Buy bunch of call options? Gambling. Buy a bunch of put options for stock I already hold, somehow honorable investing.
Too cynical. This disqualifies basically anything you can do with money. If you put it in a bank to get interest you are solidly into the not-gambling end of the scale. And I don't think an index fund is that much more to the gambling side.
The only risk in a bank deposit is up at the "societal collapse" level. Are you really so extreme as to say that's gambling, and if so isn't having money at all a form of gambling?
If you fiddle with "investments" with the intent of making money without doing anything else, that's gambling.
Sticking money in the bank with the hope that it's still there next time you come back to it is not really gambling. You're just doing the default thing.
But that applies to having money at all. That can't be enough to call it gambling.
> expectation, intent
I understand your argument here, but I disagree. Shifting to the bank that offers the best rate is good management, not gambling. Understanding how interest works and being motivated by interest to do bog-standard money storage doesn't turn that storage into gambling.
> without doing anything else
I don't understand how this connects at all. Maybe it reflects badly on you if you want to turn money into free income, but that doesn't make it any more or less of a gamble. It's a totally different axis.
It is, because there's no choice not to gamble. You have to make choices, and none of those choices are risk-free. The options are on a scale between low-risk negative-return and high-risk high-return. But the risk is never zero - not even in FDIC insured accounts - and there's an element of randomness involved in the outcomes.
That's the point. There's no option to say "I have this store of value, and if I don't do anything with it it will retain its value forever."
It won't. So you're forced into risk assessment and randomness, not just with money but with assets in general.
This is the foundation of the economy. All non-trivial transactions are based on risk/reward estimates, and some parts of the economy can force risk and hazard on others.
It's not just a casino you can never leave, it's a casino where the management use various tricks to siphon money from your assets into their pockets without giving you any agency over what happens.
If you don't believe in that, precious metals are another way to go. I don't personally subscribe to that theory but that's the idea.
Gambling is creating risks that don't need to be created, for their own sake. Some people like risk all by itself - gamblers.
Being killed by a meteorite is a statistical issue. Having your house stolen by a bank during a manufactured recession is a crime, and should be avoidable.
Yes, that was actually happening after 2008. For example:
Allow me to refine my point: It's gambling when you seek to increase your risk profile in the hope of gaining higher returns, without actually doing anything else other than "invest" the money.
I generally agree, but I don't think it's a binary. If an insured bank is 10% gambling then an index fund is 20% and roulette is 100%. And the snow derivative sounds like it's probably above 80%.
> without actually doing anything else other than "invest" the money.
I don't see why this changes whether it's gambling. Investing in a restaurant and starting your own restaurant are both very risky bets.
There are lot of value investors which sit at home do stock picking occasionally. They don't work for their money. I don't think they are gambling.
The only investors that fits your non gambling definition seems to be the active investors who take part in the companies. But most investors don't
For example, it's also possible to be actively taking part in the money making activity while taking unnecessary risk. A person can run his own company but recklessly making bets on the loan or spending decisions. So this is the other side of the story where they are gambling and they are actively working with their money.
It's about risk adjusted returns, not higher returns. If you are not considering the risk assessment you are objectively wrong. Take my previous example, how is actively working with you money by taking higher risk less gambling, than passively investing for example an all weather portfolio which is designed to preserve the capital? An all weather portfolio is firstly proposed by Ray Dalio to be as conservative as possible to hedge against all kind of risks while hopefully get some gain.
> Most "investing conservatively" is just being a bit more wary as to what risks are acceptable.
That's objectively wrong. For example lots of etf is designed to reduce risk by diversifying the investment. Just take your own just put money in the bank example. Suppose you do not live in stable country US/EU, and your country is having high inflation. How is just putting money in the bank with your country's depreciating currency less risky than let's say you invest in a global portfolio or an all weather portfolio? In this case, by not managing your risk profile, you are taking more risk.
I am only giving out 1 example to show that `Most financial investment is really putting money into something higher` is objectively wrong. It's actually the opposite if you look into how portfolio managing works. Majority of the funds managed for the Sovereign state or the rich are about hedging against the risks, it's the opposite of gambling.
You don't have risk that the lakers win tonight. You don't have to bet on the game.
Gambling is creating risks for their own sake.
So putting money in my savings account is gambling, but investing in businesses is not.
I suspect I misunderstand your point completely.
But if it's the same risk I don't see why.
Isn't that a bet that your government won't devalue your currency fast enough?
You are conflating risk with gambling. You can go through life without gambling, you can't go through life without risk.
Our entire society is based on being forced to gamble. If you don't invest your money in some capacity then inflation will eat you alive.
These appeals usually go like this: we should stop providing more free money to the people who are strong enough to go and take it. Individually we are weaker, so let's stop this collectively. But someone needs to lead the collective. And just like that - you have created another strongman who will just take what he can. In other words: Communism.
The stock market isn't gambling if you are just buying equities - you are literally purchasing a small stake in a company. The fact that prices move around a lot doesn't make it gambling per se. If I offered a new price on your house every day, it doesn't make your house purchase a gamble.
The point is always the same, you want to end up better off than others that didn't buy what you bought.
If the oil futures purchase turns out to have been worthwhile because price went up due either to production going down or demand up, that doesn’t somehow create new oil. You just get to buy it cheaper than others. You coulda yoloed on spy puts and used that money to buy the more expensive oil at market prices and it's all the same. But you call one gambling and another not gambling, idk, it's all similar to me.
If you are creating risk that didn't exist, you are gambling.