21–30 of 100 posts
Legal insider trading. Prominent example are US Congressmen. Personally investing into specific technologies (e.g. NVIDIA) and then passing legislation to promote those technologies benefits everyone, although asymmetrically.
Buying a house in the United States. For as little as 5% down, and low-single-digit-fixed rates over a 30-year term, you can purchase an asset worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and you get to keep all the upside if its value goes up (which is historically quite likely, especially since housing policy in the U.S. deliberately keeps supply low). It's insane leverage, an excellent inflation hedge, and you get to de…
Where’s the huge upside though? You need a roof over your head so if your property goes up 10%, so has every property you’re likely to want to move to when it comes time to sell. You only really benefit if you’re investing outside of your primary residence. What’s more, the risk is huge. In the AMD example, you could lose 100% of your investment. Get things wrong with a house and you’re going to be out way more than…
I think this common argument massively overstates the case. I have friends whose parents left them their primary residence. Mine did not. "Where’s the huge upside though?" sounds to me like sort of an insane question, when viewed through that lens.
But just to lay out the argument further, here are some concrete examples of upside:
1. The money is real and you could move to a lower-cost-of-living area. Owning a house in San Francisco is like having a standing offer of a million dollars to move to the Midwest. That's not nothing. "But I don't want that million dollars, I want to stay here," is not a compelling argument. The offer exists whether you take it or not.
2. You can sell and rent and keep all the equity, which you get to invest elsewhere. Congratulations, you're now a renter, just like millions of ordinary hard-working people. The difference between you and them is the cash you put in your pocket when you sold.
3. Your mortgage payment is fixed, so it's an inflation hedge.
4. You can borrow against your equity.
5. Because you can buy with so little down, having a lot of equity means it's pretty easy to buy again, even if prices go up. An existing homeowner is much better positioned to buy than a non-homeowner, all else equal.
The benefits of owning a valuable asset don't disappear just because you don't want to sell it at the moment. The asset represents options, if nothing else.
Here's my favorite example -- in the form of a story. A bunch of friends visits a young guy who recently moved to Las Vegas. "Here's how we get twenty bucks in Las Vegas," he boasts to his friends, putting $20 on the roulette wheel for black. When it comes up red, he puts down a $40 bet, bragging that "I'll keep increasing the size of my bet until I make back my money -- plus another $20!" One time he'd had to double…
Classic martingale. Never fails to capture the imagination.
The lottery. Honestly it bugs me a bit that I don't know the right way to model it - because so often people will slate it for having a terrible expected return (E[X]), but.. some very high percentage of us here could play every single week without noticing it (negligible downside), and yet winning however slim the chance would be somewhat life changing - even if it wouldn't make you quit work it'd be a nice windfall…
> We're extremely fortunate in Western Australia to have the only lottery in the nation, and one of the few in the world, where all profits are returned back to the community.
In the past year they've taken in a #billion and put out some $323 million in community grants and the rest in prize money.
To be honest, it's a tax I can get behind and it's win-win as it enhances the community I live in of some 2+ million people with the provision of flying doctor services, housing near hospitals for parents with sick kids, annual festival grants, etc.
I even applied for a received a $5,000 grant as a student back in the early 1980s.
[1] https://www.lotterywest.wa.gov.au/grants/our-role-in-the-com...
Here's my favorite example -- in the form of a story. A bunch of friends visits a young guy who recently moved to Las Vegas. "Here's how we get twenty bucks in Las Vegas," he boasts to his friends, putting $20 on the roulette wheel for black. When it comes up red, he puts down a $40 bet, bragging that "I'll keep increasing the size of my bet until I make back my money -- plus another $20!" One time he'd had to double…
Here's my favorite example -- in the form of a story. A bunch of friends visits a young guy who recently moved to Las Vegas. "Here's how we get twenty bucks in Las Vegas," he boasts to his friends, putting $20 on the roulette wheel for black. When it comes up red, he puts down a $40 bet, bragging that "I'll keep increasing the size of my bet until I make back my money -- plus another $20!" One time he'd had to double…
The lottery. Honestly it bugs me a bit that I don't know the right way to model it - because so often people will slate it for having a terrible expected return (E[X]), but.. some very high percentage of us here could play every single week without noticing it (negligible downside), and yet winning however slim the chance would be somewhat life changing - even if it wouldn't make you quit work it'd be a nice windfall…
He structured his investments to be able to do this, with a portion of it generating "play money" for these wild bets.
He'd accept that his investments would thus generate lower returns due to his betting, but he needed the thrill of it.
I see lottery as the same way. If you have a lot of passive investments and don't need the money, $40-50 a week on lottery is a rationale choice as the outcome can indeed change one's life. And to a level one could not reasonably achieve with hard work alone.
> Investing in call options on AMD in 2014 or Tesla in 2019 also had huge asymmetric upside. It was clear that these stocks had massive risks, but while the upside wa potentially s huge, the downside was capped at -100%. This is a terrible example. No one knew that the stocks would skyrocket. So at the time it was asymmetric on the downside because the cost of options were ridiculously expensive.
So basically invest in things where there is a big information asymmetry.