What do “cake and underwear” stocks refer to?
"JoeTaxpayer's answer is dead on... but let me give my own two cents with a little bit of math. Otherwise, I personally find that people talking about diversified portfolios tends to be full of buzzwords.  Let's say that Buffett's investments are $10 million. He would like to earn ≥7% this year, or $700,000.  He can invest that money in coca-cola//underwear, which might return: Or he can invest in ""genius moves"" that will make headlines: (like buying huge stakes in Goldman Sachs), which might return: And he makes plays for the long haul based on the expected value of the investments. So if he splits it 50/50... ($5 million/ $5 million), then his expected value is 822,250: By diversifying, he does reduce the expected value of the portfolio... (He is not giving $10 M the chance to turn into $1.5 million or $2 million for him!). The expected value of that shock-and-awe portfolio with all $10 million invested in it is $1.2M. By taking less risk... for less reward... his expected return is lower. But his risk is lower too.  Scale this example back up into the $100 million or billion range that Buffett invests in and that extra margin makes the difference.  In the context of your original article, the lower-risk 'cake and underwear' investments let Buffett go big on the things that will make 20%+ returns on billions of dollars, without completely destroying his investment capital when things take a turn for the worse." "There are some euphemisms that are better known than others. A category of stocks that's suitable for ""widows and orphans"" would be stocks that are low beta, and perhaps high dividend. Safe (being relative) enough to put a window's money into.  The term ""cake and underwear"" appears to me to be a Buffetism. And I'd interpret it to mean,""not tech, not stocks that are either high growth or cyclic, but stocks that make things that have steady demand and that most consumers use."" Google the phrase, only Buffet comes up." "I interpret that to mean ""vice"" stocks and necessities.  ""Cake"" may just be a nicer way of saying ""sin"" (see The Virtues of Vice Stocks) and includes ""lesser sins"" like sweets and soda in the group. ""Underwear"" likely means things that people are going to buy regardless of the economy - daily staples, which are generally safer stocks."
"While I'm sure there's some truth to the argument that unsophisticated retail investors index against the S&amp;P 500 thinking that they're tracking ""the market,"" I don't think it makes sense to steer the S&amp;P 500 in that direction to cater to that lowest common denominator. The *ad absurdum* conclusion of that course of action, of course, would be to abolish the S&amp;P 500 entirely and move those assets into the S&amp;P Total Market Index. But clearly there's value in having an index that tracks US large-caps with single share classes, just as there's value in having an index that tracks US large-caps in general.  As for whether it will be a loss for passive investors...it will be interesting to see how that pans out. Maybe good corporate governance and direct accountability by managers really do contribute positively to returns in the long run and investors will benefit from this change as a result. Or maybe this will result in companies with multiple share classes being undervalued and create an opportunity to earn outsized returns by investing in them, and indexes that omit those companies will underperform. Only time will tell." There's a bunch of publicly traded companies in Canada. Canopy Growth, CanniMed, MedReleaf, and a few others that are slipping me right now.  You can also go to Motif Investing and look at all the marijuana ETF's which will also have the underlying stock. There isn't a single universal way to reference a stock, there are 4 major identifiers with many different flavours of exchange ticker (see xkcd:Standards) I believe CUSIPs and ISINs represent a specific security rather than a specific listed instrument. This means you can have two listed instruments with one ISIN but different SEDOLs because they are listed in different places. The difference is subtle but causes problems with settlement Specifically on your question (sorry I got sidetracked) take a look at  CQS Symbol convention to see what everything means "Not going to pretend to know what any of that actually means mate, haha! But if it involves Brownian Motion/Ito then you might find something relatable in that paper. Plenty of stuff outside that, but most not as ""mathematically clean"" (ie will involve hacks to fit observed data), or on the flipside closer to philosophical stuff like Mandelbrot and (sigh) Taleb, who more or less do a great job of explaining why the gospel models are all crap (which is reasonable), and that real world markets can't be bunged into a nice cookie-cutter model." 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 suspect this is related to the fact that Blue Apron completed its IPO very recently and insider shares are likely still under a lockup period.  So in the case of APRN stock only the 30mm shares involved in the IPO are trading until the insider lockup expires which is usually about 90 days. I use to play marbles at school. Marbles were like gold the more you had the richer you were. They were a scarce commodity only a few in circulation. Once I secured a wealth of marbles I realized they were of little real value. They were only of illusory value. As long as we all were deceived into believe they had value they I was rich. Sure marble could be used to make marble floors ;) they were lovely to look at, and every one wanted them. Then one day, I discovered the emperor had no clothes. Wow, the day that everyone sees the true value of gold, what a stock market crash that will be. I tried to avoid gold as much as possible, but this is hard to do in todays stock market. My solace is that we will all be in the same golden (Titanic) boat, only I hope to limit my exposure as much as possible. Anyone want a gold watch for a slice of bread? "At the bottom of Yahoo! Finance's S & P 500 quote Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE, and NYSE MKT. See also delay   times for other exchanges. All information provided ""as is"" for   informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or   advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for   any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any   actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By   accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the   information found therein. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ. Historical chart data   and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI).   International historical chart data, daily updates, fund summary, fund   performance, dividend data and Morningstar Index data provided by   Morningstar, Inc. Orderbook quotes are provided by BATS Exchange. US   Financials data provided by Edgar Online and all other Financials   provided by Capital IQ. International historical chart data, daily   updates, fundAnalyst estimates data provided by Thomson Financial   Network. All data povided by Thomson Financial Network is based solely   upon research information provided by third party analysts. Yahoo! has   not reviewed, and in no way endorses the validity of such data. Yahoo!   and ThomsonFN shall not be liable for any actions taken in reliance   thereon. Thus, yes there is a DB being accessed that there is likely an agreement between Yahoo! and the providers." To be flippant: it is illegal because it is against the law; there is no considered involved, it just is. To elaborate, part of the illusion of the stock exchange and other market-like entities is that of (apparent) fairness. If I think a stock will go up because it is involved in a growing industry, that is generally public information.  Conversely if I have a dim view of a particular company because of its track record of product launches, that is similarly out in the open. A secret formula is something that I invented or discovered, not (presumably) something that I stole from someone else. To stretch that further: If I notice that Company X stock always moves with Company Y stock, that is indeed something that I have found, that I can try to profit from.  It is secret to me, but not particularly dependent upon information not available to others, just that my interpretation is better. So trading on information in the public domain is fine, as it preserves the principal of fairness I mentioned, whereas inside knowledge breaks that principal. "In *[United States vs. O'Hagan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._O%27Hagan)* the Supreme Court established the precedent of interpreting SEC rule 10(b) using the ""misappropriation theory"". The theory establishes that:  &gt; misappropriating confidential information for securities trading purposes, in breach of a duty owed to the source of that information, gives rise to a duty to disclose or abstain.   You're correct that from a legal perspective the rules are anything but clear outside of company insiders. However, your own admission is consistent with what anyone in the securities industry knows is true - if you trade on material non-public information, you risk being charged.  I think most would conclude that it's unethical irrespective of the letter of the law. It damages the integrity and functioning of markets. Furthermore, if the law was clarified, I think it's highly unlikely it would state ""trading on material non-public information is permissible for anyone who is not a company insider"". Instead, I would expect it to be consistent with ""Trading on material non-public information is illegal. If in doubt, abstain."" And this is exactly what the government officials should be doing - abstaining." "Sure, it doesn't, but realistically they can't/shouldn't do anything about it in their index funds, because then they're just another stock picker, trying to gauge which companies are going to do best.  Their funds not all being indexes is what I was getting at with my original question. How much leeway do they have in their definitions of other funds? IE, if they had a dividend fund that included all large cap dividend paying stocks above 3% yield, they couldn't take out Shell just because of climate risk without fundamentally changing what the fund is. But if it's just ""income fund"" then they can do whatever in that space." "Share prices change (or not) when shares are bought and sold. Unless he's sitting on a large percentage of the total shares, the fact that he isn't selling or buying means he's having no effect ar all on the stock price, and unless there's a vote war going on in the annual meeting his few stockholder votes aren't likely to have much effect there either (though there's always the outside chance of his being a tiebreaker). On the other hand, there's nothing inherently wrong with holding shares for a very long time and just taking the dividends (""clipping coupons""). Buy-and-hold is a legitimate strategy. Basically: His reason is wrong, but his action may be right, and you should probably just not ask." Aside from the fact that fast food is a main culprit of the obesity epidemic that is literally crippling the United States populace,  &gt;A better-ranked restaurant stock from the same space is Dave &amp; Buster’s Entertainment, Inc. (PLAY - Free Report) that has surpassed estimates in each of the trailing four quarters, delivering an average positive surprise of 30.5%. Im an actor preparing for a role. I play a trader in the UK during the late 80s. I have a very basic understanding of the stock market and am unsure what some of the dialogue is referring to. For example: “bid 28 at the figure” “sell at 3” “5 march at 28” “9 for 5” “bid 4 at 6” “closing out now at 4”. What do these numbers mean exactly. It doesn’t help that im Australian and this is a UK production, or that im an idiot First, realize that Wikipedia is written by individuals, just like this board has thousands of members. The two definition were written and edited by different people, most likely.  Think Venn diagram.  The definition for financial instruments claims that it's the larger set, and securities is contained in a subset.  Comparing the two, it seems pretty consistent.  Yes, Securities include derivatives.  Transferable is close to tradable, although to me tradable implies a market as compared to private transfers.  I don't believe there's an opposite, per se, but there's 'other stuff.' My house has value, but is not a security. My coffee cup has no value. Back to the concept of Venn. There aren't really opposites, just items falling outside the set we're discussing.  I'd caution, this is a semantic exercise. If you know what you're buying, a stock, a bond, a gold bar, etc, whether it's a financial instrument or security doesn't matter to you.