What is the difference between speculating and investing?
Speculation means putting your money on a hunch that some event may occur, depending on current circumstances and some future circumstances. So either you win huge or lose a lot. Investment is a conscious decision made on well defined research and grounded on good reasons i.e. economy, industry, company reports etc.  Here is a link on wikipedia with more details on  Speculation. "Classic investing guru Benjamin Graham defines ""An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and an adequate return."" He contrasts this with speculation which is anything else (no thorough analysis, no safety of principal, or no adequate return). The word ""adequate"" is important, since it contrasts adequate returns with those that are either lower than needed or higher than necessary to reach your goals." "Investing is balancing the desire for return against the various risks that your money is faced with. There's also a recognition that an investment will be in place for some extended period of time. Speculation is seeking short-term maximum return, without protecting yourself against risk.  ""Speculation"" or ""Speculators"" is often thrown out as a pejorative, but you need speculation to have a healthy market." In my opinion the difference is semantic. A professional, or someone wanting to present an air of competence, is more likely to talk about investing in shares, as the word investment carries with it connotations of effort, energy and a worthwhile result. Whereas, the word speculation implies the hope of gain but with the risk of loss. I consider speculation to be a security purchase where the point is to sell it to someone for a higher price.  Day-trading is completely speculative. I consider Investment to be a purchase you make for its underlying value. You are buying it at that price because you believe the present value of the future payments is higher than the price you are paying. I may sell an investment if a higher price is offered than I think it's worth, or if the business situation changes, but I don't plan on it.   Hedging is a third type of security purchase, where you are decreasing your overall risk.  If you are a hog farmer, selling hog futures on the CME is hedging, because it locks in the amount you get per hog, regardless of what the price of hogs does. Commodities markets only have hedgers and speculators.  Investors don't make sense, it doesn't have an underlying value. Colloquially, there's no difference except for the level of risk (which is an estimate anyway). Classically, investment is creating wealth through improvement or production.  Purchasing a house with the intent to renovate and sell it for a profit would be an investment, as the house is worth more when you sell than when you bought it. Speculation, on the other hand, is when you hope to make a profit through changes in the market itself.  Purchasing a house, letting it sit for 6 months, and selling it for a profit would be speculation. "Speculation is when someone else makes an investment you don't like. The above is tongue in cheek, but is a serious answer. There are several attempts at separating the two, but they turn into moral judgements on the value of a pure ""buy and hold"" versus any other investment strategy (which is itself doubtful: is shorting an oil stock more ""speculation"" than buying and holding an alternative energy stock?). Some economists take the other route and just argue that we should remove the moral judgement and celebrate speculation as we celebrate investment."
"I'd argue the two words ought to (in that I see this as a helpful distinction) describe different activities:   ""Investing"":  spending one's money in order to own something of value.  This could be equipment (widgets, as you wrote), shares in a company, antiques, land, etc.  It is fundamentally an act of buying. ""Speculating"":  a mental process in which one attempts to ascertain the future value of some good.  Speculation is fundamentally an act of attempted predicting.   Under this set of definitions, one can invest without speculating (CDs...no need for prediction) and speculate without investing (virtual investing).  In reality, though, the two often go together.  The sorts of investments you describe are speculative, that is, they are done with some prediction in mind of future value.   The degree of ""speculativeness"", then, has to be related to the nature of the attempted predictions.  I've often seen that people say that the ""most speculative"" investments (in my use above, those in which the attempted prediction is most chaotic) have these sorts of properties: And there are probably other ideas that can be included. Corrections/clarifications welcome! P.S. It occurs to me that, actually, maybe High Frequency Trading isn't speculative at all, in that those with the fastest computers and closest to Wall Street can actually guarantee many small returns per hour due to the nature of how it works.  I don't know enough about the mechanics of it to be sure, though." "Day trading is an attempt to profit on high frequency signal changes. Long term investing profits on low frequency changes. What is the difference? High Frequency Signal = the news of the day. This includes things like an earnings report coming out, panic selling, Jim Cramer pushing his ""buy buy buy"" button, an oil rig blowing up in the ocean, a terrorist attack in some remote region of the globe, a government mandated recall, the fed announcing an interest rate hike, a competitor announcing a new product, hurricanes, cold winters, a new health study on child obesity, some other company in the same sector missing their earnings, etc. Think daily red and green triangles on CNBC: up a buck, down a buck. Low Frequency Signal = The long term effectiveness of a company to produce and sell a product efficiently plus the sum of the high frequency signal over a long period of time. Think 200 day moving average chart of a stock. No fast changes, just, long term trends. Over time, the high frequency changes tend to negate each other. To me, long term investing is wiser because the low frequency signal is dominated by a companies ability to function well over time. That in turn is driven by the effectiveness of its leadership coupled with the skill and motivation of its employees. You are betting on the company and its people. Pseudo-random shorterm forces, which you can't control, play less of a role.  The high frequency signal, on the other hand, is dominated by sporadic and unpredictable forces that typically can't be controlled by the company. It has some tinge of randomness about it. Trying to invest on that random component is not investing at all, it is gambling (akin to ""investing"" in that next coin flip coming up heads) I understand the allure of high frequency trading. Look at the daily chart of a popular stock and focus on the up and down ticks. Mathematically, you could make a killing if you could just stack all those upticks on top of each other. If only it was that easy." "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"".)" From a mathematical expected-value standpoint, there is no difference between gambling (e.g. buying a lottery ticket) and investing (e.g. buying a share of stock).  The former probably has negative expected value while the latter probably has positive expected value, but that is not a distinction to include in a definition (else every company that gives a bad quarterly earnings report suddenly changes categories). However, investment professionals have a vested interest in claiming there is a difference; that justifies them charging fees to steer you into the right investment.  Consequently, hair-splitting ideas like the motive behind a purchase are introduced.  The classification of an item to be purchased should not depend on the mental state of its purchaser. Depending on the situation, it may be right to engage in negative EV behavior.  For 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. 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). "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'." There is a difference between trading which is short term focussed and investing which is longterm focussed. On the long term what drives stock prices is still the overall economy and the performance of the underlying business aspects. I do not think that any trading algorithms will change this. These are more concerned with short term profits regardless of the underlying business economics. Therefore I think that longterm investing using index funds is still a viable strategy for most private investors. "There's several approaches to the stock market. The first thing you need to do is decide which you're going to take. The first is the case of the standard investor saving money for retirement (or some other long-term goal). He already has a job. He's not really interested in another job. He doesn't want to spend thousands of hours doing research. He should buy mutual funds or similar instruments to build diversified holdings all over the world. He's going to have is money invested for years at a time. He won't earn spectacular amazing awesome returns, but he'll earn solid returns. There will be a few years when he loses money, but he'll recover it just by waiting. The second is the case of the day trader. He attempts to understand ultra-short-term movements in stock prices due to news, rumors, and other things which stem from quirks of the market and the people who trade in it. He buys a stock, and when it's up a fraction of a percent half an hour later, sells it. This is very risky, requires a lot of attention and a good amount of money to work with, and you can lose a lot of money too. The modern day-trader also needs to compete with the ""high-frequency trading"" desks of Wall Street firms, with super-optimized computer networks located a block away from the exchange so that they can make orders faster than the guy two blocks away. I don't recommend this approach at all. The third case is the guy who wants to beat the market. He's got long-term aspirations and vision, but he does a lot more research into individual companies, figures out which are worth buying and which are not, and invests accordingly. (This is how Warren Buffett made it big.) You can make it work, but it's like starting a business: it's a ton of work, requires a good amount of money to get going, and you still risk losing lots of it.  The fourth case is the guy who mostly invests in broad market indexes like #1, but has a little money set aside for the stocks he's researched and likes enough to invest in like #3. He's not going to make money like Warren Buffett, but he may get a little bit of an edge on the rest of the market. If he doesn't, and ends up losing money there instead, the rest of his stocks are still chugging along. The last and stupidest way is to treat it all like magic, buying things without understanding them or a clear plan of what you're going to do with them. You risk losing all your money. (You also risk having it stagnate.) Good to see you want to avoid it. :)" "I'm posting this because I think I can do a better job of explaining and detailing everything from start to stop. :) A ""broker"" is just someone who connect buyers and sellers - a middleman of sorts who is easy to deal with. There are many kinds of brokers; the ones you'll most commonly hear about these days are ""mortgage broker"" (for arranging home loans) and ""stockbroker"". The stockbroker helps you buy and sell stock. The stockbroker has a connection to one or more stock exchanges (e.g. Nasdaq, NYSE) and will submit your orders to them in order to fulfill it. This way Nasdaq and NYSE don't have to be in the business of managing millions of customer accounts (and submitting tax information about those accounts to the government and what-not) - they just manage relationships with brokerages, which is much easier for them. To invest in a stock, you will need to: In this day and age, most brokers that you care about will be easily accessed via the Internet, the applications will be available on the Internet, and the trading interface will be over the Internet. There may also be paper and/or telephone interfaces to the brokerage, but the Internet interface will work better. Be aware that post-IPO social media stock is risky; don't invest any money if you're not prepared for the possibility of losing every penny of it. Also, don't forget that a variety of alternative things exist that you can buy from a broker, such as an S&P 500 index fund or exchange-traded corporate bond fund; these will earn you some reward over time with significantly less risk. If you do not already have similar holdings through a retirement plan, you should consider purchasing some of these sooner or later." I'd say the opposite of hedging is speculating.  If you are convinced an asset will appreciate in value, or rather the probability of gains is enough to induce you to hold the asset, you are a speculator.  There are lots of ways of speculating, including holding risky assets without hedging that risk and possibly magnifying that risk and return via leverage or the embedded leverage in a derivative contract. Generally speaking, if in expectation you are paying to reduce your risk, you are a hedger.  If you are (in expectation) being paid to bear the risk that otherwise someone else would bear, you are a speculator.  The word speculation has been tainted by politicians and others trying to vilify the practice, but at the end of the day it's what we are all doing when we buy stock or any other risky asset. "At my soon to be legendary Stock Options Cafe, I recently wrote an article ""Betting On Apple at 9 to 2.""  It described a trade in which a 35% move in a stock over a fixed time (2 years) would result in a 354% gain in one's bet. In this case, the options serve to create remarkable leverage for speculators. In general, option help provide liquidity and extend the nature of the risk/reward curve.  There are option trades that range from conservative (e.g. a 'covered call') to wildly speculative, as the one I described above." I'm of the opinion that speculating is for young people like you, because they can afford to lose it all. Avoiding losses becomes necessary once you have to sustain a family, and manage a somewhat large retirement funds. Even if you lose all your money when speculating, you'll probably be better off later, because you make less costly mistakes once you have larger amounts of money. "The difference is in the interrelation between the varied investments you make. Hedging is about specifically offsetting a possible loss in an investment by making another related investment that will increase in value for the same reasons that the original investment would lose value. Gold, for instance, is often regarded as the ultimate hedge. Its value is typically inversely correlated to the rest of the market as a whole, because its status as a material, durable store of value makes it a preferred ""safe haven"" to move money into in times of economic downturn, when stock prices, bond yields and similar investments are losing value. That specific behavior makes investing in gold alongside stocks and bonds a ""hedge""; the increase in value of gold as stock prices and bond yields fall limits losses in those other areas. Investment of cash in gold is also specifically a hedge against currency inflation; paper money, account balances, and even debt instruments like bonds and CDs can lose real value over time in a ""hot"" economy where there's more money than things to buy with it. By keeping a store of value in something other than currency, the price of that good will rise as the currencies used to buy it decrease in real value, maintaining your level of real wealth. Other hedges are more localized. One might, for example, trade oil futures as a hedge on a position in transportation stocks; when oil prices rise, trucking and airline companies suffer in the short term as their margins get squeezed due to fuel costs. Currency futures are another popular hedge; a company in international business will often trade options on the currencies of the companies it does business in, to limit the ""jitters"" seen in the FOREX spot market caused by speculation and other transient changes in market demand. Diversification, by contrast, is about choosing multiple unrelated investments, the idea being to limit losses due to a localized change in the market. Companies' stocks gain and lose value every day, and those companies can also go out of business without bringing the entire economy to its knees. By spreading your wealth among investments in multiple industries and companies of various sizes and global locations, you insulate yourself against the risk that any one of them will fail.  If, tomorrow, Kroger grocery stores went bankrupt and shuttered all its stores, people in the regions it serves might be inconvenienced, but the market as a whole will move on. You, however, would have lost everything if you'd bet your retirement on that one stock. Nobody does that in the real world; instead, you put some of your money in Kroger, some in Microsoft, some in Home Depot, some in ALCOA, some in PG&E, etc etc. By investing in stocks that would be more or less unaffected by a downturn in another, if Kroger went bankrupt tomorrow you would still have, say, 95% of your investment next egg still alive, well and continuing to pay you dividends. The flip side is that if tomorrow, Kroger announced an exclusive deal with the Girl Scouts to sell their cookies, making them the only place in the country you can get them, you would miss out on the full possible amount of gains you'd get from the price spike if you had bet everything on Kroger.  Hindsight's always 20/20; I could have spent some beer money to buy Bitcoins when they were changing hands for pennies apiece, and I'd be a multi-millionaire right now. You can't think that way when investing, because it's ""survivor bias""; you see the successes topping the index charts, not the failures. You could just as easily have invested in any of the hundreds of Internet startups that don't last a year." Technical Analysis assumes that the only relevant number(s) regarding a security is (are) price (and price momentum, price patterns, price harmonics, price trends, price aberrations, etc.). Technical is all based on price. Technical is not based on any of the fundamentals.  Technical Analysis is for traders (speculators) not for long term investors. A long term investor is more concerned with the dividend payment history and such similar data as he makes his money from the dividend payments not from the changes in price (because he buys and holds, not buy low sell high). In theory - Yes. So as long as someone will accept you as a (very) mature student, you plan to never earn over 21k a year for the next 30 years (no longer wiped out at 65), you could get a loan, slightly unethically (unless you fancy doing the course). Also if you did have to start paying it back - since interest rates are currently 6.1% this means the loan is doubling potentially just under every 12 years (approx) As to the side question of is it fraud?  I couldn't say.  Is a student getting maximum loans but planning on being a jobless bum for the rest of their lives and never paying back loans also committing fraud?  One could argue Yes, but i don't believe a lack of ambition is currently illegal.