4 ms·
There is another perspective: these 10% are more vulnerable to a stocks pricing crisis. They are taking most of the risk to themselves.
by haolez 5y ago
There is another perspective: these 10% are more vulnerable to a stocks pricing crisis. They are taking most of the risk to themselves.
- lexapro 5y agoI'd rather have a big portfolio that could go to zero than nothing at all.
- jakelazaroff 5y agoAre they? If you can't afford to own stock, you're probably much more vulnerable to the secondary impacts of a stock market crisis (losing one's job, etc).
- noahtallen 5y agoIf it was that risky, they wouldn’t have these assets. People have investments because they understand cash alone won’t grow. Someone like Jeff Bezos has most of his wealth in Amazon stock partly because he perceives Amazon stock as better than cash. (Which is a very good analysis. Even a huge crash in stock value would still outperform cash by a huge margin over time.) If these assets were very risky or likely to cause a portfolio to never grow, the rich would absolutely not be utilizing them as much.
- lexapro 5y agoYes, in the long term cash is much riskier than stocks.
- crate_barre 5y agoIt’s also just a simple strategy to avoid the tax burden until necessary.
- paulpauper 5y agowhen the market falls it always recovers fast, so not a concern.
- dkirill 5y agoThis is ridiculously privileged pov to have
- haolez 5y agoHacker News is the perfect place to discuss ridiculous points of view :)
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoAnother perspective: by owning your house, you are vulnerable to a risk of fire, or the house market crashing. Everyone should give me ownership of their house so that I can kindly take care or this terrible risk on their behalf.