Hacker News Reader

Comment by optimalsolver | Hacker News Reader

>Can we do gambling ads next?

As long as we ban ads for stock trading platforms (i.e. gambling for the professional classes) at the same time.

I don't disagree, but stock trading ads are in some ways already more strictly regulated than gambling ads here. Gambling ads are required to have a vague "please gamble responsibly" statement, but ads for CFD trading platforms are required to have a prominent warning stating the exact percentage of their accounts which lose money (often >75%). The gambling ads don't have to tell you the real odds of coming out ahead.

e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM_zuudkSnY

I think a fair and reasonable advertisement policy is to ban all advertisements during "children's programming hours", or 0800 to 1600 when school is not in session. During "Prime Time" hours of 0500-0800 and 1600-2300, adverts should be limited to luxury goods (e.g., fashion), government PSAs, and non-addictive goods or services (NO drugs, NO tobacco, NO gambling, and NO stock trading, to name but a few). Between 2300 and 0400, allow "free reign" on subscription channels but still bar "vice" or addiction ads.

We've got a century of data showing laissez-faire approaches to advertising results in maximum harm to a society, and ample recent data from the internet age showing how dark patterns in psychology are exploited by advertisers to drive outcomes.

We have to do better, and the UK's step is at least an attempt to stem the harm. I can't fault entities from at least trying to do better.

Daytime tv is all about brainwashing wealthy retired people.

Still not as bad as those weird country which advertise prescription medicine

I wonder what proportion of children are still watching mainstream TV? My son (4) mainly watches Disney+ and Netflix.

Choosing streaming services will be correlated to income. Netflix (medium $) and Disney+ (high $$). The less wealthy are watching YouTube with ads included.

Children are the people least able to destroy their own lives through spending, so that feels pretty backwards. I think it's generally accepted that people who grow up around e.g. alcohol tend to have a healthier relationship with it than people who are suddenly exposed to it as an adult.

But they are among the most impressionable and it is effective to target the parents via kids nagging them.

Add to your list to ban medical advertisement to the vice and addiction bar.

Do you feel like your knee itches sometime? You may have BSitis, ask your doctor if our product is right for you...

Replace all these with a generic, if you feel sick, go see a doctor, that's what they are for if needed.

There is an important difference. With stocks, the punter wins on average. With gambling, the punter loses on average.

You can still lose all your money on stocks, with a combination of bad choices and bad luck. But it is much easier to lose it on the horses.

The punter does not win on average with stocks due to fees and spread.

IIRC average stock market returns have historically been around 7% per year. Index funds charge around 1% per year.

My stock ISAs have gone up pretty much every year (after inflation and fees).

I was very careful with my words. I said:

> The punter does not win on average with stocks due to fees and spread.

Literally 100% of my investing is the stock market. I have so much faith in the stock market that I rent because I don't want to waste the opportunity cost on equity in property.

A punter is informal slang for a person who gambles. I buy and hold a diversified portfolio of index funds over decades. I am very much not a punter.

It seems there is more than one definition of 'punter'. I meant it as 'customer/client'. But other sources define it as 'a person who gambles, places a bet, or makes a risky investment'.

I'm only familiar with the latter definition. My mistake I guess.

>My mistake I guess.

Not really. There just seems to be more than one meaning, and we were each aware of different ones. The meaning might vary by country (I am in the UK).

It was a mistake because I got downvoted by issuing a correct statement (if punter is interpreted as a gambler).

I am from the UK but moved to Australia about 35 years ago

>It was a mistake because I got downvoted by issuing a correct statement (if punter is interpreted as a gambler).

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

https://xkcd.com/386/

;o)

> Index funds charge around 1% per year.

You're getting ripped off, you should be paying a small fraction of that.

Vanguard UK charge 0.06% to 0.6% per year on their index funds: https://www.vanguardinvestor.co.uk/what-we-offer/all-product...

Plus a 0.15% account fee: https://www.vanguardinvestor.co.uk/what-we-offer/fees-explai...

Most others charge more.

That 0.6% one is actively managed. The true index funds on that list are charging 0.2% or less (0.12% for most of the ones you'd want). So 0.27%-0.35% all-in. I stand by 1% being be a rip-off.

Putting your money into an index fund is the exact opposite of what is being advertised, e.g. trading platforms optimized for day trading, complete with blinkenlighten and "learn to trade" mini courses teaching technical indicators and other voodoo nonsense.

There is a reason they spend loads of money on ads trying to get you into day trading. ;0)

1% is quite extreme, the S&P 500 fund I use (FXAIX) charges .015% per year which is almost 70 times less expensive than 1%.

Indeed, I am mostly in ASX:IVV (another S&P 500 ETF) and it charges 0.04% per year.

> Index funds

That's not what the ads for the stock trading platforms want you to do

Wait until you hear about how CFD trading is legal in large parts of the world.

Is the payout on a CFD the same as a future or forward?

Irrelevant. Stocks are a share of a company. The have book value and intrinsic value. Freedom to buy and sell is essential.

Of course, crypto speculation is something different altogether. Maybe you were thinking about all the poor schleps buying Bitcoin for $100k?

Even then, your chances of winning are around 50/50 and no one is forcing you to cash out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com