7 ms·

> A Birkin bought at auction in 2010 would sell for around 50% more today... Hermès’s own stock has been a much smarter investment than the Birkin, rising more

> A Birkin bought at auction in 2010 would sell for around 50% more today... Hermès’s own stock has been a much smarter investment than the Birkin, rising more than 20-fold since 2010. The more time goes on the more I think a good rule would be "however much I spend at the company, spend on the company (in shares)". I look at my Spotify sub, my MSFT sub, and an Apple IIgs sitting in a box and wonder 'what if'.

nimish 2y ago
Shares do nothing except gain or lose value. The other stuff can actually, you know, do things! Some people value the ability for things to do other things.
- paulcole 2y ago
  I think it’s not buying the shares “instead” of buying the thing, it’s also buying the shares and the thing. Because yeah, not buying things you want to watch your money high score go up is a pretty sad way to go through life.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  An expensive bag or watch “does” nothing different than a less expensive one, so it is not functionally different than a share in that its purpose is to gain or lose value, so the owner can show off. Except a publicly traded share is much more liquid. An expensive watch does even less than less expensive watches, especially smart watches.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
parhamn 2y ago
Thats a good idea. Portfolio of your own verified consumer sentiments. Quick check: iPhone 1 was $500 at launch. Apple shares were $5, apple stocks 41x'd since. If you bought the same amount in shares you'd have $20k, not bad.
- amelius 2y ago
  Does not scale. If everybody followed this rule ...
  - teruakohatu 2y ago
    Also, Apple shares also do not replace the functionality of a phone, so the true opportunity cost of buying a premium phone instead buying a cheaper phone and spending the remainder on shares. Nobody bought a iPhone because they thought it would appreciate in value.
    - samatman 2y ago
      It isn't nobody, as evidenced by the continued existence of new-in-box original iPhones, which sell at auction for nosebleed prices. The trick is to identify products which will be considered iconic, while they're still on the market. This is crystal-ball-gazing, and that kind of game isn't for everyone, but it only takes one smash hit to make a profit on the total investment. There are certainly people who do this as a hobby / side hustle.
  - Retric 2y ago
    > If everybody You can absolutely guarantee everyone isn’t going to follow that rule so why bother considering it? Also, nothing says you need to keep investments forever, a rolling fund where after X months you sell the stocks and repurchase based on current spending habits could work just fine at scale.
  - rch 2y ago
    Everybody is more than welcome to buy into my long positions.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    If “everybody” continuously purchased the same stocks then those stocks would be precisely the ones you would want to buy The price of other stocks would plummet from low demand
Frummy 2y ago
Yeah I figured Id do that after watching a video of a summary of ‘one up on wall street’. I bought tons of stock in my newest favorite energy drinks brand as well as my favorite nicotine pouch brand. i sold after half a year because it went down slightly. Now, the energy drinks stock has tripled, and the nicotine pouch company got sold and went private, buying out all stock for a lot higher as well.
jliptzin 2y ago
Essentially that’s what I do. I’ve made more on company shares than what I’ve spent on the companies’ products, including Tesla. This is especially true for Costco and Apple.
GrantMoyer 2y ago
The Efficient-market Hypothesis[1] posits that someone with more resources than you has already made a similar analysis, so the prices of those shares already reflect the true value, including the value of potential future returns. Lucky for you, all those stocks are probably represented in large index funds, which are much less volatile than individual stocks. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis
- WorkerBee28474 2y ago
  The thing about hypotheses is that they can be either true or false. And seeing NVDA triple in the past year, even while there are many people devoting their working lives just to do financial analysis of the stock, tells us the hypothesis is false.
  - Iulioh 2y ago
    The Nvidia situation wasn't predictable as they sell an unique item with pratical applications. There are no alternatives to Nvidia GPUs if you want to efficiently train an AI, they have an effective monopoly. Personally i would have invested in TSMC/ASML or Intel as this point. Buy the shovel maker.
    - bluecalm 2y ago
      NVidia make those things for quite some time you know? They also have done heavy investments in software side and had total dominance there for years. It's not like your needed to know 10 years ago. >>TSMC Relatively low margins, few good well negotiating customers. Can't grow fast. >>ASML What do you think market could have missed there? Good company with simple business model. Very unlikely to grow fast. >>Intel Terrible company with long track record of stupid decisions and deception. What make you think they will suddenly turn around and start innovating?
      - Iulioh 2y ago
        Good points but they have the fabs. That's why my bets are on them. Everyone is reliant on ASML and unlikely to change. Intel has fabs and is too big to fail, the us government won't let it happen. I'm making a safe bet on the long term, not a speculative one based on a technology that will or won't be worth that valuation.
xwolfi 2y ago
But if everyone does this, companies have no client and only shareholders. Like GME.
Temporary_31337 2y ago
A much better strategy is to just buy an index for the equivalent amount every time you decide on a disposable / luxury purchase. That way there is no guilt about being able to afford it and generally you hit your savings rate etc.
rsynnott 2y ago
I mean, on average you would expect this to be true if only because the markets tend to go up, whereas the value of an actual item tends to go down.
TacticalCoder 2y ago
> The more time goes on the more I think a good rule... That's my main investment rule. I invest in companies who's products I like and own. But then I also buy the dip. So when a company I like/whose product I use is at a discount, I invest. It makes me feel better too when I buy something from them: "oh, some of that money I just paid is going back to me"! There are people here who bough NVDA at a bargain with the same reasoning. I did an exception for Meta (no FB, no WhatsApp, no instagram: all the Meta CIDR blocks are blocklisted by my firewall and all the Meta domains are blocked by my DNS resolver: that's how much I hate that turd) which I hate with a passion because the stock at $100 in 2022 (was it 2022?) was just too good to be true. But then I do use React so there's that!
- ragazzina 2y ago
  >There are people here who bough NVDA at a bargain with the same reasoning. There are people here who bough Blackberry, Kodak and Blockbuster at a bargain with the same reasoning.

nimish 2y ago

Shares do nothing except gain or lose value. The other stuff can actually, you know, do things! Some people value the ability for things to do other things.

paulcole 2y ago
I think it’s not buying the shares “instead” of buying the thing, it’s also buying the shares and the thing. Because yeah, not buying things you want to watch your money high score go up is a pretty sad way to go through life.
lotsofpulp 2y ago
An expensive bag or watch “does” nothing different than a less expensive one, so it is not functionally different than a share in that its purpose is to gain or lose value, so the owner can show off. Except a publicly traded share is much more liquid. An expensive watch does even less than less expensive watches, especially smart watches.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

parhamn 2y ago

Thats a good idea. Portfolio of your own verified consumer sentiments. Quick check: iPhone 1 was $500 at launch. Apple shares were $5, apple stocks 41x'd since. If you bought the same amount in shares you'd have $20k, not bad.

amelius 2y ago
Does not scale. If everybody followed this rule ...
- teruakohatu 2y ago
  Also, Apple shares also do not replace the functionality of a phone, so the true opportunity cost of buying a premium phone instead buying a cheaper phone and spending the remainder on shares. Nobody bought a iPhone because they thought it would appreciate in value.
  - samatman 2y ago
    It isn't nobody, as evidenced by the continued existence of new-in-box original iPhones, which sell at auction for nosebleed prices. The trick is to identify products which will be considered iconic, while they're still on the market. This is crystal-ball-gazing, and that kind of game isn't for everyone, but it only takes one smash hit to make a profit on the total investment. There are certainly people who do this as a hobby / side hustle.
- Retric 2y ago
  > If everybody You can absolutely guarantee everyone isn’t going to follow that rule so why bother considering it? Also, nothing says you need to keep investments forever, a rolling fund where after X months you sell the stocks and repurchase based on current spending habits could work just fine at scale.
- rch 2y ago
  Everybody is more than welcome to buy into my long positions.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  If “everybody” continuously purchased the same stocks then those stocks would be precisely the ones you would want to buy The price of other stocks would plummet from low demand

Frummy 2y ago

Yeah I figured Id do that after watching a video of a summary of ‘one up on wall street’. I bought tons of stock in my newest favorite energy drinks brand as well as my favorite nicotine pouch brand. i sold after half a year because it went down slightly. Now, the energy drinks stock has tripled, and the nicotine pouch company got sold and went private, buying out all stock for a lot higher as well.

jliptzin 2y ago

Essentially that’s what I do. I’ve made more on company shares than what I’ve spent on the companies’ products, including Tesla. This is especially true for Costco and Apple.

GrantMoyer 2y ago

The Efficient-market Hypothesis[1] posits that someone with more resources than you has already made a similar analysis, so the prices of those shares already reflect the true value, including the value of potential future returns. Lucky for you, all those stocks are probably represented in large index funds, which are much less volatile than individual stocks. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis

WorkerBee28474 2y ago
The thing about hypotheses is that they can be either true or false. And seeing NVDA triple in the past year, even while there are many people devoting their working lives just to do financial analysis of the stock, tells us the hypothesis is false.
- Iulioh 2y ago
  The Nvidia situation wasn't predictable as they sell an unique item with pratical applications. There are no alternatives to Nvidia GPUs if you want to efficiently train an AI, they have an effective monopoly. Personally i would have invested in TSMC/ASML or Intel as this point. Buy the shovel maker.
  - bluecalm 2y ago
    NVidia make those things for quite some time you know? They also have done heavy investments in software side and had total dominance there for years. It's not like your needed to know 10 years ago. >>TSMC Relatively low margins, few good well negotiating customers. Can't grow fast. >>ASML What do you think market could have missed there? Good company with simple business model. Very unlikely to grow fast. >>Intel Terrible company with long track record of stupid decisions and deception. What make you think they will suddenly turn around and start innovating?
    - Iulioh 2y ago
      Good points but they have the fabs. That's why my bets are on them. Everyone is reliant on ASML and unlikely to change. Intel has fabs and is too big to fail, the us government won't let it happen. I'm making a safe bet on the long term, not a speculative one based on a technology that will or won't be worth that valuation.

xwolfi 2y ago

But if everyone does this, companies have no client and only shareholders. Like GME.

Temporary_31337 2y ago

A much better strategy is to just buy an index for the equivalent amount every time you decide on a disposable / luxury purchase. That way there is no guilt about being able to afford it and generally you hit your savings rate etc.

rsynnott 2y ago

I mean, on average you would expect this to be true if only because the markets tend to go up, whereas the value of an actual item tends to go down.

TacticalCoder 2y ago

> The more time goes on the more I think a good rule... That's my main investment rule. I invest in companies who's products I like and own. But then I also buy the dip. So when a company I like/whose product I use is at a discount, I invest. It makes me feel better too when I buy something from them: "oh, some of that money I just paid is going back to me"! There are people here who bough NVDA at a bargain with the same reasoning. I did an exception for Meta (no FB, no WhatsApp, no instagram: all the Meta CIDR blocks are blocklisted by my firewall and all the Meta domains are blocked by my DNS resolver: that's how much I hate that turd) which I hate with a passion because the stock at $100 in 2022 (was it 2022?) was just too good to be true. But then I do use React so there's that!

ragazzina 2y ago
>There are people here who bough NVDA at a bargain with the same reasoning. There are people here who bough Blackberry, Kodak and Blockbuster at a bargain with the same reasoning.