9 ms·

A substantial amount of evidence disagrees with you. Active traders (day traders or not) almost always underperform the market in the long run.

by et2o 7y ago

tempsy 7y ago
ok. underperforming does not mean "gambling". i buy what i personally like and use and have made substantially more than the market on Apple, Amazon, Starbucks, PayPal, etc. am I a professional equity analyst? no. but is this "gambling"? I don't think so.
- et2o 7y ago
  Tech has done very well the past few years. In the long run, who knows. Gambling is taking on excess risk for excess profit, especially when the odds are against you (expected value is negative). This could be poker or active trading. It's gambling.
  - tempsy 7y ago
    Buy and hold long term is not active trading. You’re conflating two completely different things. It’s odd when I find HN to be so risk adverse when working in tech is all about risk. Fortunes are made with risk. Then as an industry we’re apparently all just degenerate gamblers if buying and holding Apple stock is akin to playing roulette.
    - et2o 7y ago
      Yes, that is the definition of active trading. I suggest you do more research. Active trading is contrasted to passive trading (index funds). It’s akin to roulette in that it’s statistically non-optimal, not that the level of risk is the same. HN readers tend to be focused upon evidence and mathematically inclined.
      - tempsy 7y ago
        If that were true literally no HN reader would work at a startup, but we know that isn't the case. Or take any compensation in the form of equity in one company, even at a large one.
        pm90 7y ago
        That would be true iff compensation were the only reason for joining startups.
        RussianCow 7y ago
        First of all, financially and statistically speaking, working at a startup almost never makes sense compared to working at a FAANG or similarly high-paying company. (There have been countless articles and discussions about this on HN, so I won't rehash the arguments.) Second, there are other reasons for working at a startup that have little or nothing to do with money (it's more fun/rewarding, you learn more, work/life balance, etc). The latter doesn't really have a parallel in investing unless you only invest in sustainable/ethical companies or something like that, but then the conversation about maximizing profit and beating the market is kind of moot anyway. > Or take any compensation in the form of equity in one company, even at a large one. Public stocks are liquid enough that you can sell them as soon as possible and immediately "cash out", so any equity-based compensation at a public company can reasonably be treated as cash. The same applies to a private VC-backed company with an upcoming IPO, though obviously there is a little bit more risk involved there.
        greglindahl 7y ago
        That doesn't follow at all. I work at a tech startup because it's a business in which I think I can add value. I don't think I know enough about finance to move the needle. As for big-company equity, I'm happy to take RSUs in a FAANG , and sell them the day they arrive. Nothing radical there.
    - astura 7y ago
      Working in tech is not "all about risk"; being a founder/entrepreneur is in any industry, but just an average employee that writes code is hardly risky.
- RussianCow 7y ago
  > but is this "gambling"? I don't think so. Of course it is, because you can't predict the future. You could have just as easily lost money investing in individual stocks, even ones that seemed like no-brainers at the time. Why do you think you're better than most other investors at making those investment choices?
  - mikestew 7y ago
    Why do you think you're better than most other investors at making those investment choices? Not OP, but the simple answer is: “because my returns over the years prove that I can.” I’ve heard this question enough times over the years that I usually just ignore such silly questions and go back to buying deep-in-the-money AAPL calls. Conversely, if it makes one feel better, continue to tell yourself individuals can’t beat the market (which is mostly true).
    - doliveira 7y ago
      It's like you copied the definition of a fallacy in your comment.
    - RussianCow 7y ago
      > Not OP, but the simple answer is: “because my returns over the years prove that I can.” But I could make the same argument as to why my "strategy" playing slots or roulette is good, but in reality it just means I've gotten really lucky, and I might wipe out all my earnings in the span of an hour if that luck suddenly turns. That's not to say there aren't legitimately profitable trading strategies—"you can't beat the market" is, strictly speaking, demonstrably false—but "buy stocks of companies I like" is not one of those, and is entirely equivalent to gambling.
      - mikestew 7y ago
        Lucky is making a few trades that went well. When one can do it consistently for twenty years, is it still luck? Yeah, maybe it’s luck that deep-in-the-money AAPL calls (as one example) consistently make money. Maybe my occasional “disaster” strategy (buys calls for UAL, Equifax, et. al., after bad press that’ll blow over) is luck. But, man, both examples consistently work. /shrug Anyway, I have little desire to repeat the same old arguments, nor convince anyone else. However, one might consider the differences between a slot machine (which tells you up front that you will lose money in the long term, and has no stop orders) and trading equities. Or don’t, matters little to me because I have no argument to win.

A substantial amount of evidence disagrees with you. Active traders (day traders or not) almost always underperform the market in the long run.

by et2o 7y ago

A substantial amount of evidence disagrees with you. Active traders (day traders or not) almost always underperform the market in the long run.

tempsy 7y ago

ok. underperforming does not mean "gambling". i buy what i personally like and use and have made substantially more than the market on Apple, Amazon, Starbucks, PayPal, etc. am I a professional equity analyst? no. but is this "gambling"? I don't think so.

et2o 7y ago
Tech has done very well the past few years. In the long run, who knows. Gambling is taking on excess risk for excess profit, especially when the odds are against you (expected value is negative). This could be poker or active trading. It's gambling.
- tempsy 7y ago
  Buy and hold long term is not active trading. You’re conflating two completely different things. It’s odd when I find HN to be so risk adverse when working in tech is all about risk. Fortunes are made with risk. Then as an industry we’re apparently all just degenerate gamblers if buying and holding Apple stock is akin to playing roulette.
  - et2o 7y ago
    Yes, that is the definition of active trading. I suggest you do more research. Active trading is contrasted to passive trading (index funds). It’s akin to roulette in that it’s statistically non-optimal, not that the level of risk is the same. HN readers tend to be focused upon evidence and mathematically inclined.
    - tempsy 7y ago
      If that were true literally no HN reader would work at a startup, but we know that isn't the case. Or take any compensation in the form of equity in one company, even at a large one.
      - pm90 7y ago
        That would be true iff compensation were the only reason for joining startups.
      - RussianCow 7y ago
        First of all, financially and statistically speaking, working at a startup almost never makes sense compared to working at a FAANG or similarly high-paying company. (There have been countless articles and discussions about this on HN, so I won't rehash the arguments.) Second, there are other reasons for working at a startup that have little or nothing to do with money (it's more fun/rewarding, you learn more, work/life balance, etc). The latter doesn't really have a parallel in investing unless you only invest in sustainable/ethical companies or something like that, but then the conversation about maximizing profit and beating the market is kind of moot anyway. > Or take any compensation in the form of equity in one company, even at a large one. Public stocks are liquid enough that you can sell them as soon as possible and immediately "cash out", so any equity-based compensation at a public company can reasonably be treated as cash. The same applies to a private VC-backed company with an upcoming IPO, though obviously there is a little bit more risk involved there.
      - greglindahl 7y ago
        That doesn't follow at all. I work at a tech startup because it's a business in which I think I can add value. I don't think I know enough about finance to move the needle. As for big-company equity, I'm happy to take RSUs in a FAANG , and sell them the day they arrive. Nothing radical there.
  - astura 7y ago
    Working in tech is not "all about risk"; being a founder/entrepreneur is in any industry, but just an average employee that writes code is hardly risky.
RussianCow 7y ago
> but is this "gambling"? I don't think so. Of course it is, because you can't predict the future. You could have just as easily lost money investing in individual stocks, even ones that seemed like no-brainers at the time. Why do you think you're better than most other investors at making those investment choices?
- mikestew 7y ago
  Why do you think you're better than most other investors at making those investment choices? Not OP, but the simple answer is: “because my returns over the years prove that I can.” I’ve heard this question enough times over the years that I usually just ignore such silly questions and go back to buying deep-in-the-money AAPL calls. Conversely, if it makes one feel better, continue to tell yourself individuals can’t beat the market (which is mostly true).
  - doliveira 7y ago
    It's like you copied the definition of a fallacy in your comment.
  - RussianCow 7y ago
    > Not OP, but the simple answer is: “because my returns over the years prove that I can.” But I could make the same argument as to why my "strategy" playing slots or roulette is good, but in reality it just means I've gotten really lucky, and I might wipe out all my earnings in the span of an hour if that luck suddenly turns. That's not to say there aren't legitimately profitable trading strategies—"you can't beat the market" is, strictly speaking, demonstrably false—but "buy stocks of companies I like" is not one of those, and is entirely equivalent to gambling.
    - mikestew 7y ago
      Lucky is making a few trades that went well. When one can do it consistently for twenty years, is it still luck? Yeah, maybe it’s luck that deep-in-the-money AAPL calls (as one example) consistently make money. Maybe my occasional “disaster” strategy (buys calls for UAL, Equifax, et. al., after bad press that’ll blow over) is luck. But, man, both examples consistently work. /shrug Anyway, I have little desire to repeat the same old arguments, nor convince anyone else. However, one might consider the differences between a slot machine (which tells you up front that you will lose money in the long term, and has no stop orders) and trading equities. Or don’t, matters little to me because I have no argument to win.