25 ms·

"Joe Sixpack" is a terrible name for the average US stock investor. The median number of shares owned by the adult US public is exactly zero. Most people who ow

"Joe Sixpack" is a terrible name for the average US stock investor. The median number of shares owned by the adult US public is exactly zero. Most people who own (publicly traded) stocks are already wealthy. "Joe Chateau Lafite" would be a better name. Source: some Matt Levine article.

drcode 13y ago
The median Joe Sixpack has a pension fund, which is the crux of Lewis' argument (I agree it's ridiculous.)
- ryandrake 13y ago
  You're right, but BARELY: http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2013/0508/Dow-hits-15000-but-percentage-of-Americans-owning-stocks-hits-a-low.-Why http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2013/0508/Dow-hits-15000-b... The rate of stock ownership (including through mutual funds and retirement accounts) for Americans is around 52%, down from last year. So, while the median American owns some stock, it's probably a minuscule amount. Two percentage points lower, and the median American (Joe Six Pack) owns no stock. EDIT for more related info: 45% of Americans have no retirement savings [1] 1/4 of Americans have no savings whatsoever [2] [1] http://www.twincities.com/ci_23505006/americans-retirement-savings-falling-short-new-study-says http://www.twincities.com/ci_23505006/americans-retirement-s... [2] http://www.ibtimes.com/over-fourth-americans-have-no-money-their-savings-accounts-half-them-would-be-broke-within-three http://www.ibtimes.com/over-fourth-americans-have-no-money-t...
  - drcode 13y ago
    Interesting- Thanks.
aetherson 13y ago
Even if this were true, so what? If you have to reach the 60th percentile, or the 80th, before Americans have stock amounts, why is that a big deal? It's clear that many Americans who are not the ultra-rich/utterly-financially-secure types own stock, and own stock in amounts that are relevant to their own financial health. I don't think it's helpful to anyone's understanding of any situation to try to pretend that tens or hundreds of millions of Americans -- who are on the whole somewhat wealthier than average -- are mega-rich snobs who drink ten-thousand-dollar-a-bottle wine.
- bradleyjg 13y ago
  You need to distinguish between two ways people are affected: 1) Indirectly via mutual funds, pension funds, and so on. 2) Directly through buying individual stocks on E*Trade or the like. The second amounts to an expensive hobby (in risk adjusted terms). Whether some people who aren't ultra-rich choose to indulge in such an expensive hobby is neither here nor there, the underlying fact remains that there's no good reason to care about or optimize for their benefit. Yet for some reason so many articles on this subject instead of talking about the funds that are broadly and rationally held, analyze the situation for the small retail investor.

drcode 13y ago

The median Joe Sixpack has a pension fund, which is the crux of Lewis' argument (I agree it's ridiculous.)

ryandrake 13y ago
You're right, but BARELY: http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2013/0508/Dow-hits-15000-but-percentage-of-Americans-owning-stocks-hits-a-low.-Why http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2013/0508/Dow-hits-15000-b... The rate of stock ownership (including through mutual funds and retirement accounts) for Americans is around 52%, down from last year. So, while the median American owns some stock, it's probably a minuscule amount. Two percentage points lower, and the median American (Joe Six Pack) owns no stock. EDIT for more related info: 45% of Americans have no retirement savings [1] 1/4 of Americans have no savings whatsoever [2] [1] http://www.twincities.com/ci_23505006/americans-retirement-savings-falling-short-new-study-says http://www.twincities.com/ci_23505006/americans-retirement-s... [2] http://www.ibtimes.com/over-fourth-americans-have-no-money-their-savings-accounts-half-them-would-be-broke-within-three http://www.ibtimes.com/over-fourth-americans-have-no-money-t...
- drcode 13y ago
  Interesting- Thanks.

aetherson 13y ago

Even if this were true, so what? If you have to reach the 60th percentile, or the 80th, before Americans have stock amounts, why is that a big deal? It's clear that many Americans who are not the ultra-rich/utterly-financially-secure types own stock, and own stock in amounts that are relevant to their own financial health. I don't think it's helpful to anyone's understanding of any situation to try to pretend that tens or hundreds of millions of Americans -- who are on the whole somewhat wealthier than average -- are mega-rich snobs who drink ten-thousand-dollar-a-bottle wine.

bradleyjg 13y ago
You need to distinguish between two ways people are affected: 1) Indirectly via mutual funds, pension funds, and so on. 2) Directly through buying individual stocks on E*Trade or the like. The second amounts to an expensive hobby (in risk adjusted terms). Whether some people who aren't ultra-rich choose to indulge in such an expensive hobby is neither here nor there, the underlying fact remains that there's no good reason to care about or optimize for their benefit. Yet for some reason so many articles on this subject instead of talking about the funds that are broadly and rationally held, analyze the situation for the small retail investor.