Understanding the phrase “afford to lose” better
"Well.... If you have alllll your money invested, and then there's a financial crisis, and there's a personal crisis at the same time (e.g. you lose your job) then you're in big trouble. You might not have enough money to cover your bills while you find a new job. You could lose your house, ruin your credit, or something icky like that.  Think 2008. Even if there's not a financial crisis, if the money is in a tax-sheltered retirement account then withdrawing it will incur ugly penalities. Now, after you've got an emergency fund established, things are different. If you could probably ride out six to twelve months with your general-purpose savings, then with the money you are investing for the long term (retirement) there's no reason you shouldn't invest 100% of the money in stocks. The difference is that you're not going to come back for that money in 6 months, you're going to come back for it in 40 years. As for retirement savings over the long term, though, I don't think it's a good idea to think of your money in those terms. If you ever lose 100% of your money on the stock market while you've invested in diversified instruments like S&P500 index funds, you're probably screwed one way or another because that represents the core industrial base of the US economy, and you'll have better things to worry about, like looking for a used shotgun. Myself, I prefer to give the suggestion ""don't invest any money in stocks if you're going to need to take it out in the next 5 years or so"" because you generally shouldn't be worried about a 100% loss of all the money in stocks your retirement accounts nearly so much as you should be worried about weathering large, medium-term setbacks, like the dot-com bubble crash and the 2008 financial crisis. I save the ""don't invest money unless you can afford to lose it all"" advice for highly speculative instruments like gold futures or social-media IPOs. Remember also that while you might lose a lot of your money on the stock market, your savings accounts and bonds will earn you pathetic amounts by comparison, which you will slowly lose to inflation. If you've had your money invested for decades then even during a crash you may still be coming out ahead relative to bonds." It's a phrase that has no meaning out of context.  When I go to Las Vegas (I don't go, but if I did) I would treat what I took as money I plan to lose.  When I trade stock options and buy puts or calls, I view it as a calculated risk, with a far greater than zero chance of having the trade show zero in time.  A single company has a chance of going bankrupt. A mix of stocks has risk, the S&P was at less than half its high in the 2008 crash. The money I had in the S&P was not money I could afford to lose, but I could afford to wait it out. There's a difference. We're not back at the highs, but we're close.  By the way, there are many people who would not sleep knowing that their statement shows a 50% loss from a prior high point. Those people should be in a mix more suited to their risk tolerance. "The way I approach ""afford to lose"", is that you need to sit down and figure out the amount of money you need at different stages of your life. I can look at my current expenses and figure out what I will always roughly be paying - bills, groceries, rent/mortgage.  I can figure out when I want to retire and how much I want to live on - I generally group 401k and other retirement separately to what I want to invest. With these numbers I can figure out how much I need to save to achieve this goal. Maybe you want to purchase a house in 5 years - figure out the rough down payment and include that in your savings plan. Continue for all capital purchases that you can think you would aim for. Subtract your income from this and you have the amount of money you have greater discretion over. Subtracting current liabilities (4th of July holiday... christmas presents) and you have the amount you could ""afford to lose"". As to the asset allocation you should look at, as others have mentioned that the younger you the greater your opportunity is to recoup losses. Personally I would disagree - you should have some plan for the investment and use that goal to drive your diversification." Keep in mind that it's a cliche statement used as non-controversial filler in articles, not some universal truth. When you were young, did you mom tell you to eat your vegetables because children are starving in Ethiopia? This is the personal finance article equivalent of that. Generally speaking, the statement as an air of truth about it. If you're living hand to mouth, you probably shouldn't be thinking about the stock market. If you're a typical middle class individual investor, you probably shouldn't be messing around with very speculative investments. That said, be careful about looking for some deeper meaning that just isn't there. If the secret of investment success is hidden in that statement, I have a bridge to sell you that has a great view of Brooklyn. "I think that people only use the phrase ""only spend what you can afford to lose"" when they are talking about the most risky or speculative investments, or even gambling.   When talking about gambling, the following quote is a bottom line: The speculative investment that brought me to this question via google is how much should I invest in Bitcoin?  I was tempted to put in 10% of my investments, not including the 6 month safety fund and not including equity in my home.  Now thinking about this question, it seems that it depends on your income as a percentage of your investment income (which should grow in proportion to the whole over time).  For example: Early stage of career, not much investment income: 20% Mid career: 5% Mid-late career, moving to more safe investments: 5% Late career, retirement: 1% Another way to calculate would be as a percentage of the amount you put into retirement savings per year.  Maybe 10% of this figure when you're young and 1% nearer to retirement." "The advice to ""Only invest what you can afford to lose"" is good advice. Most people should have several pots of money: Checking to pay your bills; short term savings; emergency fund; college fund; retirement. When you think about investing that is the funds that have along lead time: college and retirement. It is never the money you need to pay your bills.  Now when somebody is young, the money they have decided to invest can be in riskier investments. You have time to recover. Over time the transition is made to less risky investments because the recovery time is now limited. For example putting all your college savings for your recent high school graduate into the stock market could have devastating consequences. Your hear this advice ""Only invest what you can afford to lose"" because too many people ask about hove to maximize the return on the down payment for their house: Example A, Example B. They want to use vehicles designed for long term investing, for short term purposes. Imagine a 10% correction while you are waiting for closing." "I think it's a silly statement. If you are prepared from the start that you might lose it then you shouldn't invest. You invest to earn not to lose. Most often losses are a result of fear.  Remember you only lose when you sell lower than you bought for.  So if you have the patience you will probably regain. I ask my clients many times how much do they want to earn and they all say ""as much as possible"". Last time I checked, that's not an objective and therefore a strategy can't be built for that.  If there is  a strategy then exiting a stock is easy,  without a strategy you never know when to exit and then you are exposed to  bottomless losses. I've successfully traded for many years with large amounts of money. I made money in the FC and in the bubble, both times it wasn't because I was prepared to lose but because I had an entry and exit strategy. If you have both the idea of investing what u are prepared to lose has little value."
Comedy answer The McDonalds corporation thinks about $600 or 30% The real answer is: Whatever you can part with and still have money left over for the rest of your budget.  Don't consider your savings, consider your monthly income. This type of question is exactly why you need a budget.  A budget isn't just a tool for getting out of debt, it is a tool to help you understand your money and show you how much to spend on stuff. So based on your costs (utilities, food, shopping, auto expenses, savings, etc) how much is left from your monthly income?  That would be what you can afford in rent. Also, please notice that I still suggest you save money each month. You have a great habit going and to lose it now would be a shame in my opinion.  Maybe while you are planning a budget, you can start to roughly plan for buying a house, or having a new car fund, or having a pile of money for starting a family. (Along with an emergency fund and a fully funded retirement.)   You don't have to save 2/3, but save a dime of every dollar at least. Two dimes is better.  In the future, you will probably find it easier to spend more money rather than less; and you will never get back the chance to save. I have been in a similar position as you for the past few years. I put a bunch of cash into a tax free savings account (canadian) instead of paying down debt.   My rationale was that I wanted the exposure to the market and had to be in it in order to pay attention. I also put money into an rasp,  but only because my employer matched it (100% gain, no brainer).  Looking back, I think it would have been a better idea to get debt free sooner. Having that debt weighs on you and haunts everything you try to do. You can't afford rent where you want to be, where you should be. There's no keeping up with the Jones' if you're paying off debt.  That being said, in Canada your student loans are secured and if you lose your job, the government makes payments for you. If your loans are structured like this, then you are better off hanging onto that money. "Some stocks do fall to zero. I don't have statistics handy, but I'd guess that a majority of all the companies ever started are now bankrupt and worth zero. Even if a company does not go bankrupt, there is no guarantee that it's value will increase forever, even in a general, overall sense. You might buy a stock when it is at or near its peak, and then it loses value and never regains it. Even if a stock will go back up, you can't know for certain that it will. Suppose you bought a stock for $10 and it's now at $5. If you sell, you lose half your money. But if you hold on, it MIGHT go back up and you make a profit. Or it might continue going down and you lose even more, perhaps your entire investment. A rational person might decide to sell now and cut his losses. Of course, I'm sure many investors have had the experience of selling a stock at a loss, and then seeing the price skyrocket. But there have also been plenty of investors who decided to hold on, only to lose more money. (Just a couple of weeks ago a stock I bought for $1.50 was selling for $14. I could have sold for like 900% profit. Instead I decided to hold on and see if it went yet higher. It's now at $2.50. Fortunately I only invested something like $800. If it goes to zero it will be annoying but not ruin me.) On a bigger scale, if you invest in a variety of stocks and hold on to them for a long period of time, the chance that you will lose money is small. The stock market as a whole has consistently gone up in the long term. But the chance is not zero. And a key phrase is ""in the long term"". If you need the money today, the fact that the market will probably go back up within a few months or a year or so may not help." I recognize you are probably somewhere in the middle of various steps here... but I'd start and go through one-by-one in a disciplined way. That helps to cut through the overwhelming torrent of information that's out there. Here is my start at a general checklist: others can feel free to edit it or add their input. How 'much' house would you like to buy in terms of $$$ and bedrooms/sq ft. You can start pretty general here, but the idea is to figure out if you can actually afford a brand new 4bd/3ba 2,500 sq ft house (upwards of $500K in your neck of the woods according to trulia.com). Or maybe with your current resources you'll be looking at something like a townhome that is more entry-level but still yours. Some might recommend that this is a good time to talk to any significant others/whomevers and understand/manage expectations. My wife usually cares a lot about schools at this stage, but I think it's too early. Just ballpark whether you're looking at a $500K house, a $300K house, or a $200K townhome.  How much house can you afford in terms of monthly payments only... (not considering other costs like utilities yet). Looking around at calculators like this one from bankrate.com can help you figure this out. Set the interest rate @ 5%, 30-year loan, and change the 'mortgage amount' until you have something that is about 80%-90% of what you currently pay in rent each month. I'll get to 'why' to undershoot your rent payment later.  Crap... can't afford my dream house... If you don't have the down payment to make the numbers work (remember that this doesn't even include closing costs yet), there are other loan options like FHA loans that can go as low as about 5% down payment. The math would be the same but you replace 0.8 with 0.95.  Then, look at your personal budget. Come up with general estimates of what you currently bring in and spend each month overall. Just ballpark it...  Next, figure what you currently spend towards housing in particular. Whether you are paying for it or your landlord is paying for it, someone pays for a lot of different things for housing. For now, my list would include (1) Rent, (2) Mortgage Payment, (3) Electricity, (4) Gas, (5) Sewer, (6) Water, (7) Trash, (8) Other utilities... TV/Internet/Phone, (9) Property Insurance, (10) Renter's Insurance, and (11) Property Taxes.  I would put it into a table in Excel somewhere that has 3 columns... The first has the labels, the second will have what you spend now, and the third will have what you might spend on each one as a homeowner. If you pay it now, put it in the second column. If your landlord pays it right now, leave it out as that's included in your rent payment. Obviously each cell won't be filled in. Fill in the rest of the third column. You won't pay rent anymore, but you will have a mortgage payment. You probably have a good estimate of any electricity bills, etc that you currently pay, but those may be slightly higher in a house vs. a condo or an apartment. As for things like sewer, water, trash or other 'community' utilities, my bet would be that your landlord pays for those. If you need a good estimate ask around with some co-workers or friends that own their own places. They would also be a good resource for property insurance estimates... shooting from the hip I would say about $100/month based on this website. (I'm not affiliated).  The real 'ouch' is going to be property tax rates. Based on the data from this website, your county is about 9% of property value. So add that into the third column as well.  Can you really afford a house? round 2 Now... add up the third column and see how that monthly expense amount on housing compares against your current monthly budget. If it's over, you don't have to give up, but you should just understand how much your decision to purchase a house will strain your budget. Also, you should use this information to look again at 'how much house can you afford.'  Now, do some more research. If you need to get a revised loan amount based on the FHA loan decision, then use the bankrate calculator to find out what the monthly payment is for a 95% loan against your target price. But remember that an FHA loan will also carry PMI that is extra on top of your monthly payment. Or, if you need to revise your mortgage payment downwards (or upwards) change the loan amount accordingly.  Once you've got the numbers set, look for properties that fit. This way you can have a meaningful discussion with yourself or other stakeholders about what you can afford. As far as arranging financing... a realtor will be able and willing to point you in the right direction for obtaining funding, etc. And at that point you can just check anything you're offered by shopping interest rates, etc against what the internet has to say.  Feel free to ask us, too... it's hard to give much better direction without more specifics. The question is valid, you just need to work backwards. After how much money-time will the lower expense offset the one time fee?  Lower expenses will win given the right sum of money and right duration for the investment. It depends to some extent on how you interpret the situation, so I think this is the general idea. Say you purchase one share at $50, and soon after, the price moves up, say, to $55. You now have an unrealized profit of $5. Now, you can either sell and realize that profit, or hold on to the position, expecting a further price appreciation. In either case, you will consider the price change from this traded price, which is $55, and not the price you actually bought at. Hence, if the price fell to $52 in the next trade, you have a loss of $3 on your previous profit of $5. This (even though your net P&L is calculated from the initial purchase price of $50), allows you to think in terms of your positions at the latest known prices. This is similar to a Markov process, in the sense that it doesn't matter which route the stock price (and your position's P&L) took to get to the current point; your decision should be based on the current/latest price level. From a mathematical expected-value standpoint, there is no difference between gambling (e.g. buying a lottery ticket) and investing (e.g. buying a share of stock).  The former probably has negative expected value while the latter probably has positive expected value, but that is not a distinction to include in a definition (else every company that gives a bad quarterly earnings report suddenly changes categories). However, investment professionals have a vested interest in claiming there is a difference; that justifies them charging fees to steer you into the right investment.  Consequently, hair-splitting ideas like the motive behind a purchase are introduced.  The classification of an item to be purchased should not depend on the mental state of its purchaser. Depending on the situation, it may be right to engage in negative EV behavior.  For example, if you have $1000 and need $2000 by next week or else you can't have an operation and you will die (and you can't find anyone to give you a loan).  Your optimal strategy is to gamble your $1000, at the best odds you can get, with a possible outcome of $2000.  So even if you only have a 1/3 chance of winning and getting that operation, it's still the right bet if you can't find a better one. "For some studies on why investors make the decisions they do, check out  For a more readable, though less rigorous, look at it, also consider Kahneman's recent book, ""Thinking, Fast and Slow"", which includes the two companion papers written with Tversky on prospect theory. In certain segments (mostly trading) of the investing industry, it is true that something like 90% of investors lose money. But only in certain narrow segments (and most folks would rightly want traders to be counted as a separate beast than an 'investor').  In most segments, it's not true that most investors lose money, but it still is true that most investors exhibit consistent biases that allow for mispricing. I think that understanding the heuristics and biases approach to economics is critical, both because it helps you understand why there are inefficiencies, and also because it helps you understand that quantitative, principled investing is not voodoo black magic; it's simply applying mathematics for the normative part and experimental observations for the descriptive part to yield a business strategy, much like any other way of making money."