banx comments on Open thread, Nov. 23 - Nov. 29, 2015 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: MrMind 23 November 2015 07:59AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (257)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: banx 25 November 2015 09:47:47PM 1 point [-]

Yes, but those are the important ones. Stocks for high expected returns and bonds for stability. You can generalize "bonds" to include other things that return principal plus interest like cash and CDs.

Comment author: Lumifer 25 November 2015 11:43:17PM -1 points [-]

What's the criterion of importance?

...other things that return principal plus interest like cash

Um.... I hate to break it to you...

Comment author: banx 26 November 2015 12:11:16AM *  1 point [-]

What's the criterion of importance?

Important to the goal of increasing one's wealth while managing the risk of losing it. Certainly there are other possible goals (perhaps maximizing the chance of having a certain amount of money at a certain time, for example) but this is the most common, and the one that I assume people on LW discussing basic investing concepts would be interested in.

Um.... I hate to break it to you...

I'm not sure if you're referring to the fact that popular banks are returning virtually zero interest or if you're interpreting "cash" as "physical currency notes". If the former, I have cash in bank accounts that return .01%, 1%, and 4.09% (each serving different purposes). If the latter, I apologize for the confusion. The word is used to mean different things in different contexts. In the context of investing it is standard to include in its meaning checking and savings accounts, and often also CDs.

Comment author: Lumifer 26 November 2015 12:33:00AM 1 point [-]

Important to the goal of increasing one's wealth while managing the risk of losing it.

Given this definition, I don't see why only stocks and bonds qualify.

The word is used to mean different things in different contexts.

True, but given that you said "cash and CDs" I thought your idea of cash excludes deposits. Still, there are more asset classes than equity and fixed income.

Comment author: banx 26 November 2015 12:50:39AM 1 point [-]

Given this definition, I don't see why only stocks and bonds qualify.

My claim is that equity and fixed income are the important pieces for reaching that goal. With a total stock index fund and a total bond index fund you can achieve these goals almost as well as any other more complicated portfolio. Additional asset classes can add additional diversification or hedge against specific risks. What other asset classes do you have in mind? Real estate? Commodities? Currencies?

True, but given that you said "cash and CDs" I thought your idea of cash excludes deposits.

Fair enough. I was unclear.

Comment author: Lumifer 30 November 2015 05:19:56PM *  1 point [-]

My claim is that equity and fixed income are the important pieces for reaching that goal.

They are, of course, important. The question is whether they are the only important pieces.

What other asset classes do you have in mind

Real estate is the most noticeable thing here, given how for a lot of people it is actually their biggest financial investment (and often highly leveraged, too). Commodities and such generally require paying at least some attention to what's happening and the usual context of financial discussions on LW is the "into what can I throw my money so that I can forget about it until I need it?"