With Gamestop and Robinhood recently in the news I've seen quite a few developers making some very silly and needlessly risky financial decisions. Let's talk about investing a bit. 🧵(1/)
First a BIG disclaimer. Giving financial advice outside of an advisory relationship is illegal. This is not investment advice, just my personal opinions.

However it is common knowledge there are well-known ways to needlessly light money on fire. Let's talk about those. (2/)
The first is day trading. Day trading is a ridiculously stupid activity, and not all that different from gambling or other risk-seeking addictive behaviour that hacks your brain's dopamine-cycle. Not even once. (3/)
Day trading is trying to predict the short-term price movements of individual stocks based on intuition, charts, social media, models or trend following and then actively trading on those ideas intraday.
(4/)
Day trading currencies, options contracts, CFDs or other options-like products offered by retail apps and platforms is even riskier and stupider. The overwhelming majority of retail accounts that trade these products lose money.

ft.com/content/2e436d…
(5/)
Now you can make money *randomly* trading, that's not hard.

You cannot and will not make money consistently actively trading. The expected return on predicting short term price movements of individual assets is negative. Consistently beating the market is very hard.
(6/)
Even if you think you have some (public) information about the company's stock that you're buying, the market is very efficient and by the time you can enter a trade based on that information that information is already reflected in the price.
(7/)
Sophisticated investors have access to better research, better models, historical data and faster market access faster than you can ever possibly have and will eat your lunch every day if you trade against them. Just accept this as part of the reality of our system.
(8/)
But ultimately that doesn't matter because active trading isn't a great game to play anyways.

Nobody that has bought a diversified basket of equities and held it for 20 years has lost money in this market. In fact many times they outperform most actively managed funds.
(9/)
Two-thirds of US equity funds underperformed benchmarks over last 12 months. So the most sophisticated investors, with the most access, best models and highest paid portfolio managers mostly underperformed just straight up buying the weighted market index.
(10/)
To the extent that funds do make short-term returns, they make it by trading on information and access to products that retail investors don't have and can't buy.

Often by exploiting tax loopholes, inside information or market infrastructure itself.
(11/)
People often have bias that because they made a little bit of money in the past they have some insight into the market and can translate that into future gains. You really can't do this consistently, it's a cognitive bias to over-consider wins and under-consider losses.
(12/)
Fidelity did a study about the best performing retail accounts they managed, and you know what the highest correlate of performance was?

The investor being dead.

fool.co.uk/investing/2016…
(13/)
Seriously, the accounts that performed the best weren't the ones where the investor was logging in daily, tweaking it and building new strategies. It's ones where the person had passed away and let it passively sit.
(14/)
Unless you're Jim Simons or Warren Buffett (spoiler: you're not) picking individual stocks because you think "it's a winner" is generally a rubbish idea and fraught with a lot of cognitive biases and risk.

(15/)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Simon…
People that invest sensibly buy passive investments and work with advisors to build portfolios tailored to their risk-return and are resilient against market volatility.

This is what rational individuals do rather than silly day trading and stock-picking on Robinhood.
(16/)
So the unsatisfactory (but true) moral of this story, is there's no free lunch. There's no easy path to short term risk-less gains and beware of anyone who claims otherwise.

The smartest people in the world can't beat the market, and you can't either. So don't try.
(17/)
Getting rich slowly by doing sensible and responsible investing today is isn't that hard. Certainly don't take financial advice from social media influencers, celebrities or people on the internet (including me). If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
(18/)
Final note: Stay the hell away from unregulated assets like cryptocurrencies. They have no valuation method, are insanely volatile and do nothing but add uncorrelated risk to your portfolio.

Trading unregulated financial products is like having unsafe sex. It's a bad idea.

/fin

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Stephen Diehl

Stephen Diehl Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @smdiehl

26 Mar
Let's discuss the nature of 'control fraud' in the corporate world, and how businesses which are legitimate in their individual components can be fraudulent in their overarching structure. 🧵
So say you're an executive at a company (maybe like a bank or a crypto company), and you want to commit some activity that is legally prohibited and/or fraudulent. But you also want to protect yourself against liability from that action.
The absolute best way to do this is not to create a line of business for the fraud, personally profit, and then cover it up; but instead create a sufficiently criminogenic corporate environment in which others do the fraud for you "without" your knowledge while you profit.
Read 18 tweets
24 Mar
There's a strong argument that Proof of Stake token networks have a colonialist taint.

Negative-sum speculative assets based on no economic activity are a net wealth redistribution back to early stakeholders. Which are moneyed Westerners with capital and influence to buy early.
Every early investor that makes a return on the sale of negative-sum "investment" token is necessarily paid out by a pyramid of hundreds of small losers.

If these products are marketed in developing economies as "solutions" to the unbanked, that's very ethically problematic.
Primarily because the premise of these get-rich-quick investments is based on confusion and that's exploited in marketing.

They aren't stores of values, they aren't currencies, they're simply greater-fool gambling products.
Read 4 tweets
22 Mar
The question the ACM can't ask in this article is the obvious one. Ransomware wasn't a threat until bitcoin, when you create an anonymous network to transfer money to strangers sight unseen ... of course criminals will exploit that. That's it's purpose.

cacm.acm.org/news/251337-th…
If you go to a bank and try to wire ransom money to a hacker in Siberia, they won't let you. That's a feature. It's an unprofitable enterprise for the criminals and they then don't bother.

Making ransoms unpayable stymies crime.
Ransomware is going to be an absolute plague on Western economies for the next decade. Like the point where it starts effecting GDP.

Enterprise software is creaking around the corners and this is going to an *absurdly* profitable enterprise for hacking groups.
Read 5 tweets
18 Mar
When we do diligence on investment schemes, it's not all that different then when we analyze functions in computer programming. We're interested in the cash inputs, cash outputs, and the expected return on investment. 🧵
When you invest in a burrito company, they make burritos. They sell the burritos to the public for more than it costs to produce the burrito and that makes a profit. The profits go back into the business to expand the business or pay back shareholders.
If you run a good business, the public gets fed, the employees get paid, and the shareholders see a return. This is a very vanilla investment that forms the basis of our market economy.
Read 13 tweets
16 Mar
These kind of stories are important for us in technology, because they really illustrate the disconnect between our perception and the public's perception.
wired.co.uk/article/footba…
Most of my direct friends have advanced degrees, or at least a fairly developed understanding of statistics to be able to look at schemes like this and understand prima facie that this is a scam.
But overwhelmingly, the majority of the general public cannot. These things are financial and technical black boxes that make specious claims of impossible returns and target people's base instincts using technology to amplify addiction and hack the dopamine process.
Read 5 tweets
4 Mar
Today let's discuss why #bitcoin is a rubbish investment and a why for most people it's simply a way to light a bunch of money on fire just like gambling on the roulette wheel. 🧵 (1/)
Last week we talked about why the underlying faux-innovation of blockchain is a technical mirage constructed by consultants to snake oil, and which most software engineers don't take seriously. (2/)
If we toss out the unscalable technology, the weird anti-state political fantasies and the toxic subculture around bitcoin and just focus on the pure fundamentals of it as an financial asset class like any other we find it's really quite terrible. (3/)
Read 20 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!