Why Investing Isn't Gambling

Published in Investing on 9 March 2011

Why buying shares is better than betting.

One mistake that people unfamiliar with investing make is to refer to stock markets as 'casinos' or 'lotteries'.

It's a market, not a casino

In other words, these individuals mistakenly believe that making money from investing in companies is largely down to dumb luck or random chance. 

To these sceptics, buying shares in, say, global giants such as HSBC (LSE: HSBA) or Royal Dutch Shell (LSE: RDSB) is no better than buying a lottery ticket or betting on spins of a roulette wheel.

However, I disagree strongly with these doubters. To me, there is one rock-solid reason why gambling is not investing. It is that gambling -- wagering money on an event with an uncertain outcome -- comes with an inbuilt 'negative expectation'.

This means that games of chance are biased in favour of the provider. Thus, for every, say, £50 you bet, you'll more likely to get back considerably less than £50.

Then again, through chance or luck, you may come out ahead. However, as a rule, bookmakers, casinos and make a mint from unlucky punters. For example, Britain's biggest bookmaker, Ladbrokes (LSE: LAD) made an operating profit exceeding £200 million in 2010.

Bad odds

Thus, although investing and gambling both involve risking money for future reward, gamblers bet in hope, on uncertain outcomes, and against biased odds. 

How much of a negative expectation you face will vary according to the type of wager you make, as I explain below.

Roulette

In roulette ('little wheel' in French), there are 36 numbers for punters to bet on, plus a green 'zero' pocket. 

If a ball lands on zero, all bets lose, thus giving a 'house edge' of 1/37, or 2.7% (reduced to 1.35% for even-money bets).

Blackjack

In popular casino card game blackjack (sometimes known as 21), the basic rules are weighted in the dealer's favour such that s/he has a winning margin just short of 6%. 

However, by using an optimal playing strategy, the casino's edge can be cut to as little as 0.5%. Furthermore, by using statistical techniques such as 'card counting,' it is possible for expert players to beat the dealer, thanks to a positive advantage of around 2%. 

Sports betting

Betting on the outcomes of sports matches usually includes an 'over-round' -- a margin in favour of the bookmaker -- of, say, 109%. In other words, for every £100 taken in wagers, bookies balance their books and adjust their odds so as to return approximately 92p in the pound.

This equates to a negative expectation of around 8%, but this can be lowered still further by using betting exchanges such as Betfair (LSE: BET).

The National Lottery

Lastly, the worst-possible gamble is the National Lottery and its variants. Thanks to a negative expectation exceeding 50%, the Lotto is sometimes referred to as a 'tax on people who are bad at maths.' 

Indeed, lottery operator Camelot takes in around £100 million a week, but pays out less than half of this sum!

Listen to Lynch

So, if stock-market investors aren't gambling, then what are they doing? The best answer to this question comes from acclaimed US fund manager Peter Lynch, who once remarked, "Although it's easy to forget sometimes, a share is not a lottery ticket... it's part-ownership of a business."

In other words, investing in companies by buying their shares isn't betting, because it is done in the expectation of earning positive future returns, fuelled by improving corporate profitability. What's more, experienced investors do plenty of research before selecting company shares. By doing so, they are playing their own game, as well as tilting the odds in their favour.

THE FOOL'S NEW INVESTING SERVICE!

Introducing Motley Fool Dividend Edge

Join us as we uncover high yield shares that can give you an investing "edge". Using a £20,000 real-money portfolio, one of the Fool's most highly-regarded investment gurus shows you what dividend shares to buy, when to buy them and when to sell them.
CLICK HERE for full details

We're buying businesses, not betting

Over long periods (say, a decade or more), the UK stock market tends to produce positive returns. These come in two forms: the capital gains made from rising share prices, plus the dividend income regularly paid to patient shareholders, usually two or four times a year.

By reinvesting these dividends into yet more shares, you can dramatically improve your long-term returns in a 'virtuous buying cycle'. 

Since 1899, UK-listed shares have produced an average yearly return of 9%, which easily beats cash, bonds and other mainstream investments, as well as inflation (the rising cost of living). As we've seen in the last decade though, returns from year to year have varied widely from this average figure -- in both directions!

Chosen with care

Over time, successful, well-run businesses tend to grow their profits, thus increasing the value of their shares and enriching their owners. By playing a long game, spreading your risk, and being patient, you can let top British and foreign companies create wealth for you.

Therefore, investing is a great deal more than hoping that Lady Luck is smiling on you. Then again, although there is no guarantee of a positive return from shares, there is no certainty of loss in aggregate. This is the primary reason why investing should not be confused with gambling.

Finally, I'll leave you with some wise words from Sir Ernest Cassel, banker to Edward VII: "When I was young, people called me a gambler. As the scale of my operations increased, I became known as a speculator. Now I am called a banker. But I have been doing the same thing all the time."

> You only have about 4 weeks left to use your tax-free ISA allowance for 2010/11. And don't forget that you can now shelter as much as £10,200 from the clutches of the taxman. So open a Motley Fool Share Dealing ISA today!

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

Sidekicker101 09 Mar 2011 , 7:32am

Over long periods (say, a decade or more), the UK stock market tends to produce positive returns.

But it's not certain, yes? Therefore you can't exactly calculate the expectancy.

F958B 09 Mar 2011 , 8:43am

There is a good correlation between the P/E ratio at the time of purchase and the subsequent long-term returns.

When P/E ratio at the start or a ten-year period is sorted by Quintile, we get something like:

P/E average: 8x
10y real return: 11%

P/E average: 11x
10y real return: 9%

P/E average: 14x
10y real return: 7%

P/E average: 18x
10y real return: 5%

P/E average: 24x
10y real return: 3%

Basically, the 10y real return is roughly equal (but slightly below) the earnings yield at the start of the period.

lotontech 09 Mar 2011 , 10:43am

Nice article on positive and negative expectation Cliff, but I can't help wondering if you have actually proven that investing IS gambling, albeit a form of gambling in which you can (hopefully) nudge the expectation in the right direction though the application of skill -- just as a blackjack card counter, poker player, or horse racing punter can. Contrast this with roulette, as you have, which is totally random and impossible to nudge in your favour.

The National Lottery is an interesting one, because while you can't predict the numbers you can maximise your share of any 'winnings' by choosing unpopular numbers. Probably not sufficiently to turn a negative expectation into a positive one though ;-)


Sidekicker101 09 Mar 2011 , 12:56pm

That's exactly it, anything without a 100% guarantee is gambling even if the expectancy is positive overall. You believe your investing prowess is your edge and therefore betting on an uncertain outcome. So it is gambling regardless.

CunningCliff 09 Mar 2011 , 3:16pm

No, no, no, SanMiguel101!

Read these two sentences again:

"...gamblers bet in hope, on uncertain outcomes, and against biased odds."

"Since 1899, UK-listed shares have produced an average yearly return of 9%"

So, investing has a positive expectation, especially over decades, whereas gambling always has a negative expectation. The two are as different as chalk and cheese!

All the best,

Cliff

Sidekicker101 09 Mar 2011 , 3:23pm

"Since 1899, UK-listed shares have produced an average yearly return of 9%"

That is a 100% outcome since 1899.
That does not mean it is 100% guaranteed from 2011 onwards. The expectation is that it will be but it is not a certain outcome.

theRealGrinch 09 Mar 2011 , 3:54pm

You can try and pretend it isn't a gamble and applaud how clever and scientific you are, but this is pooh pooh.

Gamble..To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit.

It is a gamble (as you cannot guarantee that you money will be returned 100% risk free). Especially, but not exclusively for investors at arms length of a company who are unaware of the full position of a company or what the future will bring. Connaught, Aero Inventory and HMV are recent examples of shares turning bad.

Whats are phrases? Your investment can go down as well as up and you might not get back what you put in. Historical performance is no guarantee of the future etc etc. Is that risk free?

CunningCliff 09 Mar 2011 , 4:42pm

Clearly, some people can't see the wood for the trees! ;0)

Cliff

rober00 09 Mar 2011 , 4:51pm

Cliff - whilst I agree with you that investing in not gambling for the reasons you clearly set out, clearly some people are "GAMBLERS" not investors. That is a very different thing IMO.

Sidekicker101 09 Mar 2011 , 4:54pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value

Even with a positive EV, there is still a mathematical possibility of going bust.
Statisticians would in fact say that your sample size since 1899 is not big enough to be relevant.
So, based on your data you expect investing to be +EV but it is not 100% certain.
...simple maths of gambling.

F958B 09 Mar 2011 , 4:57pm

CunningCliff

Those who think that it's a gamble are the ones who don't compare the price that the market is asking against detailed fundamental and macro-economic analysis for the companies that they plan to purchase.
They are speculators who hope to sell to a greater fool - not true investors who want to own a piece of a quality business for a long time and receive its cashflows in the form of dividends.

They buy a great company at a bubble price and find that the shares drift sideways or lower for many years *because they paid too much!*
(e.g. GlaxoSmithKline in the year 2000)

....or.....

They buy a cheap-looking company without appreciating the deeper nature of the problems that sent the company to a low price.
(e.g. HMV last year)

Sidekicker101 09 Mar 2011 , 5:00pm

Does that include the recommendations to buy HMV on the Fool?! Mua ha ha

F958B 09 Mar 2011 , 5:28pm

SanMiguel101

If that question was for me.....

Last year, I suggested that HMV would be one of 2011's big failures.

Here's the most recent time that I mentioned them:

http://www.fool.co.uk/news/investing/company-comment/2010/12/24/turkeys-of-2010.aspx

HMV's price fluctuated between 29.5p - 31.0p on that day.

Today, HMV fluctuated between 12.75p - 14.0p, but closed near the lows of the day, at yet another new 12-month low.

F958B 09 Mar 2011 , 5:35pm

SanMiguel101

Also note the personal quote in my profile:

****************************************************************************
"An expert is someone who knows how to avoid making the worst mistakes."

****************************************************************************

An investor doesn't *need* to do an awful lot *right* - they just need to control their desire for crowd behaviour, greed, knife-catching, "farm bets" and trying to score "home runs".

jerryrc 09 Mar 2011 , 10:07pm

F958B

Interesting data on rates of return and p/e's - so, at current levels the FTSE could provide 9% pa plus inflation for next 10 years (if current p/e is around 11)?

Where does this data come from out of interest?

Agree wholeheartedly with your quotes by the way...

jaizan 09 Mar 2011 , 10:09pm

The best way to make money from gambling is to INVEST in bookmakers, when their share prices are attractive.

I'm not sure about that at present, due to the increasing competition introduced by online gambling.

F958B 09 Mar 2011 , 10:46pm

jerryrc

I think that you can get all the necessary data to do an approximation from "Shiller" - have a mooch around these links:

http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/data.htm

http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/


I have dozens of files and associated charts of data that I've collected (and added to) over the years.

I see the FTSE widely-mentioned as having a forward P/E of 11, but I am sceptical of that number.

My data has the FTSE on a current P/E of around 15 - 16 and a forward (estimated) P/E around 12.5 - 13 and net yield around 3.0 - 3.25%.
That would suggest a likely *real* return of 7 - 7.5% in the long term.
Slightly cheap, but nothing remarkable in terms of value.

I prefer shares with lower P/E's. I dislike paying more than about 11x forward earnings.

My portfolio's holding-weighted forward P/E is 9.7x and forward net yield 5.8%.
Additionally, they have much lower Beta than the overall market and the company earnings show much greater stability, which makes forecasting easier.

Could you even half-accurately work out what earnings RBS will report next year?
I haven't a clue and even my best guess would probably be inaccurate by mulitples of the true figure.
But how about Vodafone? Or Morrisons? You should be able to get within 5% accuracy even as far out as a year away.

Predictability or earnings is very useful and I believe has been a cornerstone of Buffett's success.

Sidekicker101 10 Mar 2011 , 9:32am

F958B - no it wasn't for you specifically just generally.
There is a big misunderstanding of what positive EV/expectation actually means in this blog.
The very meaning of the word expectation implies gambling even though you expect it overall to be positive, you can never be 100% sure - it's simple mathematics.

CunningCliff 10 Mar 2011 , 12:49pm

Forget investing!

This lucky chap turned a £2 bet on six horse races into £1.45m, yet went back to work the next day, see:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12690765

Cliff

Dozey1 11 Mar 2011 , 8:16am

It's just semantics. Some people equate 'risk' with gambling, whilst others define it as having an 'a priori expectation of loss'. Nobody I know invests with an expectation of loss, and that's the definition I prefer. But WTHDIK?

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.