Is it possible for the average person to profit on the stock market?
"There's a huge difference between ""can an anverage person make a profit on the stock market"" and ""can an average person get rich off the stock market"". It is certainly possible for an average person to profit, but of course you are unlikely to profit as much as the big Wall Street guys.  An S&P 500 index fund, for instance, would be a pretty good way to profit.  People with high-powered tools may make a lot of money picking individual stocks, and may even make some choices that help them when the market is down, but it's difficult to see how they could consistently make money over the long term without the S&P 500 also going up.  The same applies, to varying extents, to various other index funds, ETFs, and mutual funds. I agree with littleadv that there is no single ""right"" thing for everyone to do.  My personal take is that index funds are a good bet, and I've seen a lot of people take that view on personal finance blogs, etc. (for whatever that's worth).  One advantage of index funds that track major indexes (like the S&P 500) is that because they are and are perceived as macro-indicators of the overall economic situation, at least you're in the same boat as many other people.  On one level, that means that if you lose money a lot of other investors are also losing money, and when large numbers of people start losing money, that makes governments take action, etc., to turn things around.  On another level, the S&P 500 is a lot of big companies; if it goes down, some of those big companies are losing value, and they will use their big-company resources to gain value, and if they succeed, the index goes up again and you benefit. In other words, index funds (and large mutual funds, ETFs, etc.) make investing less about what day-trading wonks focus on, which is trying to make a ""hot choice"" for a large gain.  They make it more about hitching your wagon to an extremely large star that is powered by all the resources of extremely large companies, so that when those companies increase their value, you gain.  The bigger the pool of people whose fortunes rise and fall with your own, the more you become part of an investment portfolio that is (I can't resist saying it) ""too big to fail"".  That isn't to say that the S&P 500 can't lose value from time to time, but rather that if it does go down big and hard and stay there, you probably have bigger problems than losing money in the stock market (e.g., the US economy is collapsing and you should begin stockpiling bullets and canned food)." "Of course. ""Best"" is a subjective term. However relying on the resources of the larger institutions by pooling with them will definitely reduce your own burden with regards to the research and keeping track. So yes, investing in mutual funds and ETFs is a very sound strategy. It would be better to diversify, and not to invest all your money in one fund, or in one industry/area. That said, there are more than enough individuals who do their own research and stock picking and invest, with various degrees of success, in individual securities. Some also employe more advanced strategies such as leveraging, options, futures, margins, etc. These advance strategies come at a greater risk, but may bring a greater rewards as well. So the answer to the question in the subject line is YES. For all the rest - there's no one right or wrong answer, it depends greatly on your abilities, time, risk tolerance, cash available to invest, etc etc." Given that hedge funds and trading firms employ scores of highly   intelligent analysts, programmers, and managers to game the market,   what shot does the average person have at successful investing in the   stock market? Good question and the existing answers provide valuable insight.  I will add one major ingredient to successful investing: emotion.  The analysts and experts that Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley or the best hedge funds employ may have some of the most advanced analytical skills in the world, but knowing and doing still greatly differ.  Consider how many of these same companies and funds thought real estate was a great buy before the housing bubble.  Why?  FOMO (fear of missing out; what some people call greed). One of my friends purchased Macy's and Las Vegas Sands in 2009 at around $5 for M and $2 for LVS.  He never graduated high school, so we might (foolishly) refer to him as below average because he's not as educated as those individuals at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc.  Today M sits around $40 a share and LVS at around $70. Those returns in five years. The difference?  Emotion.  He holds little attachment to money (lives on very little) and thus had the freedom to take a chance, which to him didn't feel like a chance.  In a nutshell, his emotions were in the right place and he studied a little bit about investing (read two article) and took action.  Most of the people who I know, which easily had quintuple his wealth and made significantly more than he did, didn't take a chance (even on an index fund) because of their fear of loss. I mean everyone knows to buy low, right?  But how many actually do?  So knowing what to do is great; just be sure you have the courage to act on what you know. "I'd refer you to Is it true that 90% of investors lose their money? The answer there is ""no, not true,"" and much of the discussion applies to this question.  The stock market rises over time. Even after adjusting for inflation, a positive return. Those who try to beat the market, choosing individual stocks, on average, lag the market quite a bit. Even in a year of great returns, as is this year ('13 is up nearly 25% as measured by the S&P) there are stocks that are up, and stocks that are down. Simply look at a dozen stock funds and see the variety of returns. I don't even look anymore, because I'm sure that of 12, 2 or three will be ahead, 3-4 well behind, and the rest clustered near 25.  Still, if you wish to embark on individual stock purchases, I recommend starting when you can invest in 20 different stocks, spread over different industries, and be willing to commit time to follow them, so each year you might be selling 3-5 and replacing with stocks you prefer. It's the ETF I recommend for most, along with a buy and hold strategy, buying in over time will show decent returns over the long run, and the ETF strategy will keep costs low." Below is a list of rules that will help you to decide what types of products you should be investing in:
It depends what you mean by 'gain'. Over long period of times the market increases so using a blind monkey with a dart or index fund should be sufficient to get an average returns. The key difference is that changes in currency are close to zero sum game while money in equity or bonds is actually used for something (building a company etc.). If you mean 'get above average returns' then you will likely get answers depending on person. If you think that markets are efficient then you won't beat the market consistently - over long periods the returns are likely to be no better then average - because of large number of 'smart people' trying to beat each other (and even them are likely to have below-average returns). If you don't think so then it is possible to get above average consistently - as long as you know how to beat those 'smart people'. So my Question is this, in reality is investment in equities like the   stock market even remotely resemble the type of growth one would   expect if investing the same money in an account with compounding   interest? Generally no as there is a great deal of volatility when it comes to investing in stocks that isn't well represented by simply taking the compounded annual growth rate and assuming things always went up and never went down. This is adding in the swings that the market will take that at times may be a bit of a rude surprise to some people. Are all these prognosticators vastly underestimating how much savers   need to be socking away by overstating what is realistic in terms of   growth in investment markets? Possibly but not probably. Until we know definitively what the returns are from various asset classes, I'm not sure I'd want to claim that people need to save a ton more. I'll agree that the model misses how wide the swings are, not necessarily that the averages are too low or overstated. For the period 1950 to 2009, if you adjust the S&P 500 for inflation and account for dividends, the average annual return comes out to exactly 7.0%. Source. Currently inflation is around 2%.  So your 2% APY is a 0% real return where the stock market return is 7%.  I.e. on average, stocks have a return that is higher by 7.   If you mix in bonds, 70% stocks to 30% bonds, your real returns will drop to around 5.5%, but you are safer in individual years (bonds often have good years when stocks have bad years).   We're making a bit of a false dichotomy here.  We're talking about returns on stocks in retirement accounts versus returns on CDs in regular accounts.  You can buy stocks in regular accounts and it is legally possible to have a CD in a retirement account.  So you can get bankruptcy protection and tax advantages with a CD. Metals and Mining is an interesting special case for stocks.  It's relationship to U.S. equity (SPX) is particularly weak (~0.3 correlation) compared to most stocks so it doesn't behave like equity.  However, it is still stock and not a commodities index so it's relation to major metals (Gold for instance) is not that strong either (-0.6 correlation). Metals and Mining stocks have certainly underperformed the stock market in general over the past 25years 3% vs 9.8% (annualized) so this doesn't look particularly promising.  It did have a spectacularly good 8 year period ('99-'07) though 66% (annualized).  It's worth remembering that it is still stock.  If the market did not think it could make a reasonable profit on the stock the price would decrease until the market thought it could make the same profit as other equity (adjusted slightly for the risk).  So is it reasonable to expect that it would give the same return as other stock on average?  Yes.. -ish.  Though as has been shown in the past 25 years your actual result could vary wildly both positive and negative. (All numbers are from monthly over the last 25 years using VGPMX as a M&M proxy) "I'm going to take a very crude view of this: Suppose that you have an event that would cost $100,000 if it occurred. If there's a 10% chance that it'll happen to you and the insurance costs less than $10,000, you'll make a profit ""on average."" This is, of course, assuming that you could afford a $100,000 loss. If you can't, the actual loss could be much higher (or different). For example, if you couldn't afford surgery because you didn't have health insurance, it could be a lot more ""costly"" in a way that could be difficult to compare to the $100,000. Obviously, this is a very simplistic view of things. For example, making more than you paid on the premium typically isn't the only reason you'd buy insurance (even if you're high net worth). Just wanted to throw this out there for what it's worth though." "Stock returns cannot be evaluated on its own. You need to take into account inflation and the return of other investment vehicles. Over the long run, you want to earn more than your peers (ie inflation), or lose less than them. Stock lets you buy into the profits of a company managed by others. So the fundamental question is ""do those company managers make better decision than average person?"" Of course there are times when they make awful decisions (eg just before dotcom bubble), and sometimes the best decision is to close the business. But overall those people are much better educated, have higher IQ, more resourceful, etc, and so over long time and across all the companies, this is correct and hence the stock market premium." Timing the market and by extension the efficient market hypothesis is one of the most hotly debated subjects in finance academia. If you are to believe the majority of finance professors and PHD's out there chances of timing a market like the NYSE, NASDAQ or LSE is not possible. If you are to take into account the huge amount of hedge funds and money managers who make it their job to prove the efficient market hypothesis wrong then you may have a chance. My opinion is that the EMH is true and that timing a highly efficient market like the NYSE is very difficult or impossible even for those who spend their whole lives trying to beat it. For someone whose primary job isn’t in investments I would put the idea of timing the markets out of your head. "I tried to read a couple of articles, most are behind a paywall.  Hopefully you'll forgive me for thinking the whole page looked like a bunch of corporate propaganda- an entire page of ""here's why everyone is wrong about us"" with formatting from the early 2010s.   Maybe you can walk me through this.   You've got thousands of mathematicians and engineers who could be designing something useful instead spending time accomplishing nothing except for fractionally beating each other at trading ""paper"" assets.   Similarly you have construction crews that could be expanding internet capability, instead laying cable some guys can signal trades sooner than other guys.  The positions HFTs hold are so short, they can't possibly be benefiting from the actual overall change  in value of the underlying assets, which happens over the course of months, not microseconds.  So the only possible returns come from ""taking"" someone else's value.   I'm not making a moral judgement, here I'm pointing out that there's no net benefits to society."