Technology

59596 readers

2920 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

558

Robinhood admits it’s just a gambling app. (www.theverge.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/technology

89 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I class market trackers as investing rather than gambling.

Sure they can still go down (and by a lot), but it tends to be big events like COVID that do that, and it soon bounced back up again.

If you're investing more than a few percent of your portfolio in any one company, you're probably gambling though. And sure, nVidia look a safe bet today, but if Sam Altman comes out tomorrow and goes "sorry guys, this ain't going anywhere" then you'll lose over half your money before you can blink.

I wouldn't invest on a timeframe of less than a few years either. It's not for boosting your rent money. It's just better than leaving your spare money in cash. If the concept of "spare money" is alien, then it's probably not for you.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

If you're investing more than a few percent of your portfolio in any one company, you're probably gambling though.

I read a forum post many years ago about people that put all their retirement money into some company that was going to be the sole supplier for some components for the iPhone. Apple didn't end up going with them, and the company was relying entirely on that contract. The company went bankrupt, and the people that invested lost all their money.

In the end, why invest in a small number of companies when you can invest in practically all of them? Bogleheads three fund portfolio (total US stock + total world stock + bonds) is very simple yet will beat most actively-managed portfolios over the long run.

[–] btaf45 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Bogleheads three fund portfolio (total US stock + total world stock + bonds) is very simple yet will beat most actively-managed portfolios over the long run.

This is right. But you don't really need the 'total world stock'. I reduced my allocation of that to 2% because it was dragging down my returns.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The point of including worldwide stock is to reduce risk in case the US has a recession, as not all other countries will be affected by that. The aim of the Bogleheads three-fund portfolio is to be reasonably balanced in terms of risk vs reward, which is why it includes bonds too. Past performance is not indicative of future performance, and in general it's better to diversify (investing entirely in a single country isn't really diversifying)

If you're not risk-averse then 100% US stock is fine, just be prepared for larger drops than if it was more diversified.

[–] btaf45 1 points 3 weeks ago

The point of including worldwide stock is to reduce risk in case the US has a recession, as not all other countries will be affected by that.

This seems to be generally no longer true.