[jessriedel]

No, your definition is based on the textbook definition of speculation, i.e., that the owner values the thing not because of its intrinsic value to him but only insofar as he can sell it to someone else later. As Kadin points out, the actual definition of a security is (basically) a claim on property or future profits, which is logically distinct.

A tulip can be speculative, but it's not a security. A non-transferable share of stock is a security but it's not speculative.

[Jd]

The textbook definition of a security is expecting to profit based on the efforts of a third party.

[jessriedel]

The definition in Kadin's comment that I reference is more exact.

[runeks]

With what money will you buy the security unless you, yourself, have exerted an effort? You’re profiting from the money you’ve earned through exerting an effort, followed by foregoing consumption, resulting in surplus capital with which you can purchase the security.