I'll tell you why Rodders seen though Heathens is waffling. They get paid for telling you where to gamble your money, so why should they invest their own?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodders rambler
Printable View
I'll tell you why Rodders seen though Heathens is waffling. They get paid for telling you where to gamble your money, so why should they invest their own?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodders rambler
[QUOTE=TheHeathens;153851]:rolleyes:
That's all well and good, but who mentioned Hedge fund??? Stop doing that spin thing!
Definition of hedge (other than the botanic variety):
QUOTE]
Yes and that's what your trying to do by putting your money in a hedge fund. That's why it's called a 'hedge' fund.
[QUOTE=TheHeathens;153851]:rolleyes:
That's all well and good, but who mentioned Hedge fund??? Stop doing that spin thing!
Definition of hedge (other than the botanic variety):
Gambling:
As investment doesn't involve chance (it involves risk), it's not gambling by definition.
QUOTE]
So there's no 'chance' of an investment going wrong then?
CL everything in life can go wrong. You could be one of the 49,999,999 sperm out of 50,000,000 that lose the race to fertilise the egg, you could be put in prison for a crime you didn't commit, you could lose your job, your house could be burgled.... with your stash of cash under the bed that you were too scared to invest stolen :D.Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher leigh
Are you a Daily Mail reader by any chance? ;)
[quote=christopher leigh;153990]I'll answer for Heathens. Of course there's no 'chance' of an investment going wrong but there IS a risk of it going wrong. Tsk:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHeathens
[QUOTE=Wheeze;154104]2nd definition of gamble: Take RISKY action in the hope of a desired result.Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher leigh
1st definition of chance: a possibility of something happening.
Not sure the Heathens will want you answering for him in future.
Risk and chance are different.
We say 'What is the chance of something happening?' not 'What is the risk of something happening' because we are expecting a quantified answer. Chance is often quantified as odds like the answer to above 'oh, about 50/50'
You cannot easily quantify risk. It is a more abstract notion which asks the question of whether you are willing to be exposed to a particular outcome.
Agreed, in vernacular discussion, risk and chance are often used interchangeably but in the context of this subject, the two are quite different.
Stoll someone does drop that paper off for me occasionally. I think I mentioned it on an earlier post. Anyway the implication is that I'm a pessimistic person by nature, which isn't true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
I think people who are optimistic or pessimistic without justification, are just emotional repressers. They don't want to face up to the reality of the world they're living in. If they did, they'd have to answer questions about their own ideology.
The reason the banking institutions are in a mess is because of the type of politicians we accept in this country. Those politicians fed the gambling that was going on in the economy. And those who had some short term interest in these actions, voted for these politicians.
If people can't be bothered to demand better politicians they deserve everything that's coming to them. Now is that pessimistic? I don't know, I suppose it depends on whether this has the desired effect.
to blame politicians shows a complete misunderstanding of the situation. 2 sets are responsible for the mess.
firstly irresponsible financial institutions who lent way above their means (Northern Rocks loan to deposit ratio was 170% and therefore funding was entirely dependant on the wholesale money markets) and relaxed their lending criteria far too much (6 x salary and mortgages of 120% loan to value were always going to end in tears).
secondly irresponsible borrowers who borrowed far too much knowing they were never going to be able to pay it back and who in some cases lied about income and financial position to get bigger loans than they would otherwise have been able too.
We're getting to the crux of the issue, which I knew we'd reach eventually. The root of this discussion rests on definitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
In the above though you've invalidated the numerical difference by stating that 'chance is OFTEN quantified' That means some of the time, but not always. So it's optional.
If I observe something unusual and then say to a friend, what was the chance of that happening, he might say "very little" or he might say "one in a thousand." Both responses are valid.
'Chance' is a concept pertaining to ignorance and 'risk' is a concept pertaining to action. If I look at the roulette wheel I know the ball(except in rare events) has to land in a number. I just don't know which(ignorance).
When I've assessed the chances I then know the risk. But the risk isn't qualified until I put(action) a £ on red. A person who says "I'm going to put £1000 pounds on red" isn't taking any risk until he puts his money down on the table.
Once the ball has landed 'chance' is irrelevant because you then know where the ball is.