4 ms·

>> Retail brokers charge huge fees What? $5-$10 for a stock purchase? If you are purchasing such a small amount that the fee is > 0.1 % you should not be tra

>> Retail brokers charge huge fees What? $5-$10 for a stock purchase? If you are purchasing such a small amount that the fee is > 0.1 % you should not be trading stocks. (In general you shouldn't.)

ummonk 8y ago
So only trade stocks in increments of at least $5,000? That precludes, for example, dollar cost averaging.
- georgeecollins 8y ago
  If you are investing like that are you really sure you are outperforming the strategy of just buying and holding of an ETF? If you are a very sophisticated investor (and I bet some people on this forum are) maybe that works. But in general people who trade stocks for themselves at home take a bath.
  - ummonk 8y ago
    Buying and holding ETFs is not incompatible with dollar cost averaging.
thedaemon 8y ago
So poor people need not apply to the stock market? I just love the amount of class separation that is considered a normal and moral standard of most of the HN crowd.
- nyghtly 8y ago
  A poor person could still benefit from the stock market by investing in a fund over the long term. That is, if they had money to spare, which they probably don't--the definition of poor is that you don't have money to spare. It's not like free trades is some magical gateway out of poverty--in fact, it's more likely a way to lose money. The solution to poor people not having enough money to invest is to get them more money.
  - georgeecollins 8y ago
    I agree with you that poor people should have more wealth to invest. Meanwhile, a low net worth person can still benefit from the market by holding a bond, an ETF or a mutual fund. There are many commission free or nearly commission free ways to do this. Trading stocks is not on that list.
  - thedaemon 8y ago
    Poor people normally invest in things like lottery tickets, which are 100% loss. I think a real investment of any kind is better than that.
- rchaud 8y ago
  >So poor people need not apply to the stock market? A single stock of Amazon costs just over $1500. That is more than the monthly rent a poor person pays. If they want Amazon in their portfolio, they can pick a mutual fund that includes it, and they wouldn't have to shell out anywhere near $1500. As an aside, I find the argument that "this will help the poor" really disingenuous when you consider that the poor are the first ones blamed when things go awry. Remember 2008, when the crisis happened because "the poor were given houses they couldn't afford?" Companies like Robinhood are not looking after the poor.
- georgeecollins 8y ago
  Low net-worth individuals should not trade stocks. They should own iBonds or market tracking ETFs. That's not snobbery, that's what any good investment advisor would tell you.
  - thedaemon 8y ago
    I agree with you! I just get a little bothered by some of the attitudes. I'm sorry if I've come off negative.

>> Retail brokers charge huge fees What? $5-$10 for a stock purchase? If you are purchasing such a small amount that the fee is > 0.1 % you should not be trading stocks. (In general you shouldn't.)

ummonk 8y ago

So only trade stocks in increments of at least $5,000? That precludes, for example, dollar cost averaging.

georgeecollins 8y ago
If you are investing like that are you really sure you are outperforming the strategy of just buying and holding of an ETF? If you are a very sophisticated investor (and I bet some people on this forum are) maybe that works. But in general people who trade stocks for themselves at home take a bath.
- ummonk 8y ago
  Buying and holding ETFs is not incompatible with dollar cost averaging.

thedaemon 8y ago

So poor people need not apply to the stock market? I just love the amount of class separation that is considered a normal and moral standard of most of the HN crowd.

nyghtly 8y ago
A poor person could still benefit from the stock market by investing in a fund over the long term. That is, if they had money to spare, which they probably don't--the definition of poor is that you don't have money to spare. It's not like free trades is some magical gateway out of poverty--in fact, it's more likely a way to lose money. The solution to poor people not having enough money to invest is to get them more money.
- georgeecollins 8y ago
  I agree with you that poor people should have more wealth to invest. Meanwhile, a low net worth person can still benefit from the market by holding a bond, an ETF or a mutual fund. There are many commission free or nearly commission free ways to do this. Trading stocks is not on that list.
- thedaemon 8y ago
  Poor people normally invest in things like lottery tickets, which are 100% loss. I think a real investment of any kind is better than that.
rchaud 8y ago
>So poor people need not apply to the stock market? A single stock of Amazon costs just over $1500. That is more than the monthly rent a poor person pays. If they want Amazon in their portfolio, they can pick a mutual fund that includes it, and they wouldn't have to shell out anywhere near $1500. As an aside, I find the argument that "this will help the poor" really disingenuous when you consider that the poor are the first ones blamed when things go awry. Remember 2008, when the crisis happened because "the poor were given houses they couldn't afford?" Companies like Robinhood are not looking after the poor.
georgeecollins 8y ago
Low net-worth individuals should not trade stocks. They should own iBonds or market tracking ETFs. That's not snobbery, that's what any good investment advisor would tell you.
- thedaemon 8y ago
  I agree with you! I just get a little bothered by some of the attitudes. I'm sorry if I've come off negative.