complete sense to me. It's not that they're hiding the money under a mattress; they must have it invested into something, and presumably the holders of those investments are themselves doing something with it." Quality of life, success and happiness are three factors that are self define by each individual. Most of the time all three factors go hand by hand with your ability to generate wealth and save.  Actually, a recent study showed that there were more happy families with savings than with expensive products (car, jewelry and others).   These 3 factors, will be very difficult to maintain after someone commit such action. First, because you will fear every interaction with the origin of the money.  Second, because every individual has a notion of wrong doing.  Third, for the reasons that Jaydles express. Also, most cards, will call you and stop the cards ability to give money, if they see an abusive pattern. Ether, skipping your country has some adverse psychological impact in the family and individual that most of the time 100K is not enough to motivate such change.   Thanks for reading. Geo "In that example, ""creating money"" could be used interchangeably with ""making promises"".  There's no inflation, and no problem, so long as everyone keeps their promises. Which sounds like a horrifying thing to say about the foundations of the economy, but the remarkable thing is that people mostly do."