"investors" are NOT investors

Originally posted by Melanerpes
My main issue is that the term "investment" is thrown about so loosely.

There are those who I call "primary investors" -- these are the people who make the actual decisions regarding how the company is built and run. They're in it for the long haul. To them, the business is something that's very real, it's their life, and they put a lot of time into ma ...[text shortened]... t even close to being the 12th guy on the bench of the worst team in the NBA.

None of invalidates stock holders from being investors.

Also, your NBA analogy doesn't apply. Suppose Joe Sh** the rag man buys into a mutual fund that invests in equities, are you now willing to call him an investor? Afterall, mutual funds are run by professionals! Except..... most fund managers don't even manage to outperform the broader market. So how can the supposed "pros" be compared to NBA players?

If only "pros" can be called investors and most of them don't even beat their comparative index, should anybody who buys into an index fund or index ETF (exchange traded fund) be considered an investor?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
None of invalidates stock holders from being investors.

Also, your NBA analogy doesn't apply. Suppose Joe Sh** the rag man buys into a mutual fund that invests in equities, are you now willing to call him an investor? Afterall, mutual funds are run by professionals! Except..... most fund managers don't even manage to outperform the broader mar ho buys into an index fund or index ETF (exchange traded fund) be considered an investor?

actually -- even most of those "pros" are still "secondary investors" - their whole business consists of "pushing paper around", while keeping a certain small percentage for themselves. So essentially, they're glorified bookies. How many of those mutual fund managers make actual decisions about who sits on a given company's board of directors or who becomes the CEO?

The fact that almost all of these professional paper-pushers can't do a better job pushing the paper than Dan throwing darts in his backyard is another issue. If people were smart, many more of them would invest in index funds, and force the great majority of the fund managers to find real work in Vegas.

Originally posted by Palynka
Only if you are easily misled by the use of words with emotional connotations. You obviously attach a negative meaning to the word "speculator" and a positive on to the word "investor". Things are obviously not that simple.

For example, without any speculation trading, investment would be lower because stocks would be less liquid. People are more willing ...[text shortened]... to deposit that money rather than invest it. Same goes for banks who receive those deposits.

I never said speculative trading shoudln't be allowed (although i do believe speculation should be banned from commodities like food, oil etc).

What I did say is that we shouldn't call people who speculate, "investors" because they aren't investing in anything. They are just gambling with their own money.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
My main issue is that the term "investment" is thrown about so loosely.

There are those who I call "primary investors" -- these are the people who make the actual decisions regarding how the company is built and run. They're in it for the long haul. To them, the business is something that's very real, it's their life, and they put a lot of time into ma ...[text shortened]... d these same investors will sell the moment that stock "goes out of fashion".

Bingo.

Originally posted by Palynka
It provides liquidity to the markets (see my post above for details about its importance).

Just because a speculator adds liquidity to the market, it doesn't mean they should be granted the same title as the person that helped build the company.


I bought shares in Google at 120 bux a share and sold them at 200 bux a share. How can that possibly mean i invested in the company?? I didnt'. I gambled that their share price would go up and i got lucky. I made money because i sold them for more money than i bought them. Google didn't benefit from me one bit.

I was a speculator. Call me for what I was.

Originally posted by uzless
I never said speculative trading shoudln't be allowed (although i do believe speculation should be banned from commodities like food, oil etc).

What I did say is that we shouldn't call people who speculate, "investors" because they aren't investing in anything. They are just gambling with their own money.

And as has been pointed out many times, the potential for loss does NOT invalidate something from being an investment. Almost ALL investments have the potential for a loss. Do tell, what's an example of an "investment" in uzless land?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
And as has been pointed out many times, the potential for loss does NOT invalidate something from being an investment. Almost ALL investments have the potential for a loss. Do tell, what's an example of an "investment" in uzless land?

if uzless had bought enough shares of Google to give him the clout to persuade Google's board of directors to select zeeblebot to be the company's new CEO. That would be an investment.

Originally posted by normbenign
What is it that is exchanged for the machinery, plants, and buildings? What pays the wages of the production workers?

Income or debt.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
if uzless had bought enough shares of Google to give him the clout to persuade Google's board of directors to select zeeblebot to be the company's new CEO. That would be an investment.

Well his criteria does seem to jump around so...