A better question might be: How is anything an investment? If the stock market is priced efficiently, it is as much a gamble as Bitcoin. The stock market is of course not perfectly efficient, but it is likely extremely efficient relative to the knowledge of your average retail investor. Which means that buying Bitcoin or other cryptos is no more a gamble than any stock market investment with a similar volatility.
I also think the stock market is not "investing" but think it's safer to invest.
1. There's more government regulation and less manipulation.
2. New money is constantly flowing in, via 401K's and pensions. Most people aren't even aware they're invested in the stock market.
3. The government cares so much about the stock market doing good. Look at how Trump brags about the booming market. If it goes in a funk, the government will think of ways to prop it back up.
That said, without any of those 3 things, stocks are just as a gamble as bitcoin.
People say "past is not a predictor/indicator of the present", yet they love to say "stocks return 7-8% annually, and you should just invest in an index to enjoy such returns". Why? That's such as a huge assumption that everyone takes for granted.
> People say "past is not a predictor/indicator of the present", yet they love to say "stocks return 7-8% annually, and you should just invest in an index to enjoy such returns". Why? That's such as a huge assumption that everyone takes for granted.
Well, you're leaving out something something about the company putting your money to use to increase efficiency or output something something and something something about dividends from the proceeds, none of which you have with cryptocurrencies. (Though it may be disputable whether those are truly the reasons behind the historical returns of stocks and thus good reasons to expect it to continue, even if you wouldn't guarantee the exact numbers, or if those are simply motivated reasons that may or may not be reliable future indicators...)
Other than the IPO, when you buy stock you aren’t providing capital for companies to use though, right? and most companies do not pay dividends at all.
This is a common misconception. Companies often raise capital by selling more stock, and by buying stock you increase the amount they are able to charge.
Yep. No argument from me there. Most mainstream stocks are safer investments than cryptos, along a number of axes (volatility, counterparty risk, regulatory risk, etc..). But cryptos are still very much investments.
> If it goes in a funk, the government will think of ways to prop it back up
I don't disagree with the second statement. I guess what you're saying is that there is manipulation (talking about government intervention in this case) but overwhelmingly in the "right" direction?
Sure, yeah, the market is systematically manipulated to my benefit, and those manipulations are done in a largely transparent manner. That makes it a more attractive investment target than a market which is not.
What separates investing from gambling is the expected return for everyone is greater than zero.
AKA buy stock at 100$ and sell it at 100$ does not mean you broke even. You could have gotten 10$ in dividends. Now that positive may be small and some people may lose money, but that's allowed as long as the expected returns end up positive.
Bitcoin's can't have a net positive return because they only way to add money into the system is via coin buyers. Further because of transaction costs it's inherently negative sum.
Some cryptocurrencies generate the equivalent of "dividends", especially those based on Proof of Stake systems. For example, holding Neo generates Gas equivalent to a 3-6% annual return[0], and Stellar (given free to HN readers a few years back[1]) has "inflation" equivalent to around 1% annual return[2], to name two that Robinhood will be listing.
So are Berkshire Hathaway shares not investments, because you need to sell them to end up with money? What about a savings account with compound interest, or an ETF with automatic dividend reinvestment - do they not count as investments either, because you have to do something with them to get money out?
Don't forget that investing in the stock market is still something of a gamble, because the return for everyone is not guaranteed to be greater than zero - a company can go bust leaving the shareholders with nothing.
Smart contracts absolutely can, just like regular contracts can. A bank granting a line of credit backed by future sales unsold gas station inventory is money showing up from 'thin air'. Move that to a smart contract and you've got money - that is, a promise to deliver future real value - getting generated.
First of all, yes they can. Proof of stake coins pay dividends. Second of all, dividends from companies don't show up 'from thin air'. They show up from the economic activity of the company. Which is facilitated by their capital investments. Just like staking in cryptos.
What about stocks with no dividends (which constitutes the vast majority)? By your definition, only dividend investing and rental property investing is true investing.
I'm not disagreeing with you. In fact I almost agree with you, but your argument fails for most stocks.
Stocks with no dividends have some probability of paying a dividend (or doing a buyback) in the future. If you could prove that a company will never pay a dividend or do a buyback then its value would be zero.
If the dividend-less companies are profitable, then you can still expect the increased value to get returned to you through stock buybacks, or an eventual dividend or acquisition of the company in the future.
The difference is that with investing, you have a reasonable indication where your investment will end up in the future. Chances are, in 10 years Walmart is still going to be profitable and continue to pay out dividends. There's no telling what will happen to Bitcoin in the next week, let alone the next year, so it's a gamble to put your money in Bitcoin.
Do you not see how you are contradicting yourself?
"Chances are" alone, is an assumption. How is that any different from your speculation on Bitcoin. The only difference is longevity of the window period, otherwise it's the same principle.
There is always going to be some degree of uncertainty with any action. Just because a meteor can fall on your head if you walk outside doesn't make it a gamble to do so. There's a fine line between investing and gambling, but the extreme ends of the spectrum should be obvious.
I'd argue that the difference between investing and gambling is that gambling has known negative expected value, whereas investing is uncertain. If it is not known that the outcome of a gamble has negative EV, then a reasonable case can be made that it is an investment.
If the market is priced perfectly efficiently you will still make money because your capital is put to work. A perfectly efficient market just means you can't beat that intrinsic rate of return.
True. But that is irrelevant to the original point: Cryptos are as much investments as any stock or commodity. And anyway, that future expectation of profit ought to go into risk-free treasuries unless you want to gamble on a specific, higher risk asset.
Yes, but money in the future is valued at a discount today. So even if an asset is 100% sure to be worth $100 a year from today, the market will value it at slightly less than that because there's no sense tying up $100 in capital for a year unless you get some profit in return.
stocks give you ownership in productive companies. those companies on average go up in value and produce profits which they throw off as dividends (or re-invest to increase their market-cap).
so one difference then is that stocks have a justification for their returns given the variance you experience.
I would tend to subscribe to a similar view and think that no, gold is not really an investment. A hedge, a gamble perhaps. An investment is something that (hopefully) enables useful work and productive endeavour.
Putting money into a company in return for a share of ownership is an investment. A lot of stock market shenanigans are little more than gambling. Gold and crypto-currencies for the most part are speculation.
"An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and an adequate return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative."
-Ben Graham, from chapter 1 of The Intelligent Investor
>If the stock market is priced efficiently, it is as much a gamble as Bitcoin.
Well... we're just shoving a poor definition of investment off onto a poor definition of gamble. If potential drawdown could be considered part of the risk of 'investing' )or 'gambling') then Bitcoin is definitely more of a gamble.
If the stock market is perfectly efficient, standard financial theory says that equity has a positive expected return (relative to the risk free asset).
Correct that it's not entirely luck, at the moment its price is being propped up by Bitfinex. Whenever BTC value starts to dip below 10K USD, they just print more Tethers (USDT) and start buying up coins at above market price...and there's a new upswing.
blackjack tables are based on supply and demand. the margins on blackjack are ~51% in favor of house. if they don't get enough traffic, a swing could take the house. So if there isn't enough demand, than it's not financially feasible for the house to play those odds.
Bitcoin isn't backed by an asset. It's not really backed by anything other than people's expectation that it is worth something now (and it will be worth more in the future).
This is true even for the miners, since they would not build out infrastructure and burn energy if bitcoin was worth zero.
Imagine a raffle where tickets cost $1. After the winner is drawn, the house agrees to buy back the first few losing tickets for $0.99, the next few for $0.98, and so on until they work down to $0. The players don't stand to lose everything in a moment, but it's still pretty clearly gambling.
When you put money into blackjack you're not buying an asset. A crypto coin is an asset that can be held. Just like a share of a company, or a dollar itself.
yes but it's a bad analogy because the odds are known and if you don't win the lotto the ticket is worth nothing. all bitcoins are equally valuable ( fungibility ).
But all cryptocurrencies are not equally valuable, and there's no reason to think that all of any given crypto won't eventually equally be worth (arbitrarily close to) $0.
I can imagine a lottery where usually nobody wins anything but every now and then everyone who bought a ticket wins collectively. It's still a lottery.
If you asked that question to Warren Buffett, he would probably point you to Benjamin Graham's distinction between investment and speculation:
"An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis promises safety of principal and an adequate return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative."
I think when he said " real-world value created through actual investments " - the underlying idea behind an investment is that you provide capital to someone who is trying to build a business that will hypothetically provide jobs and value to society. Putting money into something and taking more money out is a bastardization of the term in that interpretation. That is simply not the case here - this has simply been a mass wealth re-distribution event. People are basically printing and trading pokemon cards at this point.
Providing capital to someone does not only occur in the IPO stage. I'm not even sure how to go about refuting that statement; that's... not how finance works anywhere on the planet.
People do trade stocks with the expectation of stocks rising or falling in varying periods. People also hold stocks for long terms and then sell them afterwards. Just like cryptocurrencies!
However - it's just not the same. A share in a company has evolved and subjected to regulation for hundreds of years. An IPO is a highly regulated legal process involving investment banks and many lawyers (and that is how it should be - so that we don't have con artists running ICOs). It is sold by a company that generally provides jobs and services to society. It represents an actual piece of ownership in that company - if you have enough shares, you impact how that company is run. There are many other points I could make differentiating the two comparisons entirely.
First, let's ignore cryptos because I'm talking about IPO's only (albeit the thread is about cryptos)
"Providing capital to someone does not only occur in the IPO stage. I'm not even sure how to go about refuting that statement; that's... not how finance works anywhere on the planet."
First, I provided that statement in the context of the parent comment. In the equities market, providing capital occurs only in IPOs, not in the secondary market. When you buy Apple stock, you typically are exchanging money with another person who is selling it. You are not providing capital to Apple.
Second, you could've gone about refuting my statement by providing a counter-example. It's that easy. Otherwise you're simply just trying to put me down, and make me look like an idiot, without explaining why.
Yes, Apple is not receiving any money if there is a share transaction between two investors (duh?). However, providing capital to public companies or does not only occur in IPOs (edit: even if we restrict that with the clause: in an "equities market").
You're right, I could have provided a counter argument. However, at the same time, you should not make such an absurd, unqualified assertion that other people who lack knowledge and are reading these forums may read and assume to be true.
Investing connotes some kind of exchange for rights, usually equity. When you invest in say APPL, you are buying a stake of the company. Bitcoin, like the $US or € doesn't make anything. Bitcoin is not an investment, you're just speculating that it's exchange value will rise.
There are different definitions of ‘investment’. One is forgoing present consumption in the hope of increased ability-to-consume in the future. Another is purchasing a productive asset.
