Comment

Comment by stouset

Your observation about young people with four-figure net worths thinking it’s rational to gamble it all on options is pretty much this week’s equivalent of those living paycheck-to-paycheck “investing” in the lottery.

The bigger problem is that this is rarely just a one-time decision to gamble. And repeatedly doing this is statistically pretty certain to lose you significant amounts of money—particularly when compared to just investing in the market as a whole—over the long run. It’s just another way that the poor are trapped in poverty, even though you can of course always find individual cases where someone got lucky and made millions.

This is one of the reasons I think Robinhood is a fundamentally an evil company. It’s been pretty conclusively demonstrated that the more trades you make as a retail investor, the worse your returns. To wit: Fidelity did some internal research on their customers to see which cohort had the highest returns. The winning cohort? The dead. Dead people don’t make trades, and so perform better than the living who do. I’d be willing to bet a large sum of money that Robinhood’s internal metrics conclusively prove that the net effect of their existence is a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.

The real Robin Hood-esque company in this whole thing is Vanguard, who have almost certainly done more than most any other company in this space to return profits from the market to customers of all wealth ranges.

parent stouset 5 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton