▲ 635 ▼ SpaceX Investors in Meltdown Over All the Money They’ve Lost (finance.yahoo.com) submitted 2 months ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/technology@lemmy.world 175 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 47 points 2 months ago (12 children) The stock market is gambling. “SpaceX gamblers in meltdown over not having a winning bet.” permalink fedilink source hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Maldaya@sh.itjust.works 58 points 2 months ago (1 child) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 27 points 2 months ago* Yeah, they WISH it were like gambling...but it is fraud, insider trading and stock manipulation. permalink fedilink source parent [–] protist@retrofed.com 14 points 2 months ago (9 children) I gotta disagree that the stock market is inherently gambling. If an investor does their due diligence, looks at the fundamentals of a company, and makes an informed decision to invest, they are very likely to see some sort of return on that investment. Unfortunately, we're deep into "vibe investing" territory now, where stats like P/E ratios no longer seem to matter to either institutional investors or many casual investors. Where people are dumping their money is now disconnected from where it's wise to dump money permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] zloubida@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 months ago (2 children) So, not unlike sport gambling. You study the teams, their forces and weaknesses, their history, and make the informed decision to gamble. It's still gambling. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] protist@retrofed.com 4 points 2 months ago (1 child) It's totally different though. Sports betting is an all or nothing affair, you put money on an outcome, you either win or lose, then it's over. Day trading (and now vibe trading/meme stocks) may be similar, however investing in a company with good fundamentals long-term carries significantly less risk. Many companies offer dividends, so you can make money even without the stock price itself increasing. And in holding a diversified portfolio of quality stocks long-term, meaning you ignore market fluctuations, the risk of losing everything is basically zero, and the likelihood of your portfolio increasing in value approaches 100% permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] zloubida@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago Yes, but you can't say that you made money before the sum of the dividends and the reselling price is superior to the buying price. If you invest 100€, the probability to loose 100€ is small; but to loose some of these 100€ not so much. If you invest well, the probability to lose money at all may be small, but if you gamble intelligently on sports it is too. It's the same equation: more risk=more potential profit, less risk=less potential profit. I fail to see the difference with gambling. permalink fedilink source parent [–] otter@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 months ago (4 children) I think it comes down to on paper it isn't gambling in practice it has become gambling ETFs are generally better, especially if you don't touch them for a long time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] moustachio@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) Giving your money to an unregulated Wall Street organization is never “Better.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) What in the world makes you think they are unregulated? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] moustachio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago The revolving door and captured “regulators?” permalink fedilink source parent [–] tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 months ago To elaborate: The stock market is a "Keynesian beauty contest" where - at least in the short and medium term - what investors think other investors think* about a stock is more important than what it's actually worth. Reality asserts itself eventually, but "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent", so here we are. ad infinitum permalink fedilink source parent [–] 1984@lemmy.today 4 points 2 months ago* Its because they make money buying whatever goes up, instead of holding selected companies for a long time. Think about it. You could have made 150% by holding micron for three months. Big tech companies take five years to make that much. So that's why these investors have to jump on the bandwagon no matter what the fundamentals are. They also sell as soon as it starts to show weakness, which is why micron dropped 30% in like 3 days. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Maldaya@sh.itjust.works 58 points 2 months ago (1 child) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 27 points 2 months ago* Yeah, they WISH it were like gambling...but it is fraud, insider trading and stock manipulation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 27 points 2 months ago* Yeah, they WISH it were like gambling...but it is fraud, insider trading and stock manipulation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] protist@retrofed.com 14 points 2 months ago (9 children) I gotta disagree that the stock market is inherently gambling. If an investor does their due diligence, looks at the fundamentals of a company, and makes an informed decision to invest, they are very likely to see some sort of return on that investment. Unfortunately, we're deep into "vibe investing" territory now, where stats like P/E ratios no longer seem to matter to either institutional investors or many casual investors. Where people are dumping their money is now disconnected from where it's wise to dump money permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] zloubida@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 months ago (2 children) So, not unlike sport gambling. You study the teams, their forces and weaknesses, their history, and make the informed decision to gamble. It's still gambling. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] protist@retrofed.com 4 points 2 months ago (1 child) It's totally different though. Sports betting is an all or nothing affair, you put money on an outcome, you either win or lose, then it's over. Day trading (and now vibe trading/meme stocks) may be similar, however investing in a company with good fundamentals long-term carries significantly less risk. Many companies offer dividends, so you can make money even without the stock price itself increasing. And in holding a diversified portfolio of quality stocks long-term, meaning you ignore market fluctuations, the risk of losing everything is basically zero, and the likelihood of your portfolio increasing in value approaches 100% permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] zloubida@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago Yes, but you can't say that you made money before the sum of the dividends and the reselling price is superior to the buying price. If you invest 100€, the probability to loose 100€ is small; but to loose some of these 100€ not so much. If you invest well, the probability to lose money at all may be small, but if you gamble intelligently on sports it is too. It's the same equation: more risk=more potential profit, less risk=less potential profit. I fail to see the difference with gambling. permalink fedilink source parent [–] otter@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 months ago (4 children) I think it comes down to on paper it isn't gambling in practice it has become gambling ETFs are generally better, especially if you don't touch them for a long time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] moustachio@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) Giving your money to an unregulated Wall Street organization is never “Better.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) What in the world makes you think they are unregulated? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] moustachio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago The revolving door and captured “regulators?” permalink fedilink source parent [–] tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 months ago To elaborate: The stock market is a "Keynesian beauty contest" where - at least in the short and medium term - what investors think other investors think* about a stock is more important than what it's actually worth. Reality asserts itself eventually, but "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent", so here we are. ad infinitum permalink fedilink source parent [–] 1984@lemmy.today 4 points 2 months ago* Its because they make money buying whatever goes up, instead of holding selected companies for a long time. Think about it. You could have made 150% by holding micron for three months. Big tech companies take five years to make that much. So that's why these investors have to jump on the bandwagon no matter what the fundamentals are. They also sell as soon as it starts to show weakness, which is why micron dropped 30% in like 3 days. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zloubida@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 months ago (2 children) So, not unlike sport gambling. You study the teams, their forces and weaknesses, their history, and make the informed decision to gamble. It's still gambling. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] protist@retrofed.com 4 points 2 months ago (1 child) It's totally different though. Sports betting is an all or nothing affair, you put money on an outcome, you either win or lose, then it's over. Day trading (and now vibe trading/meme stocks) may be similar, however investing in a company with good fundamentals long-term carries significantly less risk. Many companies offer dividends, so you can make money even without the stock price itself increasing. And in holding a diversified portfolio of quality stocks long-term, meaning you ignore market fluctuations, the risk of losing everything is basically zero, and the likelihood of your portfolio increasing in value approaches 100% permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] zloubida@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago Yes, but you can't say that you made money before the sum of the dividends and the reselling price is superior to the buying price. If you invest 100€, the probability to loose 100€ is small; but to loose some of these 100€ not so much. If you invest well, the probability to lose money at all may be small, but if you gamble intelligently on sports it is too. It's the same equation: more risk=more potential profit, less risk=less potential profit. I fail to see the difference with gambling. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] protist@retrofed.com 4 points 2 months ago (1 child) It's totally different though. Sports betting is an all or nothing affair, you put money on an outcome, you either win or lose, then it's over. Day trading (and now vibe trading/meme stocks) may be similar, however investing in a company with good fundamentals long-term carries significantly less risk. Many companies offer dividends, so you can make money even without the stock price itself increasing. And in holding a diversified portfolio of quality stocks long-term, meaning you ignore market fluctuations, the risk of losing everything is basically zero, and the likelihood of your portfolio increasing in value approaches 100% permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] zloubida@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago Yes, but you can't say that you made money before the sum of the dividends and the reselling price is superior to the buying price. If you invest 100€, the probability to loose 100€ is small; but to loose some of these 100€ not so much. If you invest well, the probability to lose money at all may be small, but if you gamble intelligently on sports it is too. It's the same equation: more risk=more potential profit, less risk=less potential profit. I fail to see the difference with gambling. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zloubida@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago Yes, but you can't say that you made money before the sum of the dividends and the reselling price is superior to the buying price. If you invest 100€, the probability to loose 100€ is small; but to loose some of these 100€ not so much. If you invest well, the probability to lose money at all may be small, but if you gamble intelligently on sports it is too. It's the same equation: more risk=more potential profit, less risk=less potential profit. I fail to see the difference with gambling. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] otter@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 months ago (4 children) I think it comes down to on paper it isn't gambling in practice it has become gambling ETFs are generally better, especially if you don't touch them for a long time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] moustachio@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) Giving your money to an unregulated Wall Street organization is never “Better.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) What in the world makes you think they are unregulated? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] moustachio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago The revolving door and captured “regulators?” permalink fedilink source parent [–] tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 months ago To elaborate: The stock market is a "Keynesian beauty contest" where - at least in the short and medium term - what investors think other investors think* about a stock is more important than what it's actually worth. Reality asserts itself eventually, but "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent", so here we are. ad infinitum permalink fedilink source parent
[–] moustachio@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) Giving your money to an unregulated Wall Street organization is never “Better.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) What in the world makes you think they are unregulated? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] moustachio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago The revolving door and captured “regulators?” permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) What in the world makes you think they are unregulated? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] moustachio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago The revolving door and captured “regulators?” permalink fedilink source parent
[–] moustachio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago The revolving door and captured “regulators?” permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 months ago To elaborate: The stock market is a "Keynesian beauty contest" where - at least in the short and medium term - what investors think other investors think* about a stock is more important than what it's actually worth. Reality asserts itself eventually, but "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent", so here we are. ad infinitum permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 1984@lemmy.today 4 points 2 months ago* Its because they make money buying whatever goes up, instead of holding selected companies for a long time. Think about it. You could have made 150% by holding micron for three months. Big tech companies take five years to make that much. So that's why these investors have to jump on the bandwagon no matter what the fundamentals are. They also sell as soon as it starts to show weakness, which is why micron dropped 30% in like 3 days. permalink fedilink source parent