[TheOtherHobbes]

This is like arguing that because twelve people a year become multimillionaires after buying a lottery ticket, the lottery can make you rich.

The empirical evidence is clear - for most people, day trading of any kind is a reliable way to lose money, and even buy-and-hold can kill you if pick the wrong asset class. (Ask Warren Buffet.)

You may be lucky, you may have an unusually effective model - but the odds are you're the noob at the poker table and the pros are laughing at you as they clean you out.

[WalterBright]

Just invest in the S&P 500. It isn't rocket science.

[Cthulhu_]

It's not, however, you need access to starting capital and patience. Wealth begets wealth with this strategy, but you'll only become a millionaire using this tactic if you can put in a significant amount.

The S&P tripled in value since 2010, so you would've had to invest $333.000 at that time and cash out now to become a millionaire. But few people have that. That's a 1%, I already made my fortune / I have rich parents privilege.

Sure, ANY amount you put in there would've gotten tripled, but turning $1000 into $3000 isn't going to make that big a difference.

And if you have hundreds of thousands lying around, I'd argue that buying a house would be more beneficial for your well-being in the short term.

Disclaimer: I've invested some money in the past, both low-risk long-term stuff, index funds, and 'play money' into meme funds like Apple and Tesla. I think at most I've doubled what I put in? Didn't lose money (even with the rona), that's for sure.

I try to not go "I should've done x" too much though, like "I shouldn't have sold my handful of $250 Tesla stocks when I did".

[asa4akj]

it's called patience and keep on investing. You only need to put 400$ every month into SP500 in order to reach retirement age with more than a million.

[onion2k]

A million in 2060 isn't going to be enough to retire on. I'd be surprised if it was enough to buy a moderate house.

If you'd done this 40 years ago, the million dollars you'd have today would have the equivalent purchasing power of $300,000 in 1980. Inflation is a cruel master.

[mrep]

"The average annual total return and compound annual growth rate of the S&P 500 index, including dividends, since inception in 1926 has been approximately 9.8%, or 6% after inflation" [0]. With 6% inflation adjusted returns, that'd give you a million inflation adjusted dollars after 45 years of investing $400 a month.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500_Index

[AstralStorm]

The more interesting question is what will you buy for million dollars in old age.

Some common answers might be:

* healthcare, always expensive

* things for your kids, including education, housing, access to jobs

* random consumer spending including holidays or travel

* charity

Presuming you were able to actually afford saving $400/mo while living reasonably comfortably which is definitely not a given and not quite as common as expected by some.

And presuming you're not altogether unlucky in your strategy, which can happen.

You will have probably also accrued still useful assets to pass on or use. Or lost them.

[blahblahblah10]

While that's definitely true, maybe one should look at this another way.

$400/mo saved in a 0% interest bank account for 40 years = $192,000

$400 * 12/year invested at 10% (incl. inflation) for 40 years = $2.12 million

While $2.12mm in 2020 money is $440,000 in 1980 money (assuming 4% inflation), it's still much better than the alternative.

A couple of other points:

* Investing $400/mo earlier is relatively harder than $400/mo later in the 40-year timeline assuming compensation increased by the inflation rate but one keeps the invested amount ($400 here) constant. This is ignoring factors like salary increases later in one's career (not sure if that even generalizes for lower-income professions).

* I wonder if there's any study done tracking if there's actually a steady increase in spending consistent with the inflation rate for all individuals (with some stochasticity). Or, do people adjust the goods they buy and "outwit" inflation? For e.g., the biggest purchase one makes usually, a house/apartment, doesn't scale with inflation. Similarly, electronics actually get cheaper. So, apart from food, does spending actually track inflation?

[mmmrk]

You invest into something like the S&P 500 (maybe better: MSCI World/FTSE Developed World) precisely to outrun inflation. In the OP's example, the million would be worth that million, not 300k. Look up compound interest.

[WalterBright]

$300,000 is a lot better than $0.

[RhysU]

Putting $8.5K annually into a 401k for 35 years and assuming a 6% return gets you $977K says a web calculator.

[kiplkipl]

500 companies in one country isn't diversified.

[orojackson]

That's what ETFs like VXUS and IXUS are for. You get international exposure.

VT is another good choice if you're lazy and just want to own a slice of the global stock market.

[kiplkipl]

Sure, but he didn't say those, he said S&P 500. It seems like weird American exceptionalism that the internet repeatedly recommends only investing in one nation's index when that would be laughable if you heard a Japanese, Chinese, or German person saying to do the same with their national index.

[asdfadsfgfdda]

1. The market cap of SP500 companies is ~30 trillion dollars, significantly larger than the entire stock markets in Japan, China, and Germany combined.

2. SP500 companies earn ~40% of revenue from outside the United States

[kiplkipl]

All those companies have the single point of failure in the policies of the US government.

[WalterBright]

It's not that weird. Look at historical returns for the S&P 500 vs European indices. Besides, quite a bit of the S&P 500 consists of global companies.

[kiplkipl]

Look at the Nikkei until 1990

[dmoy]

At this point it's just antiquated advice, but it's an easy and well-described thing to put forward as a general trading theory. Buy an index fund and just wait for decades.

To put it another way - it rolls off the tongue better than "buy a weighted amount of a CSRP (or comparable) US Total Market Index and FTSE (or comparable) Global All Cap ex US Index, where your weighting is probably slightly overweighted to domestic".

Often (usually?) when people say it, they aren't literally advocating to only buy S&P 500. Some people still do recommend this, but I'd wager they're closer to a minority now. Famously I'm pretty sure Warren Buffett is still advocating S&P 500 only, and it takes a long time for voices like Michael Burry to outweigh. Vanguard pushed out a whitepaper years back, and made a very public change in their own corporate 401k to get rid of the s&p500 fund choice.