https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secr...
Not to mention that it would be insane for someone to pump their entire savings into the stock of an individual company.
Most homeowners do this.
>$300k
You live in a reality that is much different than most Americans, Europeans or Asians. Reasonably, the average person can maybe get a single share, and being willing or able to blow $500 on a single share is rare. Get back down to earth, you're part of an extremely privileged group of people that fully benefits from your shares, while actual customers do not get to see returns.
Putting money in a company is not work. You are not owed anything.
But I generally agree with the rest of your comment, an investment of approximately $20000 in a single stock 5 years ago is not a modest investment for the average individual.
He is owed whatever the price someone is willing to pay for his shares which for now seems to be around $300k. He is not owed anything else though.
> Putting money in a company is not work.
He did work for that money, and he did take a risk investing it in these shares, a risk many were not willing to take. This is what he is being rewarded for now. Doesn't make him a hero or whatever of course.
A risk many _cannot_ take. For a company as large as NVidia, the risk of it collapsing is basically nil. The risk of itsInvesting at random in the stock market gives you a pretty much guaranteed growth on average.
However, many of us cannot blow 20k. We can't blow 10k. We can barely blow 1k. Once again, OP ought to have a little bit of humility and recognize his incredibly privileged position.
And dragging them down too.
Humility is a good thing Tiptoeing near snowflakes is not,
He never mistreated or harped at anyone He just said his opinion that he likes the stock. He wasn’t shitting on poor people.
"I have a modest 300k position"
When you look at these two statements in close proximity, you feel that there's perfect humility to the fortune of that position?
My income is in the "2%". I also entirely understand that that makes me in "the elite few".
> California houses cost at least 2-3 mil.
You mean "houses in a few select neighborhoods and locations", such as SF, more prestigious areas in LA. Also, they don't. Median SF house price: $1.4M. Sunnyvale, $1.6M.
Not "at least 2-3M". And certainly not in conjunction with this:
> implying that all Californian home owners are part of some elite
The median Californian home price is $700K. So no. But since you seem to imply that California is somehow defined as "places where homes cost $2-3M" then yes, absolutely. If you own a home worth $2M+ you are unequivocally "one of the elite". You may not be buying a new private jet every five years, but you are also entirely capable of a lifestyle that the VERY VAST majority of Americans have no chance of attaining.
For reference, a $3M mortgage with a substantial downpayment results in a mortgage payment of nearly $14,000/month, which with Jumbo loans requires an annual income in the region of $800K/year.
Please don't try to continue an argument that says that someone making just shy of a million dollars a year is somehow neither privileged nor elite.
This is certainly a true statement.
Of course now I’ve been pelted with downvotes and no one will remember what I actually said.
"60% of Americans could not come up with $400 for an unexpected expense".
Based on that, what proportion of Americans could afford to put even $20k into the stock market, _let alone call it a MODEST $20k_?
Good on you for investing smartly and/or getting lucky. Hopefully you use your good fortune to somehow make the world a better place, and find personal happiness in the process.
It's seemingly a non-sequitur, but I just remembered reading a short story in primary school English class years ago. It was about a distopian society where attractive, athletic folk had to wear ugly masks and weights to encumber them. Did anyone else read that?
Implying this is some frivolous expense akin to gambling your savings away at a casino or buying an expensive car is the wrong mindset. This is not entertainment; saving for your future and retirement is a life impacting matter that people need to take seriously. Yes I can't afford to and won't blow $3k on a fancy new TV. But I can afford to set aside $100 a month to put into a stock account even if I skip eating out or having a fancy phone plan.
How do you know that? People who have lots of money often did not work for it, it's inherited.
> he did take a risk investing it in these shares
People often talk about investment risk like it's a real thing, but it's not. You can either afford it or you can't.
If you can afford the loss its not risky, it's just gambling.
"I'm taking all the risk, I deserve most of the benefit" is just bullshit rich people talk to avoid the fact that the people who actually do all of the work deserve more of the upside.
The majority of the top 400 richest inherited at least 1 million.
And of the ones who did not inherit that much, often they were given that kind of money as seed money from family.
Straight up 20% of the top 400 richest were literally born in the top 400.
Knock it off with this self-made malarkey. It's just not true.
As a shareholder I'd imagine you want continuing revenue, not a short bump before the market switches to AMD.
The whole point was to try and free up more 3060 supply for gamers.
They just have no credibility now so nobody believes it was to help anyone but themselves.